Grendel
Well-Known Member
What stance is that then?
There is this myth that the fans are divided. So far away from the truth. The pitiful attendances at Sixfields kick that myth into touch.
I'd venture CCFC fans, the huge majority of them, are very together in their stance.
I would guess he is saying the stance is not going to Sixfields? Based on 10,000 down to 2,000... Ver rough figures I know.What stance is that then?
I would guess he is saying the stance is not going to Sixfields? Based on 10,000 down to 2,000... Ver rough figures I know.
But he seems to say all those 8,000 have identical views. Do they? Has he interviewed them?
@Ian1779, are you the Ian Palmer chap that wrote this article?
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/sport-opinion/fans-zone-coventry-city-can-6945670
It's an unchallenged document, created by one side, SISU - to support a court case. Like I say, if you think there's evidence in there then point to the specific thing that proves your assertion. I'm not denying anything, the 'facts' that you mention have been chosen by one side and obviously (to me at least) probably do not represent all of the facts. The troubling thing about legal documents is that they tend to only mention the 'facts' that support their side's argument.
HoTs aren't necessarily binding contracts. The HoT between SISU and Higgs, for example, failed because the sides couldn't come to a final agreement.
To come to your argument, the 'event' here was that a HoT was signed but not progressed. If you couldn't be bothered to read the court transcripts, you might take the opinion that it failed because Higgs didn't really ever want to sell or that the council vetoed the deal (or that they entered into a "secret and perverse plan" to use the actual words in the skeleton argument). That was broadly what SISU argued in their counterclaim, but funnily enough that wasn't exactly what the court found despite the 'facts' therein. So as it turns out, a skeleton argument from just one side turns out not be the most reliable source of facts or interpretation of events.
Per your request, SISU's (SISU v Higgs) skeleton argument is around to view - I think there generally has to be one for every court case of this nature. I've got it as a pdf, but it's too big to upload, I just tried. If you dig around the forum I'm sure you'll find a link to it - it's where I will have got it.
Edit: Found it. There you go:
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/43908-Higgs-v-SISU-Court-Document?highlight=sisu+higgs
There is this myth that the fans are divided. So far away from the truth. The pitiful attendances at Sixfields kick that myth into touch.
I'd venture CCFC fans, the huge majority of them, are very together in their stance.
It's no myth. I've lost count of the number of devicive posts you've made.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
At a rough guess, the stance would be the one that YOU started but didn't follow through on, you little WUM you.What stance is that then?
You've missed my point - I'm not trying to argue the reasons behind what happened. And you are right until we have the same statement from CCC there may be additional events that took place. But you can't dispute that a HoT was agreed - even if it was not followed through. We will get all the reasons and opinion in the JR. Likewise you dispute that these events happened if there are supporting documents (correspondence/minutes/letters).
Even the additional documents you posted is similar. The first part is all reasons for counter claim etc etc. But then you have a selection on facts. With references which relate to various statements/minutes or whatever. The reasons can certainly be disputed, and as such were dismissed. But the events? If SISU had falsified events that took place the other party would have seized on it in a heartbeat, and there would be people charged by the court for all manner of things.
You've missed my point - I'm not trying to argue the reasons behind what happened. And you are right until we have the same statement from CCC there may be additional events that took place. But you can't dispute that a HoT was agreed - even if it was not followed through. We will get all the reasons and opinion in the JR. Likewise you dispute that these events happened if there are supporting documents (correspondence/minutes/letters).
Even the additional documents you posted is similar. The first part is all reasons for counter claim etc etc. But then you have a selection on facts. With references which relate to various statements/minutes or whatever. The reasons can certainly be disputed, and as such were dismissed. But the events? If SISU had falsified events that took place the other party would have seized on it in a heartbeat, and there would be people charged by the court for all manner of things.
I'm not disputing that HoT was agreed, or that it obviously failed. But you're piling into the Council here and blaming them for the failure, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm pointing out that that's an opinion based on what you've heard from one side.
As the Higgs case shows, that's a mistake to my mind. Look at the court transcripts if you want to see how SISU's argument was pulled apart, Higgs too for that matter. But if you take SISU's skeleton argument and the 'facts' therein at face value, as it seems you and others are doing for the JR, then you're basing your opinion on incomplete knowledge (imho).
As I've said, if you think there's a clear fact that nails your case (seemingly that the council are complete bastards determined to stitch up the club), then point to it. At the moment the only thing I can see you've mentioned is the HoT. We've already seen in court that they can go wrong through the fault of more than one party.
The ACL Board will not resume talks until such time as CCFC and Sisu confirm in writing their acceptance of a Heads of Terms Agreement laid out in writing by ACL on 29 January. This agreement was discussed point by point in a series of meetings between the Board and the three Club Directors and agreed verbally by all parties. The Club Directors, however, then proceeded to renege on this Agreement. This is wholly unacceptable to the Board of ACL.
...
