1 Nil CCC

[skyblue025]

Same judge that is doing JR threw out SISU's case yesterday. They have already submitted War and Peace as evidence against the CCC and the judge obviously couldn't be arsed to read any more.




Sisu boss Joy Seppala was in court to see a High Court judge dismiss applications by the football club’s owners to see council documents.

Material requested included private correspondence and notes held by former council leader John Mutton and former deputy leader George Duggins.

Lawyers for the football club also wanted to see notes taken by individual councillors during the private full council meeting which saw the authority approve a £14.4million loan to arena company ACL.

It was also revealed no formal minutes were taken at that meeting.

However, Justice Hickinbottom ruled the documents were not subject to disclosure – saying they were irrelevant because legal precedent suggests the views of individual councillors are not relevant to decisions taken in full council.

The request for disclosure at today’s hearing in London comes ahead of a Judicial Review on June 10 to decide if the council loan amounted to ‘illegal state aid’.

Football club lawyers, led by Rhodri Thompson QC, also applied to enter a 110-page witness statement with 1,000 pages of illustrations from Ms Seppala.

However Justice Hickinbottom ruled the submission was “extremely lengthy” and had come “very late in the day”.

He also said it was unnecessary for the court to make a decision on the issues which will be dealt with as part of the judicial review.

He also dismissed an application to enter an expert report from James Palmer, of Duff and Phelps, a specialist firm of valuation and corporate finance advisors, who were commissioned by the football club to undertake an analysis of the ACL loan deal.

Again he ruled it was unnecessary in helping to determine the outcome of the judicial review.

The council has agreed to hand over notes from ACL board meetings in August 2012 despite the minutes belonging to ACL.

These minutes were referenced in the recent hearing involving the Higgs charity when Paul Harris, an ACL board member and Higgs trustee, said he was given assurances the council would inform Sisu of its ACL loan plan.

[AD]

I don't think because it's the same judge necessarily means anything, as the full review is much different than trying to submit late evidence or obtain documents. To be honest the entire thing seemed like an attempt to delay the JR as long as possible. Having said that I don't think this will have done SISU any favours.

[The Englander]

The judge is a fcuking idiot. If there's nothing to hide, the documents should be revealed. If there's something to hide, the documents should definitely be revealed. They are relevant to the Judicial Review.

[AD]

Not really. Personal opinion has nothing to do with any of this - it is the collective council/ACL board and as SISU should themselves admit board decisions have to be assumed to be made on the facts regardless of personal grievances or opinions. And if that is admissable how far do you go? Could they ask for e-mails/letters from council tax payers/residents etc as the council members supposedly are meant to follow their wishes? It'd just be silly and there would be so much to go through no decision would ever be reached.

And of course if that is the case, shouldn't SISU have to reveal EVERYTHING about who our investor owners are, all the information regarding a new stadium, the administration and also the personal opinions they have of the council/ACL/Higgs/fans etc. Looking at the personal opinions of the SISU board you could argue they were clearly trying to fleece the council if you use their lawyers argument. As you say If there's nothing to hide, the documents should be revealed. If there's something to hide, the documents should definitely be revealed.

Besides which they were put in late, and if you start submitting stuff late all the time all you'll end up with is loads of cases being postponed to consider new evidence and the winners will just always end up being those with the deepest pockets or legal qualifications. That's not justice and is IMO what they were trying to do here, just get the case delayed so more and more costs are incurred by the council.

And the idea they were being screwed over by the council going behind their backs when the council/ACL had no legal requirement to inform them they were doing so as it was to financially protect an asset they part owned is just laughable considering SISU were doing exactly the same thing but for something they DIDN'T own and had caused the action in the first place by withholding money.

When confronted with the fact they had information that hadn't be disclosed and didn't need to be, suddenly they decide keeping quiet is a good thing. Had it been the other way round you can guarantee their lawyers would be calling foul. The fact they even decided to bring this up in court does start you wondering just how intelligent these lawyers that 'batter people' are.

Classic bully behaviour - terrorise everyone and when you get a smack in the chops yourself run crying to the authority figure claiming you're being victimised.

IF there is any justice, SISU's case will be thrown out. The first judge had the right idea when he systematically picked their case to pieces on so many levels that I'm still perplexed how the second judge even granted a JR.

