covkid69
Well-Known Member
here ya go...that's what its all about
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...control-of-coventry-city-fc-92746-33265837/2/
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...control-of-coventry-city-fc-92746-33265837/2/
court papers explained (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter covkid69
- Start date
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Of course it's only SISUs side of the story, but seems to paint ACL and the council in quite a bad light. This thing isn't anything close to resolved and I think if the council have reneged on a commercially viable deal because "we hate Sisu" it will be interesting to see the fallout.
cloughie
Well-Known Member
would be amazed if sisu were to paint the council in any other way than bad
But as a previous judge has said Ms seppela's recollection of events are often are a long way off the actual facts ( paraphrased)
Sub
Well-Known Member
i seem to remember a judge saying before on a previous case that the owner of SISU seem to have a selective memory and was good at twisting the truth or something along those lines.
Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a "spin" (I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants' case. She is also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by her) that Mr Wallace had "continually" represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace "in a small room" and Mr Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005). She is, I am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor. But she had many other business matters on her mind and when it came to producing her witness statement and giving her oral evidence, her recollection was not, I think, as accurate as she would like to make out.
Ms Seppala was the least satisfactory of all the witnesses. In making my general comments above, I said that no-one was deliberately lying. But I fear Ms Seppala has a distorted recollection of some events – particularly about what happened at the meetings in New York in January 2005 – and, with the benefit of hindsight, has introduced a "spin" (I am sorry not to be able to find a better word) which suits the Applicants' case. She is also prone to exaggerate – the Respondents would characterise it as lying, but I give her the benefit of the doubt on that – for instance her suggestion (eventually withdrawn by her) that Mr Wallace had "continually" represented to the Applicants that the RCF Banks had a strong direct claim against TXU Corp when in fact he never said that at all. She also recollects (and she may well have believed what she was saying) events which did not, as I conclude, take place (namely a conversation with Mr Wallace "in a small room" and Mr Olin reading and explaining a position paper in New York on 11 January 2005). She is, I am quite sure, an astute and effective business woman. I totally reject her description of herself as naïve. I am quite sure that she was closely involved in developments as the representative of SISU as a Committee Creditor. But she had many other business matters on her mind and when it came to producing her witness statement and giving her oral evidence, her recollection was not, I think, as accurate as she would like to make out.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Coventry City Council is accused of acting unlawfully in seeking to “wrest control” of Coventry City Football Club, claim documents submitted to the High Court.
Papers served by Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd – signed by its hedge fund owner and Sisu boss Joy Seppala – also allege council executives were last year involved in talks over a joint plan to buy out the Ricoh company’s Yorkshire Bank mortgage for less than the £14million the council eventually paid for it.
That £14m taxpayer deal to alleviate financial pressure on Arena Coventry Limited was approved in January by councillors behind closed doors – after months of the club/Sisu refusing to pay £100,000-a-month rent to ACL for using the stadium, claiming it was too high.
Sisu is now seeking a judicial review over the council’s decision, claiming the high price paid for the mortgage debt and the subsequent £14m loan to ACL contravened “state aid” laws, creating unfair competition.
The public High Court papers state the council’s “clear object... was to wrest control of the club, in which the claimants have made substantial commercial investments over a period of years, from the claimants, with a view to appointing a new owner of its own choosing.
“The claimants submit that it is no part of the function of a local authority to interfere with the ownership and commercial operation of a local football club and that this misconceived project has led the defendant to act unlawfully, and/or for an improper purpose.”
In March, ACL, whose directors include council executives Martin Reeves and Chris West, sought to put the club into administration through a High Court order.
ACL directors and lawyer James Powell stated they favoured new owners for the club and a half-share in the stadium company.
The High Court documents are under the name of Holdings, Sisu-related hedge fund Arvo Master Fund (which is a preferred creditor owed £8.5m of the club’s £60m liabilities), and Sisu subsidiary company Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd.
They document claims this company and Sisu have invested £40m in the club.
The Coventry City Council deal followed the collapse of months of on/off talks between parties including Sky Blues bosses, Ms Seppala, and ACL directors, including Mr Reeves, Mr West, and Peter Knatchbull-Hugerssen, clerk to the Alan Edward Higgs Charity which jointly owns ACL with the council.
The High Court “statement of facts” contains lengthy claims about last year’s talks over rent; plans for Sisu to acquire Higgs’ half-share in ACL; and an alleged joint plan for Sisu to buy out the Yorkshire Bank mortgage as distressed debt.
In return, the prospective deal would have seen the Sky Blues agree to an extended 125-year lease for playing at the Ricoh.
Events management company AEG would also be brought in to stage more concerts and activities.
