Mean while back in court (14 Viewers)

[fernandopartridge]

Correct.

I run a little business with a good mate of mine. We have no written contract. We trust each other. Everything is in his name. But if for some unknown reason something went wrong between us I wouldn't have the written proof. But what I do have is the financial trail.

It's not just that, the fact he's performed something for you and you've paid it constitutes a contract. Contract is just another word for agreement.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Correct.

I run a little business with a good mate of mine. We have no written contract. We trust each other. Everything is in his name. But if for some unknown reason something went wrong between us I wouldn't have the written proof. But what I do have is the financial trail.

seriously no matter how good a mate he is get something in writing. It is in both your interests to do so. A simple letter written by you both and signed, witnessed, would do. I have a business partner, known him since I was 12, our two families are very close, would trust him with my life .............. but we have a partnership agreement anyway

 

[oldskyblue58]

Presumably they've fixed that issue with Wasps? :thinking about:

ACL and ACL (2006) are both still there but of course both are now owned by one company. In any case the terms of the bond issue means the bondholders have a charge over all group assets including ACL & ACL (2006)

 

[chiefdave]

Wasps didn't purchase the existing lease though did they. They purchased the shares of ACL which had a net value including the existing lease all the other assets AND all the liabilities including the loan. It was never ever going to be a similar value to the value of the lease taken in isolation. I know you acknowledge that cd. But why do people keep comparing totally different things and saying but it doesn't read the same, it wont.

So how can CCC use the lease valuation as justification for making the loan? Shouldn't they be using the valuation of ACL? They've already said today that the lease wouldn't revert to CCC if ACL went bust so its value doesn't really come into it as far as I can see.

So you have ACL valued at under £6m, if we take Wasps sale price to be fair, and you give a loan of £14m which by their own admission was a loan made to prevent ACL going bust.

 

[dongonzalos]

I can the impression SISU's case depends a bit more on personalities and an agenda by the council
The council's case seems to be based on boring legal facts.
I assume that the boring legal facts if they are correct will probably win the day?

 

[oldskyblue58]

no because the lease valuation is for security purposes. They took a charge over all the assets including the lease, as any bank would do. That's perfectly normal business practice. No bank would take security over liabilities would they ? that would weaken the lenders security wouldn't it?

Yes you could add shares in but why unless it was a protective measure to stop anyone else getting them, say like ARVO have done. But even they secured their loans first and foremost on the assets of the SBS&L group

The loan already existed in ACL they didn't give a new loan as such, CCC bought out the rights to the loan YB had then varied the terms they had acquired. ACL never repaid the debt nor did it receive funds from CCCi n 2013 it seems to me
.

 

[chiefdave]

no because the lease valuation is for security purposes.

Doesn't that bring us back to the initial point. How can the lease act as security if it doesn't revert to CCC in the event of ACL going under?

 

[Astute]

seriously no matter how good a mate he is get something in writing. It is in both your interests to do so. A simple letter written by you both and signed, witnessed, would do. I have a business partner, known him since I was 12, our two families are very close, would trust him with my life .............. but we have a partnership agreement anyway

I would normally agree. But it is where we are frequently putting money in and then sharing the profits. And as it is quite considerable amounts it would be easy to prove in a court of law if needed. And we do not have a company as in name or similar so no other values.

 

[Nick]

no because the lease valuation is for security purposes. They took a charge over all the assets including the lease, as any bank would do. That's perfectly normal business practice. No bank would take security over liabilities would they ? that would weaken the lenders security wouldn't it?

Yes you could add shares in but why unless it was a protective measure to stop anyone else getting them, say like ARVO have done. But even they secured their loans first and foremost on the assets of the SBS&L group

The loan already existed in ACL they didn't give a new loan as such, CCC bought out the rights to the loan YB had then varied the terms they had acquired. ACL never repaid the debt nor did it receive funds from CCCi n 2012 it seems to me
.

So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?

