http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...43+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=fr&client=firefox-aTF 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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
breach of contract, if it did indeed ever exist
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?
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.
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.
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
I see your point now, but FP answers that above I guess.
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.
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
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.
It was a HOT agreement rather than a contract though. I think OSB makes the distinction in an earlier post.
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?
Maybe the council were using the SISU handshake technique for agreeing something.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
Any handshakes and not everyone had hands.....
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.
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
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.
I think you need to grow up and try thinking beyond all this "Young Timothy" drivel.
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.
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.
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?