Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

[dongonzalos]

I suppose my point is, you're quoting the sliding scale rent offer as something that would have solved all of our problems. It wouldn't have because £1.3m was far too high in the championship and we don't know how much it would have been in league one and two. For all we know it could have still been unaffordable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I did not quote it as the solution.
Someone said it was niave not to have asked for a sliding scale rent.
I said the club were offered one and said no because they expected to be promoted.

 

---

[dongonzalos]

The perfect summing up I agree - from a council whore who has zero interest in the football club.

We have to see that other parasite GPE soon.

Weirdo

 

[covmark]

Weirdo

Hmm, what's more weird is someone leaving the football clubs forum, then showing up whenever there's a court case approaching.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kingokings204]

Just caught up with the day's events. A lot of tooing and froing. A lot of it is just circumstantial and plainly irrelevant and boring.

I think this is called going through the motions.

 

[dongonzalos]

Hmm, what's more weird is someone leaving the football clubs forum, then showing up whenever there's a court case approaching.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Yes I'm a plant I work for the council, I dig up time capsules and plant CCFC memorabilia in them.
I am going to deal with the CET today because Simon Gilbert is in my pocket and he did a headline that favourable to SISU. Then again no one believes what's written in the CET as its all lies so I suppose that headline will be ignored.

Get a life not everything is a conspiracy

 

[usskyblue]

Yes I'm a plant I work for the council, I dig up time capsules and plant CCFC memorabilia in them.
I am going to deal with the CET today because Simon Gilbert is in my pocket and he did a headline that favourable to SISU. Then again no one believes what's written in the CET as its all lies so I suppose that headline will be ignored.

Get a life not everything is a conspiracy

Surrre it isn't .....

 

[Otis]

I reckon those who say that everything isn't a conspiracy are part of the conspiracy to cover up the fact that everything is indeed a conspiracy.

If you were part of a conspiracy you don't want anyone to know it's a conspiracy do you, so that is exactly what a conspirator would say.

Well done Don't for dropping yourself right in it!

 

[hill83]

I reckon those who say that everything isn't a conspiracy are part of the conspiracy to cover up the fact that everything is indeed a conspiracy.

If you were part of a conspiracy you don't want anyone to know it's a conspiracy do you, so that is exactly what a conspirator would say.

Well done Don't for dropping yourself right in it!

'Don't' should be his username.

 

[Captain Dart]

Think its a fairly key point. A rent holiday would be agreed by both sides. Puts the clubs action in a very different light.

Apparently it isn't relevant in law, so Mr Rhodri Thompson is just blowing hot air..

But Justice Tomlinson interrupted the Sisu QC and said the reason for withholding rent was “irrelevant”.

 

[Nick]

Apparently it isn't relevant in law, so Mr Rhodri Thompson is just blowing hot air..

Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?

IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".

 

[Captain Dart]

Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?

IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".

Sorry Mr Nick, you have failed GCSE law.

 

[Nick]

Sorry Mr Nick, you have failed GCSE law.

But I have got a masters in common sense

Isn't the whole situation to do with ACL being "bailed out"? If it turns out one of the main reasons they had to be bailed out was because they agreed or told CCFC to stop paying rent so they could pressure the bank, it is a different situation. Especially if it was council staff from ACL who were involved.*

*I have no idea if they did or didn't.

 

[dongonzalos]

'Don't' should be his username.

 

[dongonzalos]

Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?

IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".

I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not.
I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said"
I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and white is it state aid or not to buy the loan.

 

[italiahorse]

Seems what SISU are claiming is that it was a rent holiday that ACL were happy with as it would drive down the value which they wanted to do in order to get the loan off Yorkshire Bank cheap.

There was a few points today where the SISU chap was talking about how the language from the council suddenly changed, this was one of his example. According to him it was a sudden switch from rent holiday to rent strike. Think that's something they need to get to the bottom of as they are two very different things.

If I read it right ... The reasoning according to Sisu lawyer was to devalue ACL and hence reduce the loan.
I assume if they were working together the idea would be to then offer CCFC a cheaper deal.
However when CCFC were later offered a cheaper deal they turned it down.