Council leaders have said they bought out ACL’s mortgage – to be paid back by ACL at lower interest payments over 40 years – to protect the Ricoh as a “public asset” and taxpayer investment.
Read more: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...oventry-city-fc-92746-33265837/#ixzz2S1lSUfeU
Papers served by Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd – signed by its hedge fund owner and Sisu boss Joy Seppala – also allege council executives were last year involved in talks over a joint plan to buy out the Ricoh company’s Yorkshire Bank mortgage for less than the £14million the council eventually paid for it.
That £14m taxpayer deal to alleviate financial pressure on Arena Coventry Limited was approved in January by councillors behind closed doors – after months of the club/Sisu refusing to pay £100,000-a-month rent to ACL for using the stadium, claiming it was too high.
Sisu is now seeking a judicial review over the council’s decision, claiming the high price paid for the mortgage debt and the subsequent £14m loan to ACL contravened “state aid” laws, creating unfair competition.
The public High Court papers state the council’s “clear object... was to wrest control of the club, in which the claimants have made substantial commercial investments over a period of years, from the claimants, with a view to appointing a new owner of its own choosing.
“The claimants submit that it is no part of the function of a local authority to interfere with the ownership and commercial operation of a local football club and that this misconceived project has led the defendant to act unlawfully, and/or for an improper purpose.”
In March, ACL, whose directors include council executives Martin Reeves and Chris West, sought to put the club into administration through a High Court order.
ACL directors and lawyer James Powell stated they favoured new owners for the club and a half-share in the stadium company.
The High Court documents are under the name of Holdings, Sisu-related hedge fund Arvo Master Fund (which is a preferred creditor owed £8.5m of the club’s £60m liabilities), and Sisu subsidiary company Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd.
They document claims this company and Sisu have invested £40m in the club.
The Coventry City Council deal followed the collapse of months of on/off talks between parties including Sky Blues bosses, Ms Seppala, and ACL directors, including Mr Reeves, Mr West, and Peter Knatchbull-Hugerssen, clerk to the Alan Edward Higgs Charity which jointly owns ACL with the council.
The High Court “statement of facts” contains lengthy claims about last year’s talks over rent; plans for Sisu to acquire Higgs’ half-share in ACL; and an alleged joint plan for Sisu to buy out the Yorkshire Bank mortgage as distressed debt.
In return, the prospective deal would have seen the Sky Blues agree to an extended 125-year lease for playing at the Ricoh.
Events management company AEG would also be brought in to stage more concerts and activities.
Council leaders have said they bought out ACL’s mortgage – to be paid back by ACL at lower interest payments over 40 years – to protect the Ricoh as a “public asset” and taxpayer investment.
Read more: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...oventry-city-fc-92746-33265837/#ixzz2S1lSUfeU
Sub
Well-Known Member
didnt chris coleman say we had the most left footed players he has ever seen in one club ? :thinking about::thinking about:
lewys33
Well-Known Member
very interesting actually as it raises a lot of questions ..... is this just more SISU lies? Or were they ACTUALLY working together and the plan all along was to show that ACL is distressed so that the mortgage could be bought on the cheap (hence why no rent was being paid etc.)? Was this actually the plan of the council all along to lure SISU into the plan and then throw them out??
At the end of the day, the reality of it is that we as poor fans are piggy in the middle while some bigger fish who dont give a flying ..... about the club but more about money decide our fate. This is going to be a very long winded process
At the end of the day, the reality of it is that we as poor fans are piggy in the middle while some bigger fish who dont give a flying ..... about the club but more about money decide our fate. This is going to be a very long winded process
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Also, ACL "favoured new owners" and were prepared to put us into Administration to achieve that. Regardless of how we feel about the owners of the Club, a Council, a fucking Council shouldn't have the power to do that. That's why we need to ditch ACL as soon as we can. They will interfere with the next owners and so on and so forth.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Football? Is that what you are on about??? Since when did football have anything to do with this?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
only a few things to say ......
1) this is SISU's version of events to petition for the judicial review, it is the truth as they see it or want to portray it..... it will contain facts and there will be truths in it...... it doesnt mean it is accepted, all true or correct. There is as yet no actual case
2) I assume more than JS have signed the documents, otherwise she has proven herself to be a shadow director of CCFC H and SBS&L unless brought as a shareholder action (it is unclear)
3) There was a plan apparently to distress ACL after August but CCFC stopped paying rent in April
4) It looks like there may have been an understanding between Council and SISU, it may even have been a heads of terms, that is not a binding contract. Heads of terms are they the same thing SISU had with the Charity and walked away from?
