Council Hearing Match Thread (1 Viewer)

[Nick]

If they weren't involved why do they care? I think that SISU are very much involved in the sale of the Ricoh or should we say the sale of ACL. They tried to get it cheaply and were out flanked. All this is to do with a company not getting their way, and sour grapes. Why are they not investigating other government bodies and taking them to court? Just CCC?

I think you are technically right, nothing to do with the sale of the Ricoh. This has everything to do with the sale of ACL to the WASPS, even then SISU were offered the charity half, but no. They would have had to bay a fair price, which if they had done would have been a bargain.

What is a fair price?

 

---

[chiefdave]

SISU were offered the charity half, but no. They would have had to bay a fair price, which if they had done would have been a bargain.

The formula price for the Higgs half was in the region of £10m. That would have been for ACL with the existing lease. Wasps have got 100% of ACL with a 200 year lease extension for just over half that!

 

[Astute]

It's in the report!

The report we are going on about?

Of course not. Yes have read it all. But you make out it was in this one.

 

[Astute]

Appendix 4 of Goacher's report. Was said on CWR in an interview with Shane O'Connor on 13 March 2013.

Any link to it or was it just a say so? I find it hard to believe that the SISU legal woman would have let it go If true.

 

[Astute]

What is a fair price?

SISU refused to take on the loan as they said it was worthless. Wasps paid off the loan. Wasps raised a lot of money to pay off the loan from bonds. So who was right?

 

[Astute]

The formula price for the Higgs half was in the region of £10m. That would have been for ACL with the existing lease. Wasps have got 100% of ACL with a 200 year lease extension for just over half that!

The old chestnut I see. The formula price was not asked for. Half of it was and that was before we were taken to Northampton to devalue the arena. But yes let's use the amount never asked for

 

[chiefdave]

Any link to it or was it just a say so? I find it hard to believe that the SISU legal woman would have let it go If true.

Here you go:
http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=161&MId=11019&Ver=4

 

[chiefdave]

SISU refused to take on the loan as they said it was worthless. Wasps paid off the loan. Wasps raised a lot of money to pay off the loan from bonds. So who was right?

They paid off £14m loan by taking out a £35m loan!

 

[dongonzalos]

He did indeed, he said “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”. That's not being disputed. He's now saying he was only quoting Ainsworth but he (Ainsworth) didn't actually say SISU was a predator :thinking about:

"But SISU are not entitled to bully their way to control over an asset they never provided. They must prove they are not simply a predator with greed running through their DNA before they could expect such treatment."

BA speech to Parliment

 

[Nick]

"But SISU are not entitled to bully their way to control over an asset they never provided. They must prove they are not simply a predator with greed running through their DNA before they could expect such treatment."

BA speech to Parliment

Isn't that what was quoted?

 

[chiefdave]

Isn't that what was quoted?

Indeed it was, Ainsworth said SISU must prove they are not a predator. Mutton said they were a predator. Therefore Mutton was not quoting Ainsworth and was asserting his own view.

 

[Astute]

They paid off £14m loan by taking out a £35m loan!

Just about everyone knows that. So was it worth what SISU could have had it for before trying to devalue it? Of course it was. But that doesn't go with the CCC bashing.

 

[Astute]

Here you go:
http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=161&MId=11019&Ver=4

Where abouts?

 

[skybluericoh]

What is a fair price?

A fair price is whatever a party is happy to pay or market value, WASPS paid off the loan, while doing that they negotiated a 200 year lease. I'm sure that any party that went into mutually beneficial negotiations that were astute could of got the same deal. Now, I do not know all of the facts probably true to say I know none of the facts, I only know what I have seen and heard on the internet, the papers and on the radio, so that is what I draw my own conclusions from. From the 'none facts' I believe the following to have happened.

