I found this detailed by theferret - I know it is not acceptable to believe what Fisher has said but it seems more realistic now that the Council agreed that SISU should distress ACL knowing all along they were talking to WASPS. I don't know what to think.
Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:
"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."
"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."
"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.
"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."
"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."
