Court Match Thread (16 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

Seems to me Ranson promised them if they put a certain amount in they would get a good ROI in a couple of years. They put the money in put he didn't get the club promoted so couldn't give them the promised ROI. As simple as that.

Remember he used to keep banging on about the crowds not being big enough. He'd clearly mis-calculated and when SISU wouldn't put more money in (when he then sold Fox and Dann) that's when the game was up and he tried to resign.

What he should have done at that point is advised SISU to cut their losses and sell up. At that point they would have still taken a hit but it would have been manageable.

Since then they've just dug themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.

Hard to disagree with CD

Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too much and failed to spend wisely? Operating losses in 2011 were £7m before interest depreciation amortisation and a £6m write down of goodwill created on takeover

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Anyway back on track

These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal

https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf

 

[RoboCCFC90]

According to the Observer, SISU will "consider an appeal"

 

[Warwickhunt]

Anyway back on track

These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal

https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf

Doing the Telegraphs job for them OSB

 

[skybluetony176]

Yes, but it's not a quote from the group (SISU) who had apparently committed to spend £20m on transfers and clear the club's debt. Considering Elliott's role in getting people's shares, it was in his interest to talk up the merits of the deal with SISU, so perhaps he's exaggerating.
Or, perhaps SISU had intended to do that without realising the structural issues the club had (god knows how they didn't).

Either way, I don't even know what we're arguing about.

Not sure what people are arguing about either to be honest. I was just pointing out that it wasn't something a journalist made up which is what was being suggested it was a quote from an official of the club about the takeover. Whether you choose to believe it or not is a different matter although there does seem to be clarification from Ransom that includes more than just a transfer kitty given who we're dealing with still doesn't necessarily make it correct.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Seems to me Ranson promised them if they put a certain amount in they would get a good ROI in a couple of years. They put the money in put he didn't get the club promoted so couldn't give them the promised ROI. As simple as that.

Remember he used to keep banging on about the crowds not being big enough. He'd clearly mis-calculated and when SISU wouldn't put more money in (when he then sold Fox and Dann) that's when the game was up and he tried to resign.

What he should have done at that point is advised SISU to cut their losses and sell up. At that point they would have still taken a hit but it would have been manageable.

Since then they've just dug themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.

Ranson didn't sell Dann and Fox, SISU board out voted him and sold both players. If you are going to point fingers, at least get facts right first.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Doing the Telegraphs job for them OSB

Not unless they are going to pay me to google "Judicial review appeal time limits" ..... otherwise I am just happy to be ahead of the game again hahaha

 

[SkyBlue79]

Hard to disagree with CD

Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too much and failed to spend wisely? Operating losses in 2011 were £7m before interest depreciation amortisation and a £6m write down of goodwill created on takeover

OSB and CD have wrapped that up pretty well. Ranson's entire plan on a footballing and club management level was unrealistic and it appears that he may have been fairly economical with the truth in the early years re ROI potential.

In terms of the JR, does that mean SISU have seven days to respond I.e. In response to substantive JR dismissed at an oral hearing.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Ranson didn't sell Dann and Fox, SISU board out voted him and sold both players. If you are going to point fingers, at least get facts right first.

That is how a board of directors works though. Its a joint decision and you can be out voted. But how else were they going to fund the 10m operating loss before player sales in that year that the board of directors including Ranson had sanctioned?

 

[oldskyblue58]

In terms of the JR, does that mean SISU have seven days to respond I.e. In response to substantive JR dismissed at an oral hearing.

my reading of it is they have to appeal by Friday. The judge has already told them they have to appeal to the Court of Appeal when closed his session on Friday

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

That is how a board of directors works though. Its a joint decision and you can be out voted. But how else were they going to fund the 10m operating loss before player sales in that year that the board of directors including Ranson had sanctioned?

I know that is how a board of directors work OSB58. It is the implication of Chiefdave that it was Ranson and Ranson alone that sold the players.