The rent deal offer from ACL laid out in writing on 29 January was verbally agreed following an extremely detailed discussion with the three directors of CCFC, namely John Clarke OBE, Tim Fisher and Mark Labovitch. The offer set the rent payable by CCFC to ACL at £400,000 per annum while the Club remains in Football League 1.
It included agreement from ACL to waive more than £300,000 of the £1.347 million rent arrears, with a generous approach to clearing the balance. It also agreed the principle of ACL matchday revenues benefitting CCFC, and ACL paying a larger share of rates on the stadium.
Instead of confirming its written acceptance, CCFC then proposed an alternative Heads of Terms, which bore no relation to that agreed. It demanded the waiver by ACL of all rent arrears claims pre-dating 1 January 2013. It demanded also the withdrawal of the Statutory Demand for the payment of rent arrears issued by ACL against CCFC on 5 December 2012. It was accompanied by an emailed statement from Tim Fisher declaring that CCFC has “no option but to build a new venue” and that CCFC’s proposals were predicated on playing at the Ricoh Arena for a “run-off period of three years.” This is totally unacceptable to ACL.
- Who is to blame to the deal not going through? CCC/Higgs say that Sisu went past the exclusivity period (Sisu don't deny) and didn't show a willingness to complete the deal (the judge agreed). Sisu claim that they were still working on it and CCC should've waited. I've got to side with the judge here, from what I've seen it looked like Sisu being Sisu and pushing things to the edge, trying to renegotiate things that were negotiated, not going through with promises like proof of funds and business plan)
So the "events" that are disputed are:
- Sisu showed no interest in completing the deal. The judge seemed to agree with this and my memory of the time was a lot of Sisu not responding and stalling.
.
In his ruling, the judge said: “The transaction described on the term sheet failed by the end of August 2012. From that time, in reality, there was no real prospect of a deal on those terms.
"And neither party had any appetite to seek to pursue negotiations or seek to conclude such a deal. It is quite clear from the findings I have made that there was no realistic prospect by January (2013) of the transaction being made and no possible way the council would be willing to agree a transaction with Sisu.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Sorry, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. If neither party had the appetite to pursue negotiations, how were Sisu still negotiating when the exclusivity period ended?
Talking about HoT. Can someone slot this event in on the timeline of what we know since the court case?
http://www.ricoharena.com/news/acl-statement-february/
From Feb 2013
Sorry, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. If neither party had the appetite to pursue negotiations, how were Sisu still negotiating when the exclusivity period ended?
Sorry, I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. If neither party had the appetite to pursue negotiations, how were Sisu still negotiating when the exclusivity period ended?
The end of the exclusivity period isn't the end of negotiations, it's the end of exclusive negotiations between SISU and ACL. After that period anybody else who wanted to were also able to negotiate with ACL.
What the Private Eye said article did was nothing new(apart from what was suspected about the CET). The reason i suspect so many on here a shifting uncomfortably is that it very succinctly summarises a narrative of what has happened that doesnt really get much airtime in the coherent way it is presented here. Now, we all know SISU are no saints and its all dog eat dog but does highlight the Council seemed very happy to play this hardball game with just as much disregard for the supporters as SISU.
You can only base your opinion on the facts you know so far as presented in the skeleton argument. It is you who is assuming that there is evidence on the other side that refutes those facts.
Your assumption is that the council cannot possibly be complete bastards determined to stitch the club up, but that SISU are complete bastards out to stitch everybody up.
I think it would naive of anyone to not think the council have had to take a very harden approach when dealing with SISU.
The difference us with the council people have the ability to discover what they did especially as you have two relatively public ally accountable organisations dealing with each.
SISU just have to worry about themselves leaving us guessing what their motives and plans were/our. whilst showing our disgust at the council's for trying to do what is best for the tax payer.
I think it would naive of anyone to not think the council have had to take a very harden approach when dealing with SISU.
The difference us with the council people have the ability to discover what they did especially as you have two relatively public ally accountable organisations dealing with each.
SISU just have to worry about themselves leaving us guessing what their motives and plans were/our. whilst showing our disgust at the council's for trying to do what is best for the tax payer.
Accountable?? I will ask my mum if she was consulted about 14M of her council tax going on proping up a failed property venture.
The end of the exclusivity period isn't the end of negotiations, it's the end of exclusive negotiations between SISU and ACL. After that period anybody else who wanted to were also able to negotiate with ACL.
It's about a rent deal after CCC had bailed out ACL.
Im sure most Coventry tax payers would be ok with it if it was a choice of the council keeping their hands on it rather than a vile hedgefund. At least it stays 'Coventry'owned.
Interesting that pro council shite like this is not viewed as trolling.
See it's factual inaccuracies like this that make people not take you seriously. No-ones council tax went on this. It's far from failed and it's not a property venture.
It makes it look like you just have an issue with the council rather than you are genuinely trying to find out the truth.
If your argument is valid, make it and people will be convinced.
@Godiva: Sorry another one where I'm being dense can you elaborate?
Going to answer my question?
I wouldn't be talking about trolling while you're the dictionary definition. No attempt to engage. No attempt to back up your views. Just drive by snide posts and inflammatory language.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?