[The Englander]

The judge is a fcuking idiot. If there's nothing to hide, the documents should be revealed. If there's something to hide, the documents should definitely be revealed. They are relevant to the Judicial Review.

[The Yid]

Not really. Personal opinion has nothing to do with any of this - it is the collective council/ACL board and as SISU should themselves admit board decisions have to be assumed to be made on the facts regardless of personal grievances or opinions. And if that is admissable how far do you go? Could they ask for e-mails/letters from council tax payers/residents etc as the council members supposedly are meant to follow their wishes? It'd just be silly and there would be so much to go through no decision would ever be reached.

And of course if that is the case, shouldn't SISU have to reveal EVERYTHING about who our investor owners are, all the information regarding a new stadium, the administration and also the personal opinions they have of the council/ACL/Higgs/fans etc. Looking at the personal opinions of the SISU board you could argue they were clearly trying to fleece the council if you use their lawyers argument. As you say If there's nothing to hide, the documents should be revealed. If there's something to hide, the documents should definitely be revealed.

Besides which they were put in late, and if you start submitting stuff late all the time all you'll end up with is loads of cases being postponed to consider new evidence and the winners will just always end up being those with the deepest pockets or legal qualifications. That's not justice and is IMO what they were trying to do here, just get the case delayed so more and more costs are incurred by the council.

And the idea they were being screwed over by the council going behind their backs when the council/ACL had no legal requirement to inform them they were doing so as it was to financially protect an asset they part owned is just laughable considering SISU were doing exactly the same thing but for something they DIDN'T own and had caused the action in the first place by withholding money.

When confronted with the fact they had information that hadn't be disclosed and didn't need to be, suddenly they decide keeping quiet is a good thing. Had it been the other way round you can guarantee their lawyers would be calling foul. The fact they even decided to bring this up in court does start you wondering just how intelligent these lawyers that 'batter people' are.

Classic bully behaviour - terrorise everyone and when you get a smack in the chops yourself run crying to the authority figure claiming you're being victimised.

IF there is any justice, SISU's case will be thrown out. The first judge had the right idea when he systematically picked their case to pieces on so many levels that I'm still perplexed how the second judge even granted a JR.

Here's an idea... Why don't we have EVERYTHING in the open. From CCC/ACL, SISU, previous owners in fact everything pretty much from when the PL began . Only then will everything come out - I for one would love to see the lot.

Reading your latest sermon on how the mighty ACL/CCC have acted so honourably in the face of the evil SISU is pathetic.

You can't even look at something without twisting it into bring the owners fault.

Let's see how you do with the latest news... I imagine you may need a few days. No doubt you'll brush it off as a harmless error, and blame SISU for it in some way.

Can't wait.

[plastic scouser]

Richie Partridge could do a job...

[billythefish]

Do you have his number - I need some one to repair the fence in my back garden

[AD]

Not really. Personal opinion has nothing to do with any of this - it is the collective council/ACL board and as SISU should themselves admit board decisions have to be assumed to be made on the facts regardless of personal grievances or opinions. And if that is admissable how far do you go? Could they ask for e-mails/letters from council tax payers/residents etc as the council members supposedly are meant to follow their wishes? It'd just be silly and there would be so much to go through no decision would ever be reached.

And of course if that is the case, shouldn't SISU have to reveal EVERYTHING about who our investor owners are, all the information regarding a new stadium, the administration and also the personal opinions they have of the council/ACL/Higgs/fans etc. Looking at the personal opinions of the SISU board you could argue they were clearly trying to fleece the council if you use their lawyers argument. As you say If there's nothing to hide, the documents should be revealed. If there's something to hide, the documents should definitely be revealed.

Besides which they were put in late, and if you start submitting stuff late all the time all you'll end up with is loads of cases being postponed to consider new evidence and the winners will just always end up being those with the deepest pockets or legal qualifications. That's not justice and is IMO what they were trying to do here, just get the case delayed so more and more costs are incurred by the council.

And the idea they were being screwed over by the council going behind their backs when the council/ACL had no legal requirement to inform them they were doing so as it was to financially protect an asset they part owned is just laughable considering SISU were doing exactly the same thing but for something they DIDN'T own and had caused the action in the first place by withholding money.