 

[oldskyblue58]

you might want to check the terms of the Partnership Act out. Even in the circumstances you outline that's what you have and for the sake of writing down a few agreed terms that a court would expect to see I would still get it done.

Going to court doesn't guarantee the outcome you expect and is expensive as we can all see here.

But the choice and risk you seem happy with so good luck

 

[Captain Dart]

So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?

The loan was something ACL took out initially as an alternative to playing a lease premium.

http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...c-ltd-holdings-ricoh-build-years-1993-to-2007

2[SUP]nd[/SUP]June 2006 ACL draw down Yorkshire Bank loan £21m to pay lease premium rather than pay annual rent of 1.9m

 

[oldskyblue58]

So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?

normally security is worth more than the loan. However some lenders in the past have taken less but usually for a higher interest rate.

The security that CCC took wasn't just on the lease though....... it was a fixed and floating charge over all the assets of the ACL group, that's the other equipment/fixtures, the debtor book, any money in the bank, goodwill if any etc

Interestingly the loan that one of the claimants, ARVO, made when lending to the SBS&L group of companies would seem to be well above the assets available to cover it :thinking about: But then a rational investor wouldn't do that would they :thinking about:

 

[oldskyblue58]

Doesn't that bring us back to the initial point. How can the lease act as security if it doesn't revert to CCC in the event of ACL going under?

because until there is an insolvency event title to the lease is ACL's and business is conducted on a going concern basis until events prove otherwise.

 

[Godiva]

It was pretty much the same in the previous hearings, SISU arguments were often interjected with the Judges saying "thats not relevant" or "this is of no consequence" etc. etc.. so far there is no smoking gun, just a rehash, looks like it is going the same way.. roll on the sequel, that is JR2 in a court room Spring 2017.



Simples, the the judge said the reasons for the rent being withheld are irrelevant, but the CC QC is arguing about the rent being illegally withheld, which is a breach of contract.

Illegally??????

I don't think so.

 

[TheRoyalScam]

2nd half about to kick off - just waiting on the judge and the two line judges

 

[Chipfat]

When will the judges decide on the outcome? is it today.

 

[chiefdave]

because until there is an insolvency event title to the lease is ACL's and business is conducted on a going concern basis until events prove otherwise.

I think I'm missing something here.

Group A owns Company A who own Asset A worth £1m.
Company A owes Bank A £2m.
Bank A are getting a bit nervous about getting their money back.
Bank B loans Company A the money to pay off Bank A, Without this Company A is in danger of going out of business. Asset A is used as security.
However in the event Company A can't pay their bills and goes out of business Asset A becomes the property of Group A and not the property of Bank B.
How does Asset A provide security to Bank B? At the point at which the security would be needed it no longer belongs to Company A.

 

[Otis]

When will the judges decide on the outcome? is it today.

Possibly, but then of course there is the loan window.

 

[Chipfat]

Who's winning?

 

[covmark]

Who's winning?

The lawyers.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[usskyblue]

Who's winning?

As far as I can see, it's the majority of GMK forum members

 

[chiefdave]

CCC say ACL doing well but they seem to base that on the cost of borrowing going down which wouldn't have happened without the bailout!

Judge asks for clarification of the financial picture and is told there was negative cash flow.

 

[chiefdave]

Council QC said the council produced a financial forecast to see if ACL could service the council loan without any rent from the football club.

He said another factor to consider was that the tenancy of Wasps had been waiting in the wings for “some time”.

So we're back to square one. CCC saying ACL would be fine without the football club which means there was no need to sell to Wasps.

And it seems Wasps didn't just pitch up shortly before the purchase as some on here have suggested.

 

[fernandopartridge]

[h=3]wasps "waiting in the wings"[/h]council qc said the council produced a financial forecast to see if acl could service the council loan without any rent from the football club.
He said another factor to consider was that the tenancy of wasps had been waiting in the wings for “some time”.
Justice treacy asks for evidence to show wasps was in the wings at the time of the loan.
Sisu qc says the document with reference to this was from march 2012.
Council qc admits he may have been overdoing it to say it was “in the wings”, “but certainly it had been mentioned”

 

[Godiva]

The loan already existed in ACL they didn't give a new loan as such, CCC bought out the rights to the loan YB had then varied the terms they had acquired. ACL never repaid the debt nor did it receive funds from CCCi n 2013 it seems to me
.