In the end it didn't reduce the loan and CCC took action to recover the money.
Seems a strange approach (clutching at straws ?)
No wonder the judge dismissed it.

 

[Nick]

I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not.
I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said"
I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and white is it state aid or not to buy the loan.

But if ACL (and particularly council employees within ACL) had been behind the rent strike which had then needed the bailout. It looks a bit dodgy if they had actively told / agreed with CCFC not to pay rent doesn't it?

 

[italiahorse]

I think the Lords are saying that that is not relevant to whether the council is providing state aid or not.
I think the Lords are trying to cut through the crap or "he said she said"
I assume they are letting the QC know that that won't influence them and they will stick to the black and white is it state aid or not to buy the loan.

I assume they are using all the facts from the original JR but just checking the outcome was correct.
Sisu seem to be introducing items that were not presented at the original JR. Items that would be relevant first time round.... if true !!

 

[italiahorse]

But if ACL (and particularly council employees within ACL) had been behind the rent strike which had then needed the bailout. It looks a bit dodgy if they had actively told / agreed with CCFC not to pay rent doesn't it?

Why mention it now and not at the first hearing ?

 

[Moff]

A lot of 'I think' and 'I assume' cropping up from all the legal experts posting on the site. I am sure when you get to QC that you have to start moving on from using such phrases.

 

[oldskyblue58]

OSB could you tell me why the admin charges in 2013 were twice 2012?

No real detail in the accounts so can only guess........

That year will have seen the legals, professional and PR costs of the dispute kicking in
Some of the overheads like power will have increased due to the greater usage
There was a certain amount of restructuring going on
The Olympics closed the place for the best part of three months and the way it works with Olympics there are considerable extra costs to be met - extra security, rebranding, etc. Income is shared from the Olympics central pot. The" benefit" tends to be more reputational rather than big financial gains

Just some ideas but I don't know for certain

 

[oldskyblue58]

Are they admitting to a criminal conspiracy and trying to blame another party for it? Highly ethical that!

so both sides colluded to prejudice the rights of a creditor :thinking about: if to be believed it seems they had a plan mapped out to do it. Fail to see how either side can claim the high ground regarding business ethics or double dealings in that case

 

[M&B Stand]

There's not too much love for CCFC on here is there?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Surely the reason for doing something is relevant?

IF ACL were also behind the stopping of the payment of rent for their benefit it is a different situation entirely to SISU saying "you can fuck off if you think we are paying".

I think the judges are being quite focussed on what they are looking at. Namely did the act of providing the loan contravene state aid rules. Much of what was said was just background and a good chunk not really relevant to the CCC decision, it just explains why they got to a point where they needed to make a decision

 

[dongonzalos]

But if ACL (and particularly council employees within ACL) had been behind the rent strike which had then needed the bailout. It looks a bit dodgy if they had actively told / agreed with CCFC not to pay rent doesn't it?

I know where you are coming from and agree with you.

I think the lords are saying the "why" factor isn't going to come into.
Just once its been decided it's going to happen is it legal or not.
That also goes for if it was infact SISU who created this whole situation and that doesn't matter to the Lord either.
whatever the instigating factors are simply can the council buy this loan or not and can they loan it out on what is perceived to be favourable terms to ACL.

 

[Nick]

I think the judges are being quite focussed on what they are looking at. Namely did the act of providing the loan contravene state aid rules. Much of what was said was just background and a good chunk not really relevant to the CCC decision, it just explains why they got to a point where they needed to make a decision

My only thought IF ACL were involved in the rent strike stuff was if they did say to CCFC not to pay the rent, it goes pear shaped. Maybe that could have influenced the Council Loan stuff and a reason behind it?*

*No expert and probably miles out.

 

[oldskyblue58]

There's not too much love for CCFC on here is there?