A football club over stretched to try and compete with the big boys and in doing so put themselves in a pretty ropey position financial and had to take a deal offered by a local Authority and a Local Charity to finish a project, while doing so signed unto what would be come a mill stone rental agreement.
They failed in what they thought would be a quick return to the sky cash cow, and had to seek a buyer. The buyer would only play ball if everybody handed over their rights to any sort of involvement with the football club.
Many people, The Local authority, fans were hoodwinked and thought this will save use, they have done all this due diligence, have rich backers, they will want to get back to the poem to sell on for a profit? Win Win!
The due diligence that was carry out was not adequate and did not spot that the rental was far to high and that should have been addressed before the purchase of the club.
Once the error was spotted no involvement of the fans to try and engage in a way to gain support, but a hard nose do this or else.
Local authority steps in to protect its assets.
Business gets more hard nose, then try to out flank the LA by putting itself into admin.
Business goes even further consults the fans about the situation and cuts still further into financial problems by cutting of its fans base by moving it away from it home town.
All the while the owners think 'we're the only party in town, we can all the shots and get the operating company for not a lot'
Unknown to all but those involved, astute business men see an opportunity to get their hands on a state of the art sports and leisure complex for about a sixth of the price of building one, get in and do a deal.
Football club owners think' S**t ! didn't see that coming. LCFC got theirs for next to nothing? Stuff it later take them to court.
Charity say's you still have the option to buy our half, Rugby club say ' you can come in if you like if not we will buy it. Football club say we'll take you to court and spend 2 or 3 times the amount to buy on on something some where, some time in the future.

 

[Nick]

A fair price is whatever a party is happy to pay or market value, WASPS paid off the loan, while doing that they negotiated a 200 year lease. I'm sure that any party that went into mutually beneficial negotiations that were astute could of got the same deal. Now, I do not know all of the facts probably true to say I know none of the facts, I only know what I have seen and heard on the internet, the papers and on the radio, so that is what I draw my own conclusions from. From the 'none facts' I believe the following to have happened.

A football club over stretched to try and compete with the big boys and in doing so put themselves in a pretty ropey position financial and had to take a deal offered by a local Authority and a Local Charity to finish a project, while doing so signed unto what would be come a mill stone rental agreement.
They failed in what they thought would be a quick return to the sky cash cow, and had to seek a buyer. The buyer would only play ball if everybody handed over their rights to any sort of involvement with the football club.
Many people, The Local authority, fans were hoodwinked and thought this will save use, they have done all this due diligence, have rich backers, they will want to get back to the poem to sell on for a profit? Win Win!
The due diligence that was carry out was not adequate and did not spot that the rental was far to high and that should have been addressed before the purchase of the club.
Once the error was spotted no involvement of the fans to try and engage in a way to gain support, but a hard nose do this or else.
Local authority steps in to protect its assets.
Business gets more hard nose, then try to out flank the LA by putting itself into admin.
Business goes even further consults the fans about the situation and cuts still further into financial problems by cutting of its fans base by moving it away from it home town.
All the while the owners think 'we're the only party in town, we can all the shots and get the operating company for not a lot'
Unknown to all but those involved, astute business men see an opportunity to get their hands on a state of the art sports and leisure complex for about a sixth of the price of building one, get in and do a deal.
Football club owners think' S**t ! didn't see that coming. LCFC got theirs for next to nothing? Stuff it later take them to court.
Charity say's you still have the option to buy our half, Rugby club say ' you can come in if you like if not we will buy it. Football club say we'll take you to court and spend 2 or 3 times the amount to buy on on something some where, some time in the future.

You really think the Rugby club were saying they could go in 50/50?

Club went into admin because ACL were going to put them into admin.

 

[stupot07]

Charity say's you still have the option to buy our half, Rugby club say ' you can come in if you like if not we will buy it. Football club say we'll take you to court and spend 2 or 3 times the amount to buy on on something some where, some time in the future.

Bollocks. As soon as wasps bought the councils share there was zero chance that we were going to be allowed to buy in. Higgs were just following the process, wasps would have veto'd anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[dongonzalos]

Isn't that what was quoted?

Yes

 

[dongonzalos]

Indeed it was, Ainsworth said SISU must prove they are not a predator. Mutton said they were a predator. Therefore Mutton was not quoting Ainsworth and was asserting his own view.

I think it's fair to say considering the terminology this is what Mutton was referring to. You are really grasping at straws a bit, surely?

 

[chiefdave]

I think it's fair to say considering the terminology this is what Mutton was referring to. You are really grasping at straws a bit, surely?

Pretty clear to me, one says "It (SISU) must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA", that quite clearly does not say they are a predator. The other says “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”, that quite clearly does say they are a predator. Not sure how much clearer it can be!

 

[Astute]

Pretty clear to me, one says "It (SISU) must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA", that quite clearly does not say they are a predator. The other says “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”, that quite clearly does say they are a predator. Not sure how much clearer it can be!

Can you show us where then?