 

[SkyBlue79]

my reading of it is they have to appeal by Friday. The judge has already told them they have to appeal to the Court of Appeal when closed his session on Friday

That's what I thought too.

 

[Grendel]

I know that is how a board of directors work OSB58. It is the implication of Chiefdave that it was Ranson and Ranson alone that sold the players.

Ranson at the time said that fox and Dann wanted to leave and had to leave. Danns wages increased five fold so he couldn't be persuaded to stay. Still we have Chris Hussey and Richard Wood who would be at least as good if not better.

That's what he said at the time.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Ranson at the time said that fox and Dann wanted to leave and had to leave. Danns wages increased five fold so he couldn't be persuaded to stay. Still we have Chris Hussey and Richard Wood who would be at least as good if not better.

That's what he said at the time.

Dare I ask....LINK!

 

[Joy Division]

Dare I ask....LINK!

Ray Ranson: We''ll turn it round

 

[Captain Dart]

According to the Observer, SISU will "consider an appeal"

Less Read has come back from his hols then..

 

[wingy]

Less Read has come back from his hols then..

Just says correspondent.
Of course if LR is on his hols it shouldn't preclude him from putting out a statement /sorry, article given modern communication.

 

[Captain Dart]

Just says correspondent.
Of course if LR is on his hols it shouldn't preclude him from putting out a statement /sorry, article given modern communication.

Still scratching his head on suitable spin I guess, notice the article was largely devoted to the SISU case & only mentioned judgement & costs towards the end.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Hard to disagree with CD

Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too much and failed to spend wisely? Operating losses in 2011 were £7m

Well started buying cheaper in transfer dews, but wages were most certainly not proportionate

Not sure what people are arguing about either to be honest. I was just pointing out that it wasn't something a journalist made up which is what was being suggested it was a quote from an official of the club about the takeover. Whether you choose to believe it or not is a different matter although there does seem to be clarification from Ransom that includes more than just a transfer kitty given who we're dealing with still doesn't necessarily make it correct.

It isn't a quote.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Ray Ranson: We''ll turn it round

Ray Ranson 'resigned as Coventry City chairman in 2009' over player sales

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Ray Ranson: We''ll turn it round

Ever thought what he said was with "A knife between his shoulder blades?"

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

I'm not making excuses for Ranson, but there's always two sides to a story...Doing a Nick, just for balance

 

[skybluetony176]

Anyway back on track

These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal

https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf

So is the gist of that 7 days from the decision?

 

[skybluetony176]

It isn't a quote.

Quite right. My mistake. Strange that it's in pretty much every news article covering the takeover though from the CET to the BBC.

 

[dongonzalos]

I take it Les is on holiday.
Is Tim Fisher also on holiday I didn't see any photos of him at court?

 

[Sub]

Coventry City’s owners Sisu may appeal after another court defeat


COVENTRY City’s ‘owner’ Sisu is set to appeal against a judge’s decision to refuse a High Court judicial review into the council’s Ricoh Arena sale to Wasps.

It would see the off-field courtroom battles rumbling on in a multi-party dispute which has already lasted five years.

London-based hedge fund Sisu claimed at the High Court in Birmingham on Friday that the council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity’s circa £19million stadium company sale in 2014 unlawfully shortchanged the taxpayer under ‘state aid’ laws by around £30million, with an uncompetitive deal.

The court heard Sisu’s suggestions Wasps, already around £40million in debt, should pay the shortfall to the council.

Sisu was also seeking compensation for being denied the opportunity to also bid for the stadium, built for the Sky Blues and propped up for years by the football club’s £1.4million rent.

The ‘state aid’ claim was made on the basis that the stadium company, Arena Coventry Limited, was sold to then London Wasps Holdings Limited on a massively extended lease from 41 to 250 years.

ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.

But the judge, Justice Singh, rejected that claim as well as refusing a full judicial review.