When confronted with the fact they had information that hadn't be disclosed and didn't need to be, suddenly they decide keeping quiet is a good thing. Had it been the other way round you can guarantee their lawyers would be calling foul. The fact they even decided to bring this up in court does start you wondering just how intelligent these lawyers that 'batter people' are.

Classic bully behaviour - terrorise everyone and when you get a smack in the chops yourself run crying to the authority figure claiming you're being victimised.

IF there is any justice, SISU's case will be thrown out. The first judge had the right idea when he systematically picked their case to pieces on so many levels that I'm still perplexed how the second judge even granted a JR.

Here's an idea... Why don't we have EVERYTHING in the open. From CCC/ACL, SISU, previous owners in fact everything pretty much from when the PL began . Only then will everything come out - I for one would love to see the lot.

Reading your latest sermon on how the mighty ACL/CCC have acted so honourably in the face of the evil SISU is pathetic.

You can't even look at something without twisting it into bring the owners fault.

Let's see how you do with the latest news... I imagine you may need a few days. No doubt you'll brush it off as a harmless error, and blame SISU for it in some way.

Can't wait.

I would love to see that. But that's not what SISU were arguing in this particular case. Personal opinions have practically no legal value. Just takes more time, more money and adds nothing to the case. Also nice of them to consider all this in the public interest when they think us knowing their investors or even what the owner looks like is a gross invasion of privacy.

Re: the rebate issue, SISU themselves are arguing it has been in place since the stadium first opened and therefore pre-SISU, it cannot be said to be a nasty trick against those horrible owners.

To be honest it sounds, as things always are, a very grey area of contract law, because although the club has the licence to the stadium bowl on matchdays it can't be used during the season (or most of off-season) as the pitch needs to be kept in condition for the club, and you could therefore argue it is implied the club in fact 'use' it on non-matchdays too, and will probably form the basis of some sort of appeal. Did 'everything' get removed from the stadium bowl etc on non matchdays? Was stuff left behind as a matter of convenience? Compared to some shit that has gone on this is much easier to perceive as an error, or even just a matter of difference of interpretation of the contract.

Of course, SISU will argue this is not the case and say the exact wording should be taken, and personally I reckon will probably be taken. Although once again this would be two-faced given their argument of an implied term in the Higgs trust case, and their argument over the council not being able to claim unpaid rent from a particular period when now suddenly there should be no timescales set at all for claiming.

However, one thing I would like to point out is that the sum has been paid out to the club already, despite ACL looking to appeal. Whereas SISU have still yet to pay the £570k ordered by the courts and FL almost a year ago. Personally I'd have kept the money and written it off against debts owed.

I would also like to pint out another error made by the council, in that it paid the money to Otium's lawyers. However, since Otium have only owned the club since last year, after the club stopped playing there and paying the rates, the refund should in fact go to the administrator of either Coventry City Football Club limited or Holdings, whichever was said to have the lease. Or are Otium now saying the lease and licence are still valid and therefore owe ACL?

[billythefish]

Thanks AD but have you got RPs number? I want to get the garden sorted for a BBQ on Monday!

[Burf]

I'd like to pint (sic) out another error too.

yadda yadda yadda...

Had it up to here with all this - long time ago. Lets just round both set of ACL & SISU **** up
& execute them in the centre circle at the Ricoh ffs. A football coup d'etat.

Then we can go back to concentrating on being a really quite sub-mediocre football club that no-one
else is remotely interested in.

Colour me bored.

[billythefish]

I'd like to pint (sic) out another error too.

yadda yadda yadda...

Had it up to here with all this - long time ago. Lets just round both set of ACL & SISU **** up
& execute them in the centre circle at the Ricoh ffs. A football coup d'etat.

Then we can go back to concentrating on being a really quite sub-mediocre football club that no-one
else is remotely interested in.

Colour me bored.

[AD]

Thanks AD but have you got RPs number? I want to get the garden sorted for a BBQ on Monday!

Sorry I don't. Why not just take the fence up the Ricoh and use it as fuel in a massive BBQ there instead? It's not being used I believe... just be careful no-one left any of the spiders behind from last weekend! (Although if you wait a week you can enjoy your burgers surrounded by naked people as it's the Streaking Championships

Burf - why not? We've had the Iranian team play there, so why not use it like an Iranian stadium? Do we tie them to the goalposts and shoot them at dawn? Hang them from them? Or stone them to death with the unused matchballs filled with concrete? Use Billy's fence to burn them at the stake?

