Mean while back in court

[fernandopartridge]

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

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]

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.

Even if they pay roughly twice what the bank had agreed with another party to sell the debt for?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Even if they pay roughly twice what the bank had agreed with another party to sell the debt for?

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]

We'll find out soon I think. I would think that this is Sisu's main point of argument.

 

[Nick]

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

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]

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)

 

[John_Silletts_Nose]

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]

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?

Yes, that is strange. If SISU lose this, maybe they will sue Rhodri for damages.....

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yes, that is strange. If SISU lose this, maybe they will sue Rhodri for damages.....

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]

Even if they pay roughly twice what the bank had agreed with another party to sell the debt for?

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]

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?

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]

It was mentioned implicitly in the first JR but it wasn't really emphasised that the council was on board with the rent strike.

And that's the part I meant...

Seems quite an omission really

 

[olderskyblue]

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?

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]

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

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.

 

[Captain Dart]

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?

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]

And that's the part I meant...

Seems quite an omission really

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]

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.”

 

[fernandopartridge]

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]

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.

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]

It came across quite clearly in the evidence, you'd expect a judge to be able to read between the lines, wouldn't you?

Did it? you memory is better than mine FP.. I concede that point your honour...

 

[dongonzalos]

It was mentioned implicitly in the first JR but it wasn't really emphasised that the council was on board with the rent strike.

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]

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?

It wasn't written in a headline so you'd have missed it.

 

[Nick]

I am confused now:

"That's where Sisu's case totally breaks down"

Council QC says the threat came from the “rent strike”
He adds “Sisu’s conduct does come into equation, it takes centre stage. It represented a threat to the council’s commercial interest that could not be ignored.
“Up to the rent strike ACL was profitable, consequence of the rent strike was to place council in circcumstance it could not ignore.

“What could they have done instead that would have been a lesser commercial evil? That’s where Sisu’s case totally breaks down.”

So surely, it is relevant whether it was a rent strike or ACL were in on it?

If it is proven ACL were on it, some of the reasons for the bail out / loan are invalid?

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not following, and I'm trying very hard not to get dragged back into this crap.

But.

If it were an agreement to let ACL go bust, wouldn't that then be falling foul of state aid laws for helping Sisu?

 

[Nick]

I'm not following, and I'm trying very hard not to get dragged back into this crap.

But.

If it were an agreement to let ACL go bust, wouldn't that then be falling foul of state aid laws for helping Sisu?

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]

I'm not following, and I'm trying very hard not to get dragged back into this crap.

But.

If it were an agreement to let ACL go bust, wouldn't that then be falling foul of state aid laws for helping Sisu?

No. It isn't helping SISU directly any more than it's helping anybody else.

 

[shmmeee]

No. It isn't helping SISU directly any more than it's helping anybody else.

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."?

 

[Nick]

Was there proof that ACL were in on the rent stuff in the first one? As in concrete evidence?

 

[Nick]

This is probably why people get pissed off with the Telegraph. Just in case anybody had forgotten about Wasps today....

 

[Nick]

All of the justification is based on the Rent Strike so far, so surely if or if it wasn't a strike or it was agreed is relevant?

 

[shmmeee]

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]

I am confused now:



So surely, it is relevant whether it was a rent strike or ACL were in on it?

If it is proven ACL were on it, some of the reasons for the bail out / loan are invalid?

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.

 

[shmmeee]

All of the justification is based on the Rent Strike so far, so surely if or if it wasn't a strike or it was agreed is relevant?

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]

I am confused now:

So surely, it is relevant whether it was a rent strike or ACL were in on it?

If it is proven ACL were on it, some of the reasons for the bail out / loan are invalid?

It was dismissed by the judge at the original JR although I can't see where it was mentioned initially. Item 31

2. 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.

 

[wingy]

Pretry sure there was correspondence after the idea of a rent strike between CCC /higgs declining the idea of a rent strike.
In which case it's all a bit he said she said.