Mean while back in court (10 Viewers)

[Grendel]

So they took over ACL but not the debt? If what you are saying is true why did they pay the loan off?

They did take over ACL without the debt.

They didn't pay the loan off.

I'm not understanding your point.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?

Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?

You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.

You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.

No

The bollocks is the suggestion that it should have happened. Wasps and CCC had a confidentiality agreement. It was never going to happen.

If SISU had have entered into negotiations with CCC they to would have had such an agreement to protect their negotiations from being pimped out to one and all. They'd have been stupid not to same as wasp's would have been.

How the fuck could wasps have been offered a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart? CCFC never negotiated a deal with CCC at any point ever. Are you making this up as you go along?

Damn straight they were better negotiator's. They negotiated for starters so that's a one horse race straight away. Any concessions they got that the club didn't they got for one simple reason. THEY ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CLUB (SISU) DIDN'T, THAT'S WHAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE FOR.

We didn't even fall at the first hurdle. You have to get out the starting trap to do that.

 

[Grendel]

I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?

Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?

You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.

You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.

For all we know the the council could have offered the whole shooting match behind the clubs back.

Given that offers for 50% of the share of the company were rejected - and wasps would never have been interested in 50% - then it's a nonsense argument Tony is deploying.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Damn straight they were better negotiator's.

Well... they're far worse, really. Their stated aim was to return to the London home, and they failed in that dismally.

As failed negotiations go, that's right up there.

 

[Grendel]

No

The bollocks is the suggestion that it should have happened. Wasps and CCC had a confidentiality agreement. It was never going to happen.

If SISU had have entered into negotiations with CCC they to would have had such an agreement to protect their negotiations from being pimped out to one and all. They'd have been stupid not to same as wasp's would have been.

How the fuck could wasps have been offered a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart? CCFC never negotiated a deal with CCC at any point ever. Are you making this up as you go along?

Damn straight they were better negotiator's. They negotiated for starters so that's a one horse race straight away. Any concessions they got that the club didn't they got for one simple reason. THEY ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CLUB (SISU) DIDN'T, THAT'S WHAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE FOR.

We didn't even fall at the first hurdle. You have to get out the starting trap to do that.

Are the new moderators employed yet? Isn't this the kind of inflammatory nonsense we are looking to remove from this forum going forward?

 

[shy_tall_knight]

They did take over ACL without the debt.

They didn't pay the loan off.

I'm not understanding your point.

I clearly don't understand your point when you say they didn'y pay the loan off, what was the £14m transaction that WASPS secured a bond to finance, isn't that taking on the liability of the loan, and refinancing it themselves. Thats my understanding

 

[Grendel]

I clearly don't understand your point when you say they didn'y pay the loan off, what was the £14m transaction that WASPS secured a bond to finance, isn't that taking on the liability of the loan, and refinancing it themselves. Thats my understanding

It didn't happen at the point of purchase is my point.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

It didn't happen at the point of purchase is my point.

And the importance of that is that they were able to secure a cracking deal without having to take on the liability of the loan. But what would have happened to the loan if they hadn't taken it on who would the loan have rested with - CCC ?

 

[Grendel]

And the importance of that is that they were able to secure a cracking deal without having to take on the liability of the loan. But what would have happened to the loan if they hadn't taken it on who would the loan have rested with - CCC ?

Well at the time the council claimed the deal would make a profit due to the charges made being higher than the fee for the loan. So it costs the taxpayers money by selling the loan. So actually I'm surprised people who have the taxpayers interests at heart support this.

 

[shy_tall_knight]

Well at the time the council claimed the deal would make a profit due to the charges made being higher than the fee for the loan. So it costs the taxpayers money by selling the loan. So actually I'm surprised people who have the taxpayers interests at heart support this.

Slow down on this and put this in easier chunks regarding charges and fees

 

[letsallsingtogether]

He he talking of new moderators. ..............
Nurse........

 

[Grendel]

The council repeatedly claimed the loan would make a profit as the interest they charged would make more money than the interest they paid.

So providing they were happy wasps would continue paying the council would make more money by not discharging the loan.

