dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Remember that stuff by SISU about Mr Mutton begging Anne Lucas to do a deal.
Nothing in those emails that justifies that IMO.
Nothing in those emails that justifies that IMO.
Higgs v SISU Court Document (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bennets Afro
- Start date
SkyBlueUkeman
New Member
Can't really argue with him on this one. We may have been shit but there was money owed.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Forget it if you have any work to do. Have just finished now with about a 2 hour sleep in the middle. And 3 bottles of wine to keep me going.
Where do I start?
To me Higgs innocent of just about all charges. Stuck in the middle of a battle between CCC and SISU. All of this will be unclear until the JR.
So SISU were to buy out the loan for 8m. Not sure if there was an agreement to this. CCC tried to but it out for less than they did but more than 8m. They got turned down. Why did talks end up getting nowhere? SISU wanted to pay Higgs over 10 years. Higgs wanted the money in one go. SISU offered 2m. Not a penny more on offer. So of course Higgs were not happy. There was more correspondence between the 3. But nothing was done. Looks like SISU knew that ACL then had plans to do something else.
Higgs didn't get their 29k for a few reasons. Previous cases.....one was where there was an appeal that was looked into. But maybe the main part was that it was seen that talks had not broken down 100%......or it was seen as so.......before the loan was refinanced. It was agreed that talks were at deadlock at this time though.
So who was at fault for all this? Not enough evidence yet as nothing from CCC until the JR. But it seems that things broke down because SISU wanted the Higgs share for 2m. The deal seems to be that SISU would have paid off YB and paid off Higgs. This would have made ACL debt free. Seems like ACL would have been owned by CCC/SISU. Will have to wait for the JR to be sure though. There is a chance it would have been just SISU. In exchange for this they would have got a 125 year lease. Which would have more or less meant ownership as the stadiums lifespan is less than 125 years. But the freehold would have stayed with CCC, although would have become worthless.
So why did this break down? The deal seems to have only going to happen if all could be agreed. Only offering 2m to Higgs was a massive stumbling block. I just hope that all this didn't happen for the sake of 3.5m as we lost more than that just last season. All trust was lost. Was this because of SISU changing terms like for the Higgs share? Was there more that we will find out in the JR?
Did SISU only have 10m to acquire the Ricoh? 8m to YB and 2m to Higgs. I haven't got a clue as not much of an idea of the finances at our club. Would there be a different outcome if they all knew what would be happening now? By this I mean our club being stuck in Northampton and SISU with the losses they would be sustaining whilst being there. I would like to think they would have offered the 5.5m that Higgs had agreed with them. That is if they had access to the funds.
Both sides should have tried more talks instead of going quiet on each other. But this isn't enough to blame either side yet. Hopefully now everything is getting out in the open there will be a deal to be done after the JR.
I did have a favourite part on all that very dull reading.
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Right. So your view would have been similar to Mr Fisher's, even if you wouldn't have put it in terms of turkeys and eagles, or not? Did you have a different view?
A. No, I mean -- yes, the company -- as I say, ACL was not great, no.
So in a nutshell the most guilty party is..........will let you know who I think after the JR. What a waste of a night.
Bennets Afro
Well-Known Member
I think talks broke down because Mr Coventry rocked up and was in the councils ear convincing them they can get rid of Sisu and bring new owners in
TurkeyTrot
New Member
What e mails are them then? Care to share?
It was Higgs who asked sisu for a deal outside the overall plan. They had been offered $5.5m and had accepted that amount within the overall plan.
Sisu offered £2m for a deal outside the overall plan as the risks were higher.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
He may be wide of the mark there?
By SISU action I take it you mean the rent strike. Or the rent holiday - that was jointly agreed (before started) by ACL, CCC and SISU.
You could also turn the argument on its head and say the value of ACL was based on an exorbitant rent paid by the club. Had the rent from the start been reasonable ACL would have likely failed.
Yes, it seems that YB knew exactly what CCC/ACL/SISU was trying to do. Maybe they were told by David Allvey, the ACL chairman who resigned when the plan was set in motion and who later landed a directors position at YB.
TurkeyTrot
New Member
Wide of the mark that SISU have seen the e mails that he says exist?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Have you read everything? The 5.5m offer was part of the overall plan. But SISU had more plans. Like withholding the rent. This is why they saw the Higgs part was worth less. It was worth less because of their actions so tried to get it for less.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Like I say, could be wide of the mark. I never said they exist either. If that didn't come across in my post I apologise.
As I said - the rent strike was agreed by all parties:
On 6 March 2012 a meeting took place between Mr Fisher (on behalf of
the Club), Ms Deering (on behalf of SCL), Mr West and Ms Commane
(on behalf of the Council) and Messrs Harris and Knatchbull-Hugessen
(on behalf of AEHC). A note of the meeting is at [TB/F/2]. This
meeting followed on from the meetings held in the week of 27 February
2012. A further road map was advanced, which envisaged the parties
negotiating together vis-à-vis the Bank for a “large discount” off the YB
Loan. The parties also discussed the importance of a ‘rent holiday’ for
the Club and the use of the funds in an escrow account as a means of
paying rent due to ACL from the Club. No objections were raised by the
Council or Charity to this course of action; indeed, the parties
understood the rationale for this approach.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Does have selective myopia does Astute.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
It doesn't take too long the Astute way, you don't have to try to comprehend or anything silly.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So it was agreed that the Higgs share was only going to be worth 2m then?