5) you would expect the council etc to meet anyone interested in the club
6) cant claim that the council put undue financial pressure on CCFC (they did that themselves) - the rent was in place long before SISU got here so surely wasnt part of the plan
7) stating they favour new owners doesnt prove or disprove a plan to wrest control
8) surely it is in SISU's hands as to whether they sell the club or not because despite huge losses they are still here
9) so if ARVO and SISU have invested £40m why are we talking about £60m debt for CCFCLtd?
10) what deal with the council collapsed..... thought it was a deal between ACL and CCFC
There is I know much more information attached to the claim but to be honest I feel just a bit underwhelmed by these revelations. Somehow I was expecting something more concrete, something more than verbal agreements to work together, that in time proved impossible to do for many reasons on both sides
1) this is SISU's version of events to petition for the judicial review, it is the truth as they see it or want to portray it..... it will contain facts and there will be truths in it...... it doesnt mean it is accepted, all true or correct. There is as yet no actual case
2) I assume more than JS have signed the documents, otherwise she has proven herself to be a shadow director of CCFC H and SBS&L unless brought as a shareholder action (it is unclear)
3) There was a plan apparently to distress ACL after August but CCFC stopped paying rent in April
4) It looks like there may have been an understanding between Council and SISU, it may even have been a heads of terms, that is not a binding contract. Heads of terms are they the same thing SISU had with the Charity and walked away from?
5) you would expect the council etc to meet anyone interested in the club
6) cant claim that the council put undue financial pressure on CCFC (they did that themselves) - the rent was in place long before SISU got here so surely wasnt part of the plan
7) stating they favour new owners doesnt prove or disprove a plan to wrest control
8) surely it is in SISU's hands as to whether they sell the club or not because despite huge losses they are still here
9) so if ARVO and SISU have invested £40m why are we talking about £60m debt for CCFCLtd?
10) what deal with the council collapsed..... thought it was a deal between ACL and CCFC
There is I know much more information attached to the claim but to be honest I feel just a bit underwhelmed by these revelations. Somehow I was expecting something more concrete, something more than verbal agreements to work together, that in time proved impossible to do for many reasons on both sides
Last edited:
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
So will more of us take a more neutral stance in all of this at a. The mere suggestion or b. if it is shown to be true?
Many have stayed fairly neutral anyway, but maybe - just maybe SISU were not telling such big porkies, & maybe they have been led into a situation by an untrusting "partner in crime" only to find themselves stitched up because their partner wants to play ball with someone else who maybe doesn't have the same hard-bargaining reputation?
Many have stayed fairly neutral anyway, but maybe - just maybe SISU were not telling such big porkies, & maybe they have been led into a situation by an untrusting "partner in crime" only to find themselves stitched up because their partner wants to play ball with someone else who maybe doesn't have the same hard-bargaining reputation?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Not sure why people say that ACL and CCC are totally independent of each other. It's obvious they are not.
as many of us have said all along.. our problems aren't just about how badly SISU have run things in the past.. ACL & in particular the Council, have had a massive hand in detrimental dealings.. both sides have made massive mistakes and it needs to stop.
Blaming ACL as much in this whole saga doesnt make a SISU supporter .. it makes a realist!
Blaming ACL as much in this whole saga doesnt make a SISU supporter .. it makes a realist!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
didnt say they were independent but which "talks collapsed" are they referring to ? if it was the rent ones it was legally between ACL and CCFC Ltd
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
it suggests both parties agree that the viable way forward for the club was for the 2 to be linked properly so the club benefits from the Ricoh income. No surprise there then its what every one thinks should happen
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Written proof that Septic and SISU were looking to "Distress" ACL with non payment of rent.
One more point, How can CCC, let a business which it has a major stake in be "Raped and pillaged" by the most underhand and disgusting dealings, of what in retrospect are are a very poor excuse for "Business people":facepalm:
I'm surprised the telegraph has published this. What is sisu's documentary evidence to prove ANY of these allegations? Where is the proof the mortgage was available at a reduced rate? Where was it quoted by Yorkshire Bank that they were prepared to sell the mortgage at a knocked down rate?
This is all he said she said. There is NOTHING from what the telegraph has said that can be proven. It is all at best circumstantial!
I suspect this will be laughed out at court. There was a verbal agreement to sort out the mess, it was widely publicised at the time, yet sisu then turned around and said not!
It's no coincidence that ltd was formed JUST BEFORE they stopped paying rent. Indeed sisu came out and publicly stated that this was common business practice and should be no cause for concern. Well this was let's be generous economical with the truth.
IT just goes to show the depths that sisu are going. It's laughable that because SISU have said, then some people have taken it at face value - Have they even bothered to listen to ANYTHING sisu have said or watched what they have done over the years.
The pro-sisu camp are making out this is proof of nasty acl and the council - but there is NOTHING in this you wouldn't expect from someone who is doing a hatchet job! You have t wonder if the pro-sisu camp truly care about the club at all, or just want to have a dig at the council.