This case isn't about CCFC as such though is it. They are not even named as claimant on JR1. Even Fisher etc in the past have said it isn't anything to do with CCFC, and wont affect CCFC

 

[oldskyblue58]

My only thought IF ACL were involved in the rent strike stuff was if they did say to CCFC not to pay the rent, it goes pear shaped. Maybe that could have influenced the Council Loan stuff?*

*No expert and probably miles out.

wouldn't it be more likely that they would say pay us a small rent just to keep our cashflow within bounds and get this done quickly. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly things dragged on for a long long time (8mths) with no prospect of resolution on this...... was there ever any deal between the two sides? Not sure why AEHC & CCC would put the money they had invested are complete risk on the back of a basically insolvent football club. Even the SISU QC said that ACL/AEHC/PWKH were looking at things in a "beady eyed" commercial way.

But we are both guessing.

I suspect both sides will paint a picture in court based on carefully selected facts that ignore other equally pertinent ones. End of the day the three judges know that and will look at all the facts they consider relevant to the decision. They will cut through the "background"

 

[Skyblueweeman]

4 Thai ladies?

 

[Nick]

wouldn't it be more likely that they would say pay us a small rent just to keep our cashflow within bounds and get this done quickly. Not sure why AEHC & CCC would put the money they had invested are complete risk on the back of a basically insolvent football club. Even the SISU QC said that ACL/AEHC/PWKH were looking at things in a "beady eyed" commercial way.

But we are both guessing.

I suspect both sides will paint a picture in court based on carefully selected facts that ignore other equally pertinent ones. End of the day the three judges know that and will look at all the facts they consider relevant to the decision. They will cut through the "background"

But surely if SISU / their lawyer are basically bullshitting in court they should go straight to jail without passing go? (That's if ACL didn't agree to it etc)

The first thing I was taught at Law School was not to lie in court, else you go to jail

If the judge had one of these:

Which when pressed meant guards come in and handcuff the person speaking and they go straight to jail, nobody would bullshit in court then

When does "speculation" become a lie?

They should get on Jeremy Kyle to sort it, lie detectors, Graham with his silly glasses, somebody being sent off in an Audi for rehab.

 

[oldskyblue58]

But surely if SISU / their lawyer are basically bullshitting in court they should go straight to jail without passing go? (That's if ACL didn't agree to it etc)

The first thing I was taught at Law School was not to lie in court, else you go to jail

The barrister isn't lying Nick, he is interpreting the facts he has at his disposal or wants to use, for the benefit of his client. Painting a picture to persuade the judges that's what they should accept. He is saying that's what his client understood or believed. But in any case it is still background to what is actually being judged

 

[fernandopartridge]

It seems that going over the background takes away from the main point, in that the council provided state aid to a private limited company. The focus should be on why it did that and whether it was absolutely necessary or the only option to protect the council's investment.

 

[italiahorse]

It seems that going over the background takes away from the main point, in that the council provided state aid to a private limited company. The focus should be on why it did that and whether it was absolutely necessary or the only option to protect the council's investment.

IMO there is nothing wrong in a council providing money to a private business providing it is at commercial rates and therefore not a subsidy.

It's not as obvious a case as the government providing state aid to the steel industry so our steel is cheaper than the rest of europeans hence giving us an advantage.

 

[oldskyblue58]

It seems that going over the background takes away from the main point, in that did the council provide state aid to a private limited company? . The focus should be on why it did that and whether it was absolutely necessary or the only option to protect the council's investment.

Sorry fp had to rejig that..... no one has decided that CCC provided state aid as yet

 

[dongonzalos]

The barrister isn't lying Nick, he is interpreting the facts he has at his disposal or wants to use, for the benefit of his client. Painting a picture to persuade the judges that's what they should accept. He is saying that's what his client understood or believed. But in any case it is still background to what is actually being judged

Now that one you should really understand Nick from the making of a murderer
Barristers painting a picture

 

[dongonzalos]

It is strange through that in the high court hearing the SISU QC never mentioned this fact. That is now a key point for him.
He had to have known about it back then. When they were accused of a rent strike in order to drive down the value. Why not negate it then?