Or give them the worse death imaginable - putting up a CCFC highlights reel on loop on the scoreboard and making them watch it. CCFCrucifixion.

I think I'd go to watch that. Mine's a point

[billythefish]

Out of interest does anyone actually think the club will return to the ricoh?

I just see any end to this mess. For once I think the trust have got it about right with the why not campaign and rather than apportion blame based on half known facts they havent got involved in the mud slinging. As I said normally I dont agree with most of what comes out of the trust but I have to applaud them for this one. Not that I think it will do much

[plastic scouser]

I think its nailed on that CCFC will eventually return to the ricoh......its just a question of whether there will be anyone left who gives a shit by the time it happens....

Will sisu have fucked off by then? Lets hope so.
Will ACL be bust by then? Lets hope so.
Will it still be called the ricoh....I doubt it.
Will City still be in the main league structure....unlikely.

....so in summary...my prediction is for CCFC, a conference side, will return to the UKIP stadium in 2018/19....

....and no-one will care....

[AD]

It has to eventually, or at least the skeleton of the club that remains at that time. Purely the fact that we found a way of losing even more revenue than what we were missing out on without stadium ownership shows that's the case, by losing most of the gate revenue. Building a new stadium is a financial basket-case idea unless it's designed to help Gary Barlow's tax affairs.

The timescale may well depend on the JR, although either way I doubt the club will own it - it'll be kept in it's own separate company with the club paying rent of some sort to use it. "That which we call ACL by any another name would smell as shitty".

[dog rout 21]

I'm not so sure, I really wouldn't be surprised if SISU eventually built a new ground, think they've been holding off to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap but if it gets to a point where that definitely, definitely can't happen I wouldn't bet against it. Obviously it's a fairly stupid idea considering there's a fully functioning mega stadium sitting empty but I fucking hate the Ricoh so I'd be well happy, might even finally get my clock

[billythefish]

Have to agree with PS that it will happen but not for a while yet. As it is we are more likely to go down than up and it could be case of how far we fall and when.

Another question for everyone - just on the off chance that we were to be successful and build a team that was in the top two come christmas. What difference would that make to attendances? Would people come out of the woodwork and start going to home games or wouldnt it matter? Just interested in what the feeling was and if it was likely to change

[plastic scouser]

Well not that it affects me personally as after several shitty ricoh experiences, I've only been an occasional away fan since 2006....

...but to answer your Q billy....I'd guess there would only be a very slight increase in attendances....and that may not necessarily be down to "Cov" fans but others local to the area wanting to see some promotion chasing 3rd tier footy...

...The first 10 games or so at sixfields last season witnessed City playing fast open free-scoring football...but the attendances were static or possibly even dropped....

...To summarise, the longer City stay away from their home town, the smaller their real fan base will become.

Dogga.....there is more chance of Will Self juggling ferret testicles live & naked on Britains Got Talent than sisu building a new ground.....and even then, it would be significantly shitter than the ricoh...which is shit!

[AD]

I'm not so sure, I really wouldn't be surprised if SISU eventually built a new ground, think they've been holding off to try and get the Ricoh on the cheap but if it gets to a point where that definitely, definitely can't happen I wouldn't bet against it. Obviously it's a fairly stupid idea considering there's a fully functioning mega stadium sitting empty but I fucking hate the Ricoh so I'd be well happy, might even finally get my clock

Nah - if it gets to the stage that definitely can't happen another winding up order will be issued ASAP (probably by ARVO) in a last ditch attempt to get ACL/Council to cave in as some supporters put pressure on them to sell up because the club will die (having not noticed it's already dead).

If/when that doesn't work they will liquidate the club - simple as. Surely even they must know by now even if they built a new stadium they've lost so much of the fanbase the revenue from it would still be massively unviable and investors would/should run a mile from it.

I agree with PS - even if we do well I expect the crowds to be even lower than last year overall. They may increase slightly if we do well but I think that'll be more locals than anything. We did very well at the start of last year and it made no difference. I expected crowds to start around 2-3000 last year,rising to 5k if we did well or down to 1k if we were shit. Even that proved optimistic