They were offered £5.5m!
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Woah guys, no need to hunt in a pack.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They were offered £5.5 million. I assume you will now forget the rent strike bit as it seems that was an accepted and agreed strategy by everyone.
Should change your user name to obtuse if I were you.
Astute
Well-Known Member
No. They said they would offer Higgs 5.5m as part of the plan. When it came to it they did offer Higgs 5.5m but wanted to spread the payments over 10 years. This was 1.5m cash and the rest payable over the 10 years. This wasn't seen as acceptable by Higgs. They wanted a cash payment. So the offer then was 2m cash as final settlement. 3.5m lower than was agreed as part of the plan. Which to me was a main reason why talks broke down.
Astute
Well-Known Member
It don't bother me. I am big enough to handle it
All the proof of it all is there in writing. They used the excuse of non payment of rent for the Higgs share being worthless. This went against the agreement. So is it a surprise that talks broke down?
Nick
Administrator
Obviously wasn't as it was a black and white term in the agreement that if sisu took the piss but the judge decided they didn't need to pay?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not my fault that I read it all and now understand what went on. As it goes it is my fault for reading it.
As I said I am not laying blame on CCC or SISU until the JR. But is anyone saying that SISU didn't try to get the Higgs share for 2m cash as they didn't find a 10 year payment agreement as acceptable? Is anyone trying to say that SISU didn't say that the Higgs share was valueless as they were not paying the rent? Is anyone trying to say that they hadn't agreed to pay Higgs 5.5m for their share as part of the plan?
If not what have I said that is wrong?
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
You've said this before. Did you actually post anything to show it was true?
Astute
Well-Known Member
I covered this earlier. It was down to talks having broken down but not seen as 100% finalised and finished by August 2012. Talks could have been seen as ongoing although they had more or less finished. It came down to technicalities on previous cases and one of where someone appealed a kind of similar case and won. The main reason it went to August was that it was when ACL/CCC were seen to have changed direction.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So even from what you see now in the e mail correspondence doesn't make you stop and think just for a minute? No probably not.
hill83
Well-Known Member
I think he's asking for you to show proof that you are 'in the know'. Asking him another question isn't going to do that.
Always happy to help.
They two figures of £5.5m and £2m are from two completely different situations.
The first is part of bigger plan with more elements that would increase the value of ACL and therefor justify a higher price to be paid for Higgs shares.
The second is when Higgs ask for an offer outside the plan and with no guarantee the other elements will be executed.
You are suggesting that sisu tried to screw the helpless charity.
I think that is not the case.
The helpless charity was playing an active part in constructing the plan and agreed to the roadmap - including the rent strike.
For some reason - maybe because the charity sensed the third party in the plan was having a change of heart - they wanted a quick settlement so they at least got out quick with some money in hand.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I only know what people have told me through correspondence and verbally and to be fair most of it has been pretty accurate. Let's be honest if the documents released had not shown any of the subterfuge I would be doing an MMM now and taking a break -- or a Sky Blue John and starting silly meaningless threads.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I found the emails very interesting, but would of liked to have seen them in their entirety. They do paint a different picture than I expected.
As I have said though why did SISU try to get the Higgs share for only 2m? Had they got a yes from YB that was for 8m? If so did they only have 10m for the whole deal? They offered the 5.5m but only 1.5m down. Was it down to a lack of obtainable funds at the time? So many things that could have been to try and make out why. This is why I am not laying the blame at their feet yet. Would just like to know why if they were so close to getting what they wanted they decided to fight over just 3.5m when we lose more than that in a season. Hope it wasn't just hardball tactics that cost them and our club so dearly.
As I have said though why did SISU try to get the Higgs share for only 2m? Had they got a yes from YB that was for 8m? If so did they only have 10m for the whole deal? They offered the 5.5m but only 1.5m down. Was it down to a lack of obtainable funds at the time? So many things that could have been to try and make out why. This is why I am not laying the blame at their feet yet. Would just like to know why if they were so close to getting what they wanted they decided to fight over just 3.5m when we lose more than that in a season. Hope it wasn't just hardball tactics that cost them and our club so dearly.
Nick
Administrator
I had heard rumours of evidence, didn't see anything though
Astute
Well-Known Member
Offering less isn't screwing a charity. That was my previous thought before all this came out. It is trying it on though.
The offers were whilst it was all ongoing. Higgs turned down the offers. Not like others thought it was a CCC veto. It was because of this that it all moved on and caused all this crap. We have all learned something.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
See you haven't read or understood the transcripts.
The deal at one stage was £1.5M up front and £4M in instalments (over a very long period), but there was never any agreement about how to secure the £4M (with an annuity or some such financial instrument), so it was never concluded. The charity did not wish to be vulnerable to the company paying the balance being liquidated and quite right too!
Subsequent discussion showed that the price was much lower (possibly £2M) if there was to be immediate payment in full.
It seems that all the fannying around killed the deal.