Never forget, if the council make money, the profits go to the council (i.e taxpayers of coventry). If sisu make profits it goes to Joy. Had sisu even bothered to make a token investment over the years defending them might be acceptable, but after this disgraceful garbage, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.
backing sisu is NOT backing the club - WHEN will you realise this?
This is all he said she said. There is NOTHING from what the telegraph has said that can be proven. It is all at best circumstantial!
I suspect this will be laughed out at court. There was a verbal agreement to sort out the mess, it was widely publicised at the time, yet sisu then turned around and said not!
It's no coincidence that ltd was formed JUST BEFORE they stopped paying rent. Indeed sisu came out and publicly stated that this was common business practice and should be no cause for concern. Well this was let's be generous economical with the truth.
IT just goes to show the depths that sisu are going. It's laughable that because SISU have said, then some people have taken it at face value - Have they even bothered to listen to ANYTHING sisu have said or watched what they have done over the years.
The pro-sisu camp are making out this is proof of nasty acl and the council - but there is NOTHING in this you wouldn't expect from someone who is doing a hatchet job! You have t wonder if the pro-sisu camp truly care about the club at all, or just want to have a dig at the council.
Never forget, if the council make money, the profits go to the council (i.e taxpayers of coventry). If sisu make profits it goes to Joy. Had sisu even bothered to make a token investment over the years defending them might be acceptable, but after this disgraceful garbage, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.
backing sisu is NOT backing the club - WHEN will you realise this?
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Let's suppose that SISU's claims are all true.
Effectively SISU are saying "we colluded with a bank creditor to default on a loan in order to buy the loan back cheaply from the bank". First, if true, and if this had actually happened, then surely the bank would have had legal recourse to the courts. I am not a lawyer but I would be surprised if a collusive deal between ACL and SISU to default on the bank loan would have been legal.
How on earth SISU expect this to stand up in court, goodness only knows. "We made a (possibly illegal) verbal agreement with ACL that they later reneged on" - I don't think that is going to look good in court.
Further, even if that was the plan and it was in fact legal, why on earth would the bank merrily sell the loan to SISU at a discounted rate. Surely the bank would have put ACL into administration and then gone after SISU for non-payment of rent. In other words, the collusive agreement was flawed in conception even if it was not actually illegal as it presumed extreme stupidity on behalf of the bank.
All of the above is giving SISU the benefit of the doubt that its claims are true. Possibly the claims are true. Nevertheless, I don't think that that is going to be enough to get a judicial review.
Effectively SISU are saying "we colluded with a bank creditor to default on a loan in order to buy the loan back cheaply from the bank". First, if true, and if this had actually happened, then surely the bank would have had legal recourse to the courts. I am not a lawyer but I would be surprised if a collusive deal between ACL and SISU to default on the bank loan would have been legal.
How on earth SISU expect this to stand up in court, goodness only knows. "We made a (possibly illegal) verbal agreement with ACL that they later reneged on" - I don't think that is going to look good in court.
Further, even if that was the plan and it was in fact legal, why on earth would the bank merrily sell the loan to SISU at a discounted rate. Surely the bank would have put ACL into administration and then gone after SISU for non-payment of rent. In other words, the collusive agreement was flawed in conception even if it was not actually illegal as it presumed extreme stupidity on behalf of the bank.
All of the above is giving SISU the benefit of the doubt that its claims are true. Possibly the claims are true. Nevertheless, I don't think that that is going to be enough to get a judicial review.
Last edited:
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Not really the scoop we were expecting but that's the CET for you more hot air than answers !!!!
Let the courts decide and whatever will be will be.
Personally i don't think this will make court and be thrown out at the first hurdle !!
Let the courts decide and whatever will be will be.
Personally i don't think this will make court and be thrown out at the first hurdle !!
You didn't read the word 'joint' in the lines you highlighted ... did you?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sure, if ACL had submitted documents slating the owners you'd be salivating.
It should be remembered that this is not a court action, this is a request for a judicial review. A judge has been asked to rule if there might be a case that in making the decision to take on the ACL mortgage, the council has exceeded its powers.
What the Telegraph report is a rather pathetic, one-sided whinge that I doubt will cause any sleepless nights amongst members of the council.
What the Telegraph report is a rather pathetic, one-sided whinge that I doubt will cause any sleepless nights amongst members of the council.
D
Ddccfc
Guest
Unlike the published rants of PWKH or the ACL propaganda issued by London PR firm Webber Shandwick?
All sides have put forward their own views at various stages and all have been reported.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
We'll find out if the request for a review is accepted or not, won't we.
Last edited by a moderator: