Something I Don't Understand Here (1 Viewer)

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Tim said the following in a written Q&A session with the Coventry [Evening] Telegraph
TF via CET said:
In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial.

This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...43+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-a

Okay why didn't he produce the signed documents as evidence in court? I always thought that would be his Smoking Gnu and yet nothing appears to have ever been published proving this deal ever took place - Why not?

Have they been stored in the same place as the plans for the White Elephant Stadium? ;)
 

Godiva

Well-Known Member
What makes you think the documents (if they exist) were not presented in court? Even if ccc renerged a signed deal, that is not what sisu complained in court.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
What makes you think the documents (if they exist) were not presented in court? Even if ccc renerged a signed deal, that is not what sisu complained in court.

but with their history of litigation its pretty safe to say they would have took them court in the 1st instance and not when the ACL loan was re-financed. Going by their own history and business model it pretty much confirms fish face is talking a load of shit, just for a change
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
What makes you think the documents (if they exist) were not presented in court? Even if ccc renerged a signed deal, that is not what sisu complained in court.

This is true...plus the fact that previously SISU (rental agreement) & presently Suarez...have shown that signed contracts, mean little or nothing to the people that sign them when they don't want to honour them anymore.
Whether these documents exist or not is of no relevance to our future...just ammo in a tit-for-tat slanging match.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
but with their history of litigation its pretty safe to say they would have took them court in the 1st instance and not when the ACL loan was re-financed. Going by their own history and business model it pretty much confirms fish face is talking a load of shit, just for a change

They could only take them to JR proceedings once the loan was in place, otherwise what would the JR be over?

History of litigation? I don't think any side of this argument are litigation averse..... do you?
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
This is true...plus the fact that previously SISU (rental agreement) & presently Suarez...have shown that signed contracts, mean little or nothing to the people that sign them when they don't want to honour them anymore.
Whether these documents exist or not is of no relevance to our future...just ammo in a tit-for-tat slanging match.

Rather embarrassingly, all these massive Coventry City fans believe that trying to renegotiate an agreed deal is fine for a council and a stadium operating company but isn't for their football club.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
but with their history of litigation its pretty safe to say they would have took them court in the 1st instance and not when the ACL loan was re-financed. Going by their own history and business model it pretty much confirms fish face is talking a load of shit, just for a change

I don't understand what you are saying. It was precisely at the time that the ACL loan was re-financed that the 'deal' collapsed - and I suspect this came somewhat out of the blue for SISU.

I could be wrong, but there has never really been a denial by ACL or CCC that there was an agreement in place for SISU to purchase the half share in ACL. For that reason I can only conclude that documents must exist, and on this issue at least, it is an accurate description of events otherwise ACL would be screaming from the rooftops that no such deal was agreed, but they haven't (and they're not exactly averse to calling TF a liar in angry press statements).
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you are saying. It was precisely at the time that the ACL loan was re-financed that the 'deal' collapsed - and I suspect this came somewhat out of the blue for SISU.

I could be wrong, but there has never really been a denial by ACL or CCC that there was an agreement in place for SISU to purchase the half share in ACL. For that reason I can only conclude that documents must exist, and on this issue at least, it is an accurate description of events otherwise ACL would be screaming from the rooftops that no such deal was agreed, but they haven't (and they're not exactly averse to calling TF a liar in angry press statements).

what i am saying is that if SISU had a signed contract for them to restructure the debt which was then renaged upon by CCC why did they not litigate them at this point in keeping with their business model.

the judicial review that they bought against ACL/CCC was for miss use of public money, no mention of breach of contract to my knowledge.

they had the oppertunity to litigate them twice for 2 seperate thing and didnt, why?
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
what i am saying is that if SISU had a signed contract for them to restructure the debt which was then renaged upon by CCC why did they not litigate them at this point in keeping with their business model.

the judicial review that they bought against ACL/CCC was for miss use of public money, no mention of breach of contract to my knowledge.

they had the oppertunity to litigate them twice for 2 seperate thing and didnt, why?

I see your point now, but FP answers that above I guess.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Rather embarrassingly, all these massive Coventry City fans believe that trying to renegotiate an agreed deal is fine for a council and a stadium operating company but isn't for their football club.

The documents we were debate were those relating to buying into the stadium. The rental agreement renegotiation is great as long as it is negotiated - SISU chose to simply not pay what was legally owed - according to the courts. And whichever way you look at it - SISU have engineered one of several optional outcomes - ACL cease to trade so they can pick up the Ricoh at a knockdown price, they get to pay what THEY decide for rent, or as has happened the agreement is torn up via either CVA or liquidation of Ltd.
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Think you have to ask what was signed ........

was it a heads of terms or a contract ........ the first isnt binding in law the second usually is

Also whose 50% was being bought in return for the debt settlement. Unlikely it was the Councils and whilst they may have had HOT's with the charity they did not have a binding contract. The council could veto or not the Charity deal deal but it could not force one on the Charity
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Rather embarrassingly, all these massive Coventry City fans believe that trying to renegotiate an agreed deal is fine for a council and a stadium operating company but isn't for their football club.

Right so if it was an agreed deal why hasn't Young Timothy produced the signed documents to try and shame the council? We only have the word of Young Timothy that a deal was done until he provides proof. Given what SISU think of the council, you'd think he'd be waving in the face of anyone who he met. Strangely he doesn't appear to be doing so.
 
Last edited:

theferret

Well-Known Member
Think you have to ask what was signed ........

was it a heads of terms or a contract ........ the first isnt binding in law the second usually is

Also whose 50% was being bought in return for the debt settlement. Unlikely it was the Councils and whilst they may have had HOT's with the charity they did not have a binding contract. The council could veto or not the Charity deal deal but it could not force one on the Charity

All this considered though, on the face of it, it didn't seem like a bad deal. Mortgage would have been settled (effectively putting a value of £14 million on the Higgs share), and CCC would have retained 50% of ACL and complete ownership of the freehold. Yes, with a lease extension, but it was already a long lease anyway. I'm still not altogether sure why they just didn't bite the bullet and go with it.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I see your point now, but FP answers that above I guess.

FP Said "No breach of a contract that doesn't effectively exist - it's reneging an agreement but the contract hadn't been performed at that point"

i cant confess to being an expert on law but i would think that when a contract is signed it is no longer an agreement it is a contract and therefore legaly binding.

could be wrong though
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Right so if it was an agreed deal why hasn't Young Timothy produced the documents to try and shame the council? We only have the word of Young Timothy that a deal was done until he provides proof. Given what SISU think of the council, you'd think he'd be waving in the face of anyone who he met. Strangely he doesn't appear to be doing so.

Why would he need to? Only you are questioning it. Nobody from ACL/CCC has EVER denied that the agreement, referred to by TF, was as he describes it.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
FP Said "No breach of a contract that doesn't effectively exist - it's reneging an agreement but the contract hadn't been performed at that point"

i cant confess to being an expert on law but i would think that when a contract is signed it is no longer an agreement it is a contract and therefore legaly binding.

could be wrong though

It was a HOT agreement rather than a contract though. I think OSB makes the distinction in an earlier post.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Why would he need to? Only you are questioning it. Nobody from ACL/CCC has EVER denied that the agreement, referred to by TF, was as he describes it.

Well if it was me and everyone was going on about me and my firm reneging on paying the agreed rent and I had proof that the landlords were just as bad at keeping their word, I'd show and tell everyone.

Are the council still under the legal cosh preventing them from saying anything much given SISU could still appeal against the ruling?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It was a HOT agreement rather than a contract though. I think OSB makes the distinction in an earlier post.

you could be right, fishfase doesn't exactly say what was signed. he just says it was documented and signed then CCC reneged on it. it could of just been the minutes from the meeting that were signed. either way he's still full of shit
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
Well if it was me and everyone was going on about me and my firm reneging on paying the agreed rent and I had proof that the landlords were just as bad at keeping their word, I'd show and tell everyone.

Are the council still under the legal cosh preventing them from saying anything much given SISU could still appeal against the ruling?

OK, but until I read your OP, I wasn't aware this issue was even in doubt, I thought it was universally accepted that CCC reneged on that deal. They didn't do anything illegal though clearly, and TF is in no position to talk about morals, so I see no value in trying to prove something that isn't being denied.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
you could be right, fishfase doesn't exactly say what was signed. he just says it was documented and signed then CCC reneged on it. it could of just been the minutes from the meeting that were signed. either way he's still full of shit
Maybe the council were using the SISU handshake technique for agreeing something.

Any handshakes and not everyone had hands.....
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Are the council still under the legal cosh preventing them from saying anything much given SISU could still appeal against the ruling?

if i remeber in their statement after the judge threw the proceedings out, they said that it had stopped them saying anything, i think it was till today that sisu had to lodge an appeal so if they dont maybe the council will make some further statements tomorrow, who knows?

one thing we can say for sure, there is plenty more milage in the statement tank for all parties involved.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
OK, but until I read your OP, I wasn't aware this issue was even in doubt, I thought it was universally accepted that CCC reneged on that deal. They didn't do anything illegal though clearly, and TF is in no position to talk about morals, so I see no value in trying to prove something that isn't being denied.

Point taken, just found it odd that he hasn't mentioned it again and yet this seemed to me to be the stated reason for them seeking the JR. Thought the council might have been keeping quiet because of the proceedings in court hanging over them.
 

Nsgdm1

Member
Well if it was me and everyone was going on about me and my firm reneging on paying the agreed rent and I had proof that the landlords were just as bad at keeping their word, I'd show and tell everyone.

Are the council still under the legal cosh preventing them from saying anything much given SISU could still appeal against the ruling?

Wasn't the appeal deadline today ? I assume with no news SISU decided against appealing
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Wasn't the appeal deadline today ? I assume with no news SISU decided against appealing

I've never seen SISU as appealing.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Right so if it was an agreed deal why hasn't Young Timothy produced the signed documents to try and shame the council? We only have the word of Young Timothy that a deal was done until he provides proof. Given what SISU think of the council, you'd think he'd be waving in the face of anyone who he met. Strangely he doesn't appear to be doing so.

see OSB's post. What documentary evidence of anything has been released by either side? Why hasn't it been denied if it's a lie.

I think you need to grow up and try thinking beyond all this "Young Timothy" drivel.
 

James Smith

Well-Known Member
see OSB's post. What documentary evidence of anything has been released by either side? Why hasn't it been denied if it's a lie.

I think you need to grow up and try thinking beyond all this "Young Timothy" drivel.

It was I thought what Ronnie Corbett was called by his mother in "Sorry". Having checked I can't actually find any evidence of this so It'll have to be something else. I thought it was a bit kinder than "Fish Face" or any of the other derogatory names he's been called on here.
 

Nonleagueherewecome

Well-Known Member
see OSB's post. What documentary evidence of anything has been released by either side? Why hasn't it been denied if it's a lie.

I think you need to grow up and try thinking beyond all this "Young Timothy" drivel.


Something not being denied that has been said by Fisher doesn't make it true. Everything that pratt says is a lie until there is documentedevidence. To say that he "has previous" would be massively understating it. I've always assumed that this matter was complete and utter bullshit that was just laughed out of the room by everyone when he raised it!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top