 

[skybluetony176]

Fisher does claim Wasps paid too much.

He might yet be proved right, of course...

That will be a bad day in court for SISU if JR2 proves that they paid to much for it

 

[Astute]

They did take over ACL without the debt.

They didn't pay the loan off.

I'm not understanding your point.

Trying to twist the truth again I see.

They took over ACL with the debt still owed. As I said earlier for what this quoted reply was from if they never took on the ACL debt owed to CCC why did they pay it off?

 

[Astute]

That will be a bad day in court for SISU if JR2 proves that they paid to much for it

The only ones suggesting that Wasps paid too much are those that had said in the past that the right value for SISU to pay for it was even less and won't admit that they are wrong.

So if they paid more than the proper value how much would it cost us to buy land and build just an ordinary stadium?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The only ones suggesting that Wasps paid too much are those that had said in the past that the right value for SISU to pay for it was even less and won't admit that they are wrong.

My stadium valuing skills are minimal. I do know the figures bandied around that SISU should pay when this all kickd off were ridiculously OTT.

I also know that the precedent in the US is that Wasps may well have paid too much...

We'll see, in 5-10 years.

 

[Grendel]

Trying to twist the truth again I see.

They took over ACL with the debt still owed. As I said earlier for what this quoted reply was from if they never took on the ACL debt owed to CCC why did they pay it off?

I'm still confused as surrendering the debt cost the tax payer money according to the council press statement at the time.

So are you accusing the council of twisting the truth?

 

[Astute]

I'm still confused as surrendering the debt cost the tax payer money according to the council press statement at the time.

So are you accusing the council of twisting the truth?

Neither side has been truthful. And neither have you. You are now trying to say that Wasps never took the ACL debt on.

 

[dongonzalos]

So it wasn't a purchase bid then it was a charitable donation?

A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.

 

[Astute]

A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.

Grendel says it was a throwaway comment given whilst giving evidence in court. Maybe the throwaway comment was caught by the white elephant.

 

[dongonzalos]

Grendel says it was a throwaway comment given whilst giving evidence in court. Maybe the throwaway comment was caught by the white elephant.

Basically when you go an auction for charity and bid more than you ever would fit something because the proceeds go to charity
Wasps were even more charitable they bid 2.77 million for it.

 

[dongonzalos]

Neither side has been truthful. And neither have you. You are now trying to say that Wasps never took the ACL debt on.

Wasps bought ACL
ACL have the loan.
So technically ACL have the debt.
However it's owned by the same owner as Wasps so for me I don't care how people spin it. They took on the loan. Which SISU said no business would ever do.

 

[chiefdave]

The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.

As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.

Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.

 

[Astute]

Wasps bought ACL
ACL have the loan.
So technically ACL have the debt.
However it's owned by the same owner as Wasps so for me I don't care how people spin it. They took on the loan. Which SISU said no business would ever do.

It isn't even a technicality. They paid for both shares so took on all the debt. Then they raised money to pay the debt off by putting the arena up as security.

It will be interesting if and how they pay it off. If their move to Coventry doesn't work I can see themselves finding somewhere else to play and walking away from the arena. There would then be a cheap deal to be had.

 

[Astute]

The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.

As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.

Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.

Why is it that the formula frequently mentioned was never the amount asked for but spoken about as though it was?

And how would they hide their own valuation as it was lower than Wasps paid?

 

[dongonzalos]

The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.

As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.

Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.

I think when SISU were originally enquiring about buying the product.
It had a anchor tenant. Who was a good tenant paying its tent in time.
Then when Wasps agreed their price it had no anchor tenant.
It had also stopped doing concerts for some reason.
I get the feeling its value dropped. It's marketability seemed to drop as well.
Wasps seemed to Jump on it just at the right moment.
Stick themselves in as an anchor tenant.
Being premiership rugby to the ground.
Bring the concerts back.
Got it back in the spotlight.
Gave the business an air of certainty and hey presto it goes up in value.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.

That's not quite right, it was the £5.5m that was being offered as they recognised it was a charity, according to Deering in court.