Didn't they 'buy' Car Park C for £1m as part of the reconstruction? And was it 2013? Not December 2012?

 

[Specs WT-R75]

My gut feeling here is, despite there being plenty of shady stuff from CCC, is that this will go against Sisu.

It is clear the council wanted to fuck us, and yeah Sisu deserve it, but the fans deserve so much better from all sides.

 

[Godiva]

My gut feeling here is, despite there being plenty of shady stuff from CCC, is that this will go against Sisu.

It is clear the council wanted to fuck us, and yeah Sisu deserve it, but the fans deserve so much better from all sides.

I don't think you can say 'the fans' as we were never unified in this. I seem to remember fans representatives urging CCC not to do a deal with the club.

 

[Nick]

Would ccc have been so against ccfc having it if wasps weren't there?

 

[chiefdave]

My gut feeling here is, despite there being plenty of shady stuff from CCC, is that this will go against Sisu.

It is clear the council wanted to fuck us, and yeah Sisu deserve it, but the fans deserve so much better from all sides.

I suspect you are correct. The council must have known how close to the line they were so would almost certainly have had every little thing checked out and checked again to be safe.

The thing you take from this is the narrative the council is giving in court is very very different from the narative they presented to the media and public.

 

[Nick]

I suspect you are correct. The council must have known how close to the line they were so would almost certainly have had every little thing checked out and checked again to be safe.

The thing you take from this is the narrative the council is giving in court is very very different from the narative they presented to the media and public.

Which will be swept under the carpet..

 

[chiefdave]

Would ccc have been so against ccfc having it if wasps weren't there?

They seem to have not wanted CCFC to have it since day one. No idea why. There was the grab of the freehold when CCFC were supposed to own 50%, the attitude to other bidders at the time SISU took over who wanted a stake in stadium ownership, and then everything that has happened since SISU took charge.

Maybe if Wasps weren't waiting in the wings we might have had a chance but there does seem to have been an underlying reluctance on the part of CCC to allow the football club to own the stadium which goes back many years.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

I don't think you can say 'the fans' as we were never unified in this. I seem to remember fans representatives urging CCC not to do a deal with the club.

Works both ways doesn't it. We all deserve better regardless which side of the fence we thing was more to blame...

 

[Nick]

Council QC is now looking at ACL’s revenue streams.
Justice Tomlinson said: “There would have been no revenue from the club for ACL if Sisu hadn’t put any money in. My understanding is that they were entirely dependant on them.”
Mr Goudie responds: “It’s important to note the club had been mismanaged and with better management the financial position would have been less weak. It was on an inevitable downwards trajectory.”
He’s now talking about revenues from “high profile” concerts including Bruce Springsteen and Coldplay - the latter of which seems to have peaked the interest of Justice Floyd.

Sisu QC says there have been some wrong findings of fact with the original High Court judgment.
He points to value of ACL as the most important, as well as the loan value, assumption of profits, the ACL business plan and findings in relation to loan security, policy and subjective hostility.
He says the council had a strong position to acquire the lease if ACL went bust because it was worth more if it went to another leaseholder to create added value, such as it did to Wasps.
He said: “On the Wasps situation, which Mr Goudie said was going along well, first of all it shows the good sense of Sisu’s heads of terms - because it’s in an effect a glorified version of it.
“They got 100 per cent of the lease for 250 years and state aid, followed by a good measure of secondary state aid.”

 

[Specs WT-R75]

Which will be swept under the carpet..

Just hire a PR firm or something to post anti Sisu stuff on every article on the telegraph.... oh wait.

 

[Specs WT-R75]

Looks like things are being summed up... I suspect adjournment for decision in a few weeks/months imminent.