court case

Coventry City Chat!
Can *Insert current manager here* keep us up?
Has *insert whatever shite midfielder we have here* made a forward pass?
Keep up to date with Covenders!


Previous topicNext topic

court case

Postby the boss » Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:59 pm

“She recognised that the company (ACL) was worth nothing.”

Asked by Mr Brennan why Ms Seppala was, at one point, willing to pay £5.5m for a share that they thought was worth nothing, Ms Deering said: “She recognised they were a charity.”

Mr Justice Leggatt intervened with the comment: “But you’re not a charity are you?”


well said sir 8)
2014 will be our year !!
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby dog rout 21 » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:57 pm

I don't get it, where's the punchline?
ISUZU OUT!
#bringcovbacktonorthampton
User avatar
dog rout 21
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6909
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:54 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby AD » Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:47 pm

I think that Miss Deering will be lucky to still be in a job.

1. Stating SISU made an offer for something they considered worthless, because it was a charity. Not good practice if you want to attract clients to invest in you in you're a hedge fund (even though it is clearly bollocks - Joy herslef has said she doesn't care about anyone other than her family).

2. Giving evidence on the negotiations between Seppala and Harris, then stating "“I don’t know the details of the conversations between Mr Harris and Ms Seppala.”. Why are you even being asked then? If you don't know the details, you're just offering opinion.

3. Asked about why Seppala had made a large offer for something 'worthless' and whether she was sentimental “She recognised the value of what the charity had given. I can’t answer that question.” Erm... isn't that an answer?

4. "Miss Deering also said that, while the charity had no legal obligation to continue negotiations with Sisu in good faith, it had a moral obligation to do so due to the fact the company had continued to fund Coventry City on the basis of a deal being done."

Is this then not her admitting that SISU were putting a gun to AHT head and threatening to ruin the football club unless they got their way? And why would the charity have a 'moral obligation' anyway just because SISu had threatened to cease CCFC funding - they've got nothing to do with that. What about the legal and moral obligation SISU have to support a business they have invested their clients money in?

If anyone still believed the nonsense about guaranteed funding for 5 years and a new stadium that's surely told you everything you need to know.

5."Miss Deering stated in the witness stand that she believed the original negotiations could be said to be “falling apart” after the exclusivity period had come to an end.

She said: “One of the reasons it fell apart was because of the charity. They wanted a different deal. They wanted cash up front.”

However, she went on to express the view that the deal could not be completely dead in the water as negotiations with Coventry City Council were continuing."

So, she admitted the exclusivity period HAD ended, and thus any legal right that went with them, and furthermore any reasonable person would expect any negotiations to be unsuccessful anyway, so any implied term is nonsense.

As for it not being completely dead because CCC were negotiating, so what? They're two completely separate organisations. If you're negotiating with someone to buy a share in something doesn't mean all the others with a share have to give you first dibs on theirs.

6. "Miss Deering also suggested that a decision to withhold football club rent from ACL would have been made by the football club and not Sisu."

And who tells those in charge of the football club what to do? Oh yes - SISU :roll:

Or if you prefer, Otium. And who tells Otium what to do? Either way, the decision always lands right back at SISU's door.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby The Yid » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:59 pm

You obviously missed in your diatribe that BOTH the counter-claim and original claim were dismissed by the court.

Now if SISU want to waste their money they're idiots... But a charity wasting money.... Tut tut.

So all that has been achieved is that SISU have managed to release a load of documents into public domain that were previously not there. IMO I think that was their plan all along.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
Image
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: court case

Postby AD » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:01 am

Indeed it did. However the ruling did state that the Higgs trustees were duty bound to apply for reparation even though they were unsuccessful, SISU however were just being spurious.

Maybe the plan was just to get hold of more documents, but if it was it doesn't seemed to have worked. All that seems to have been found out is that SISU were fully intent on distressing both ACL and CCFC, and thus any move to protect their interests was valid.

Reading the skeleton argument for the defence makes interesting reading.

1. It shows that SISU began negotiations with talk of buying the 50% share AND agreeing a significantly reduced rent. However, according to Joy complete freehold ownership is the only possible way forward and massively reduced rent offers have been rejected out of hand. Although those deals weren't exactly what they wanted in terms of commercial income, they would have been an improvement on the old situation, and much, much better than the situation that has arisen (whereby even paying the full rent would be more commercially successful given the massive revenue loss from playing in Northampton).

This proves SISU either 'moved the goalposts' or never had any intention of agreeing the deal in the first place. Therefore thy could not be trusted in negotiations and CCC had every right, and were indeed sensible, to protect their economic interests and by extension those of the ratepayers.

2. It states the high rent and the problems it caused was plainly evident BEFORE SISU took over. It therefore begs the question why was this issue never dealt with during due diligence and pre-purchase? If it was so strenous and was not being renegotiated a sensible purchaser would have just walked away from the deal. Even then why did it take them 5 YEARS to do anything about it, which was not to renegotiate or pay a reduced amount of rent to show goodwill and force negotiations, but to just stop paying anything altogether.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby plastic scouser » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:23 pm

Anyone remember the days of football & mindless banter.....
......waiting for the great leap forwards [smilie=icon_paper.gif]
User avatar
plastic scouser
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: The City of Culture!!
 



Re: court case

Postby AD » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:27 pm

What is this foot-ball of which you speak?

As for the mindless banter, I never stopped [smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif]
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby the boss » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:15 pm

plastic scouser wrote:Anyone remember the days of football & mindless banter.....



no.
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: court case

Postby the boss » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:29 pm

plastic scouser wrote:Anyone remember the days of football & mindless banter.....




do you remember the good old days before the ghost town :?:
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 




Return to CCFC Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], dotbot and 39 guests