 

[skybluetony176]

That's not quite right, it was the £5.5m that was being offered as they recognised it was a charity, according to Deering in court.

Pretty sure TF shook hands on £5.5M, they then pulled out stating that it was worthless and offered £2M instead. When questioned in court why would they offer £2M for something that was worthless LD said it was because JS recognized that Higgs were a charity. Or words to that effect.

 

[martcov]

Pretty sure TF shook hands on £5.5M, they then pulled out stating that it was worthless and offered £2M instead. When questioned in court why would they offer £2M for something that was worthless LD said it was because JS recognized that Higgs were a charity. Or words to that effect.

Yes, and after the nasty Wasps had snapped up the white elephant, TF confirmed that Otium would not have accepted the Wasps deal because of the outstanding 14m. So why mess around with JR2 when your company thinks Wasps made a deal that wouldn't work?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Pretty sure TF shook hands on £5.5M, they then pulled out stating that it was worthless and offered £2M instead. When questioned in court why would they offer £2M for something that was worthless LD said it was because JS recognized that Higgs were a charity. Or words to that effect.

The suggestion was the more generous £5.5m Tony.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought
9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay
10 5.5 million for it?
11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.

 

[Captain Dart]

I think when SISU were originally enquiring about buying the product.
It had a anchor tenant. Who was a good tenant paying its tent in time.
Then when Wasps agreed their price it had no anchor tenant.
It had also stopped doing concerts for some reason.
I get the feeling its value dropped. It's marketability seemed to drop as well.
Wasps seemed to Jump on it just at the right moment.
Stick themselves in as an anchor tenant.
Being premiership rugby to the ground.
Bring the concerts back.
Got it back in the spotlight.
Gave the business an air of certainty and hey presto it goes up in value.

SISU created the conditions which allowed Wasps in, the damn fools.

Its not as if businesses don't regularly take other business from competitors in similar fields, happens all the time.

 

[skybluetony176]

The suggestion was the more generous £5.5m Tony.

MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought
9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay
10 5.5 million for it?
11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.

Try reading everything that was said if you want a clearer picture. You seem to be selecting what you're reading putting £0 and £2M together and coming up with £5.5M. The "charitable donation" was £2M instead of the £5.5M previously agreed and reneged on. Hence she was willing to pay UPTO £5.5M at one point for something worthless and offer £2M when deciding it was worthless as she recognised they were a charity. Link below.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6914945

 

[martcov]

Try reading everything that was said if you want a clearer picture. You seem to be selecting what you're reading putting £0 and £2M together and coming up with £5.5M. The "charitable donation" was £2M instead of the £5.5M previously agreed and reneged on. Hence she was willing to pay UPTO £5.5M at one point for something worthless and offer £2M when deciding it was worthless as she recognised they were a charity. Link below.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6914945

How long was the lease at the time of the 5,5m?

 

[chiefdave]

Why is it that the formula frequently mentioned was never the amount asked for but spoken about as though it was?

Why wouldn't SISU bring it up? They will want to establish a narrative around the pricing they were offered so mentioning things like the formula price, the price for F&B offered by Gidney, the comments from Mutton about offers from the likes of Manhattan etc are all likely to come up.

I suspect they will take two roads, one showing the price to be low and one showing the sale process to be flawed. If they could convince the court that the lease extension was a deliberate way to get around the regulations covering a freehold sale they will be in business. Nobody will realistically think the Ricoh will last for the next 200 plus years will they?

Of course saying that I'm not a lawyer so who knows. There were things that seemed a no-brainer to bring up in JR1 that have either not been mentioned at all or only mentioned in passing.

 

[chiefdave]

How long was the lease at the time of the 5,5m?

Original lease was 50 years and cost £21m.

The Council's freehold interest in the Arena, i.e. the market value that could be obtained from the sale of the freehold with the existing ACL lease in place, has been independently valued by Lambert Smith Hampton. The market valuation of the interest as at 31 March 2006 is £0.6m. The valuation report states that the value of the Council's freehold interest in 48 years time, at the expiration of the ACL lease, will be "substantial".