Lawyers for the Sisu group of companies told the court it was likely Sisu would at the very least consider lodging an appeal.

A separate judicial review into an earlier Coventry City Council £14.4million taxpayer bailout of the Ricoh Arena was heard in 2014 – after a judge had initially refused to allow the hearing to take place.

Sisu had been successful in overturning that judgment, only to lose the subsequent judicial review, an appeal, and further attempts at appeal.

Sisu was on Friday ordered to pay £75,000 costs to the council and £20,000 ACL/Wasps. Coventry City Football Club insists its budget is not affected by the legal action.

Labour council leader George Duggins and Conservative group opposition leader Gary Ridley said in a joint statement: “We hope that this will be the last stage of the litigation, and that Sisu will not seek permission to appeal, which would only lead to further unnecessary legal costs for all parties involved.”

 

[oucho]

Ok so let's say Friday is the day by which they need to appeal...when would that appeal request be granted/declined.

By this I do not mean 'when would the appeal be heard' but 'when would we know if it will allowed to be heard'?

Answers on a postcard

 

[Moff]

When I heard SISU were appealing it reminded me of this

The Time the K Foundation Burned a Million British Pounds for No Apparent Reason

Perhaps Joy is a fan of the KLF?

 

[shy_tall_knight]

ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.

Told you that its not the accounting purchase price that you need to consider (£5.5m) but the real purchase price £19m that was the true cost of the transaction, even SISU are using that valuation

 

[skybluetony176]

When I heard SISU were appealing it reminded me of this

The Time the K Foundation Burned a Million British Pounds for No Apparent Reason

Perhaps Joy is a fan of the KLF?

She's unjustified, she's ancient and she comes from moo moo land.

 

[skybluetony176]

ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.

Told you that its not the accounting purchase price that you need to consider (£5.5m) but the real purchase price £19m that was the true cost of the transaction, even SISU are using that valuation

Funny how the article doesn't allude to the KMPG valuation that was mentioned in court of £750K - £1M that was done just before the transaction. Even the judge pointed out that CCC got the higher end of the valuation. No mention of that either.

 

[Grendel]

ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.

Told you that its not the accounting purchase price that you need to consider (£5.5m) but the real purchase price £19m that was the true cost of the transaction, even SISU are using that valuation

No the shareholder valuation is £5.5. million. The loan is irrelevant in terms of valuation it is a charge to the business.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Coventry City’s owners Sisu may appeal after another court defeat


COVENTRY City’s ‘owner’ Sisu is set to appeal against a judge’s decision to refuse a High Court judicial review into the council’s Ricoh Arena sale to Wasps.

It would see the off-field courtroom battles rumbling on in a multi-party dispute which has already lasted five years.

London-based hedge fund Sisu claimed at the High Court in Birmingham on Friday that the council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity’s circa £19million stadium company sale in 2014 unlawfully shortchanged the taxpayer under ‘state aid’ laws by around £30million, with an uncompetitive deal.

The court heard Sisu’s suggestions Wasps, already around £40million in debt, should pay the shortfall to the council.

Sisu was also seeking compensation for being denied the opportunity to also bid for the stadium, built for the Sky Blues and propped up for years by the football club’s £1.4million rent.

The ‘state aid’ claim was made on the basis that the stadium company, Arena Coventry Limited, was sold to then London Wasps Holdings Limited on a massively extended lease from 41 to 250 years.

ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.

But the judge, Justice Singh, rejected that claim as well as refusing a full judicial review.

Lawyers for the Sisu group of companies told the court it was likely Sisu would at the very least consider lodging an appeal.

A separate judicial review into an earlier Coventry City Council £14.4million taxpayer bailout of the Ricoh Arena was heard in 2014 – after a judge had initially refused to allow the hearing to take place.

Sisu had been successful in overturning that judgment, only to lose the subsequent judicial review, an appeal, and further attempts at appeal.