 

[Nick]

Can you show us where then?

It was on the Shane O'Connor show he said it, the actual quote is in the council documents and the report....

 

[chiefdave]

Can you show us where then?

Where what? Ainsworth spoke in parliament its on their record of that debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130312/halltext/130312h0002.htm

Mutton's comments were made on CWR but are quoted in the Council's report (Appendix 4):
http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=161&MId=11019&Ver=4

 

[Grendel]

Can you show us where then?

Christ.

 

[Nick]

He stated that he felt that the comments were justified giving thedealings which he had with SISU.

He has said it, said he thought it was justified and then suddenly it is being denied he ever said it ...

 

[covmark]

Can you show us where then?

Fucking hell. How many times has it been shown to you. Have a day off ffs.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

One of the facts was:

Councillor Mutton’s role as a Trustee of the Alan Higgs CentreTrust was not declared on his register of interest form submittedon 19 July 2012;

Yet the ethics committee said there was nothing wrong?

Surely that is black or white.

He either did declare something, or he didn't?

It isn't something that can be debated such as "was this nasty or not"?

 

[dongonzalos]

Pretty clear to me, one says "It (SISU) must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA", that quite clearly does not say they are a predator. The other says “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”, that quite clearly does say they are a predator. Not sure how much clearer it can be!

And you don't think one is making reference to the other?

 

[Nick]

And you don't think one is making reference to the other?

Are you missing the point on purpose?

At least you aren't trying to tell people he didn't say it though

It is like you saying "Person X needs to prove they aren't a dickhead" and me saying "Person X absolutely is a dickhead". It is referencing it and then a bit more.

 

[dongonzalos]

Are you missing the point on purpose?

At least you aren't trying to tell people he didn't say it though

It is like you saying "Person X needs to prove they aren't a dickhead" and me saying "Person X absolutely is a dickhead". It is referencing it and then a bit more.

But if you are suggesting they need to prove that they aren't one. Would you not think that it is plausible that you are suggesting that they are and you are challenging them to prove they are not?
Ie innocent until proven guilty but in BA's case guilty and challenging them to prove they are innocent? That's the way I interpreted that he meant it. I assume Mutton has interpreted it as BA describing them as this and saying it himself as I think it was what Mutton personally believed but now he could get away with saying it as VA had already got it out there.

 

[Nick]

But if you are suggesting they need to prove that they aren't one. Would you not think that it is plausible that you are suggesting that they are and you are challenging them to prove they are not?
Ie innocent until proven guilty but in BA's case guilty and challenging them to prove they are innocent? That's the way I interpreted that he meant it. I assume Mutton has interpreted it as BA describing them as this and saying it himself as I think it was what Mutton personally believed but now he could get away with saying it as VA had already got it out there.

Not really.

Whether he got mixed up with the original quote or not, the words came out of his mouth... It is pretty much for certain that is what he thought and that is what he said.. Then it is back tracked to "quoting" BA, although being different.

 

[dongonzalos]

Not really.

Whether he got mixed up with the original quote or not, the words came out of his mouth... It is pretty much for certain that is what he thought and that is what he said.. Then it is back tracked to "quoting" BA, although being different.

I think he thought it. I don't think he is back tracking re BA. As BA said pretty much the same thing.
It would be some coincidence if Mutton didn't have BA's comments in mind when he said what he said.
DNA Greed and Predetor are not phrases you normally stick in a sentence.
He heard what BA said and took it that BA was saying that is what SISU are, not challenging them to prove they are not

 

[Nick]

I'm not too sure what point you are trying to prove?

He said it, he said it was his thoughts from dealing with sisu. It came out of his mouth.

It was in reference to ba, but he changed the words and said he knew it from his dealings with them.

 

[Astute]

Where what? Ainsworth spoke in parliament its on their record of that debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130312/halltext/130312h0002.htm

Mutton's comments were made on CWR but are quoted in the Council's report (Appendix 4):
http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=161&MId=11019&Ver=4

Reading that it is the allegation not him saying it.

 

[Astute]

He has said it, said he thought it was justified and then suddenly it is being denied he ever said it ...

Can you explain how him saying that he thought it was justified was him actually making the comment as is being said?

 

[Astute]

Fucking hell. How many times has it been shown to you. Have a day off ffs.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

It hasn't been shown once. The allegation has been shown. He didn't make the comment.

Have a day off FFS