fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
you know what I meant. I was talking from then point of view of SISU's solicitors. They're not asking question they're trying to prove it happened.
Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter sotonskyblue
- Start date
you know what I meant. I was talking from then point of view of SISU's solicitors. They're not asking question they're trying to prove it happened.
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
Even if they pay roughly twice what the bank had agreed with another party to sell the debt for?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Was there such an agreement......... SISU said they could do it ........... Yorkshire Bank told the CCC that because of the restructuring at ACL then the business was viable and they would not even discount to £12m
eastwoodsdustman
Well-Known Member
We'll find out soon I think. I would think that this is Sisu's main point of argument.
Nick
Administrator
Yes but that surely means ACL DID agree / want the rent strike then? As he would need to prove it if questioned on it wouldn't he?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
not sure it is. As shareholders in ACL I think CCC were entitled to make their own decision on the loan or who they sell to etc even if SISU were suggesting something that may have been better on the face of it. Entitled to weigh everything up and decide on the best deal overall, and for charities and councils it is not just about the money. I think there were probably strings attached to their (sisu) plan - did CCC feel comfortable with those strings. Was what happened the best deal for the Charity and CCC? It wasn't for CCFC certainly but that's different
Still comes down to were CCC entitled under state aid rules to structure the deal they did. What SISU had proposed is back ground to that imo. (not that my opinion matters its only the judges one that does)
Still comes down to were CCC entitled under state aid rules to structure the deal they did. What SISU had proposed is back ground to that imo. (not that my opinion matters its only the judges one that does)
Last edited:
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
Do we know if a judgement on the appeal will be passed today or will the judges take a few days to consider their decision?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is strange. If SISU lose this, maybe they will sue Rhodri for damages.....
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It was mentioned implicitly in the first JR but it wasn't really emphasised that the council was on board with the rent strike.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
There was no agreement with the other party.
Sisu thought they could get it for £2M and no more than £5M and it was not acceptable to YB.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
If it runs true to form it will drag on for several more weeks while the judges consider the evidence.
Not sure how much pre reading they have done into the details.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
If they are anything like us, they will have already made their mind up, and things like truth and facts will not change their view...
* thankfully, they are nothing like us...
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Didn't the council reach some sort of settlement agreement, meaning they did not pay YB full price, but maybe 80% of it after making several offers but getting knocked back on the first few.
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
No chance, on past form they'll be a week or 2 getting the conclusions written up & then there will be another sitting to pass judgement.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It came across quite clearly in the evidence, you'd expect a judge to be able to read between the lines, wouldn't you?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Council QC now on his feet.
He begins: “The council had a commercial interest in ACL, at the time that was under threat. The council’s concern was to respond to that and protect that interest.
“We submit the learned judge (High Court) was correct, that a private investor in the same circumstances would have entered into the loan transaction with ACL. That is it.”
He begins: “The council had a commercial interest in ACL, at the time that was under threat. The council’s concern was to respond to that and protect that interest.
“We submit the learned judge (High Court) was correct, that a private investor in the same circumstances would have entered into the loan transaction with ACL. That is it.”
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sounds as if we're approaching a technical issue. If damages are paid to SISU who will pay them, and if it's the government, why aren't they in court? Adjournment imminent?
John_Silletts_Nose
Well-Known Member
That is normal practice although you never can tell, the judges will be well briefed prior to the commencement of the appeal and aware of much of the detail.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Did it? you memory is better than mine FP.. I concede that point your honour...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Was it I can't even remember it getting a mention.
So did the SISU QC tell the judge that the council suggested SISU don't pay the rent and this was agreed by the council QC as well?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It wasn't written in a headline so you'd have missed it.
Nick
Administrator
It would also be a bit dodgy to say "we will let ACL go bust" and then shit themselves and then bail ACL out from the council. Especially if it was the council staff who were also at ACL involved.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No. It isn't helping SISU directly any more than it's helping anybody else.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Even if it's an agreement with Sisu and they are the most likely benefactors?
Isn't that a bit like saying "I'm not bribing you, I'm just leaving this pile of cash unattended for a few minutes in your presence."?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This is probably why people get pissed off with the Telegraph. Just in case anybody had forgotten about Wasps today....
It is an article that had just mentioned Premiership Rugby in the previous update and is about a building owned by Wasps.
You're a little sensitive dude.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
No dummy the judges have already said that is irrelevant, see http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...ack-in-court?p=1036256&viewfull=1#post1036256
Remember the law is an ass, common sense & touchy feely emotional responses do not apply.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I don't know, but can they agree that and is it binding?
I mean if I sign a contract saying I'll pay £10 a month, then some guy on the customer service line says "nah, fuck it, pay £5" I'm still legally obliged to pay the £10 aren't I? Wouldn't you have to sign a new contract at the new rate to not fall foul of the old one?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It was dismissed by the judge at the original JR although I can't see where it was mentioned initially. Item 31
- First, I do not accept that, prior to August 2012, the parties had been cooperating,intent only on a commercial solution for the benefit of all. Rather, whilst there hadbeen discussions, each party (but particularly SISU) had, understandably, been intenton protecting its own commercial interests.