Sisu was on Friday ordered to pay £75,000 costs to the council and £20,000 ACL/Wasps. Coventry City Football Club insists its budget is not affected by the legal action.

Labour council leader George Duggins and Conservative group opposition leader Gary Ridley said in a joint statement: “We hope that this will be the last stage of the litigation, and that Sisu will not seek permission to appeal, which would only lead to further unnecessary legal costs for all parties involved.”

The article isn't written by Reid it seems, it is attributable to "Correspondent" but uses similar language used by Reid previously.

Just to be pedantic
- ACL has never been valued at £50m, the lease value was valued under Wasps ownership of ACL after Wasps had moved in at 48.5m and that formed part of a net value to ACL per their 2015 accounts of £19m. That however was not the value in October 2014 because Wasps were not there to bring in the incomes etc. There was no long term anchor tenant

- The lease and its extension are actually owned in the first place by ACL 2006 Limited. The extension was sold to ACL 2006 because that company held the original lease. It is an important point in understanding for instance why a public bidding process for the lease extension was worthless and why if Wasps Holdings goes bust the lease itself remains in an entirely separate company. The only company that could have a lease extension was ACL 2006

- ACL itself has under leases to ACL 2006

- It has never been confirmed but I would expect Wasps Rugby to be paying or at least being charged a rent. That has important implications for the value of the ACL lease & Extension. That would not be includable in a 2014 valuation of worth to CCC or AEHC.

- Yes ACL is owned by Wasps Holdings but legally speaking it is ACL & ACL 2006 that own the lease and its extension. Company law makes ACL a separate legal entity despite it being owned by Wasps holdings - its called the veil of incorporation

- The lease is security for the Bonds. Not all group companies provide security for the bond, for example IEC Experience doesn't and that is owned by ACL (76%)

- Prior to the sale Wasps Group had long term loans of 10.75m and ACL 14.1m = 24.85m plus other exterior loans to wasps of 3m = 27.85m

- the bond issue was £35m. That enabled replacement of the ACL 14.1m, in addition 3.4m was used to pay the first 3 interest instalments, and £7.5m was spent on fixed assets, 3m used to pay off other finance commitments. - Yes they created a bond but it didn't increase overall debt by £35m. the increase in debt was around 16m the increase in fixed assets at the same time after the first revaluation was 35.1m

- Yes the structured debt is 35m with a further 9m owed to the owner (total £44m) but against that are substantial assets (with the new lease valuation fixed assets alone could well be over £75m). So there is some security to the "indebted Wasps" debt

- Wasps paid £5.54m for ACL. The CCC loan existed at the same amount before & after that sale. The share price of ACL reflected the inclusion of the loan. Claims of having paid £20m seem complete nonsense to me.

- Didn't Seppala get quoted as saying she wouldn't interfere with the CCC share sale, so how does she claim she was denied the opportunity after 7 years owning CCFC

I assume the purpose of the tone of the article is a heads up that they will appeal because they feel hard done by. Got to be done this week I believe

 

[chiefdave]

I wonder, although perhaps giving SISU too much credit, if the idea here is not to win the case particularly but to shine a light on the current valuation of the lease. If KMPG valued it at £600K - 1m that contrasts sharply to the value Wasps currently place on it. If that current value gets queried given that it is security for the bonds could that not be an issue?

At that time, the council had internal advice and external advice from KPMG which provided a valuation of the relevant interest.

The valuation analysis stated that because there was a £21m pre-payment in 2006, the freehold was estimated between £0.6m to £1m.

The council received £1m at the top end of the estimate given by KPMG.

What did KMPG actually value? It reads to me like they've valued the freehold with the existing lease in place. That would be worth little as with the lease in place for the next 40 years how do you generate any income? The councils own funding document for the Ricoh build acknowledges that stating that the value of the freehold will rise as the lease draws to a close.

 

[Sub]

Oldskyblue58 do you think they have a chance of getting a appeal through and if they do you think they can win or have any grounds to entitle them to compensation ?