Court Conclusion (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter SonOfSnoz
- Start date
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Certainly been a waste of my employers time and money.
Done fuck all else but look at SBT at work.
Done fuck all else but look at SBT at work.
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
The next JR hearing will be heading the same way .. a big Waste Of Time.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Who do you work for?
I most certainly will not send them a screenshot ............
Astute
Well-Known Member
mrbluesky87
New Member
A big waste of time in my opinion and so will the JR however at least with the JR it would appear there will be a winner and a loser.
I dont understand what we as fans stand to gain either way with the JR. So the CCC/ACL win (which I hope will be the case), where does that leave CCFC??? Would SISU sell up, I doubt it, thus leaving us where we are right now if not worse.
God forbid SISU come out as victors, apart from a very smug Fisher where will that leave us??? ACL/CCC will still not sell the Ricoh to them regardless thus leaving us where we are right now.
My point is we are losing site of whats important, getting CCFC back playing football in Coventry preferably at the Ricoh yet we appear more interested in the JR on the hope it will solve all our problems, it wont.
Surely the trust and other parties should still be trying to get both sides talking so that a deal can be struck to play at the Ricoh next season, that has to be priority.
I dont understand what we as fans stand to gain either way with the JR. So the CCC/ACL win (which I hope will be the case), where does that leave CCFC??? Would SISU sell up, I doubt it, thus leaving us where we are right now if not worse.
God forbid SISU come out as victors, apart from a very smug Fisher where will that leave us??? ACL/CCC will still not sell the Ricoh to them regardless thus leaving us where we are right now.
My point is we are losing site of whats important, getting CCFC back playing football in Coventry preferably at the Ricoh yet we appear more interested in the JR on the hope it will solve all our problems, it wont.
Surely the trust and other parties should still be trying to get both sides talking so that a deal can be struck to play at the Ricoh next season, that has to be priority.
Didn't read it all ,only the judgement . Clearly no winner in this case ,only the lawyers.Fair play for SISU's QC offering to pay own costs. It may be taken as a bit of an olive branch ?
My opinion, is to lock the lot of them in a room and not let them out until they can agree a deal.
Then CCFC fans (Won't say supporters because 90% of us don't support anymore)could have something to smile about .
Think this is more of a "fishing" exercise for the JR.
I see the old "two turkeys don't an eagle make " comment made it in on page 148 :claping hands:
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
No smoking guns !
No game changers !
Expecting same for the JR
No game changers !
Expecting same for the JR
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Puts your new owner theory up the spout. The council leaders show themselves to be up there with a second hand car dealer in the morality stakes. New owners would always be looking over their shoulder and as soon as mr Coventry lumbers in with another suitor they'd know the writing was on the wall.
Rob S
Well-Known Member
If people are reading the docs and not seeing some very important new info and points to consider they're either missing them (understandable given the legalese) or trying to brush them under the carpet.
I've caught up on yesterday's transcript and I'm going to do some more research and digging off the back of it to make sure I'm dealing with some real facts rather than some vague suspicion, but I think there are some really important things to consider and I think even Simon might have missed a key issue in his reports (but considering the deadline pressures he has to work under and the amount if info to process, also understandable).
I'll try and get and update and any docs up later on.
I've caught up on yesterday's transcript and I'm going to do some more research and digging off the back of it to make sure I'm dealing with some real facts rather than some vague suspicion, but I think there are some really important things to consider and I think even Simon might have missed a key issue in his reports (but considering the deadline pressures he has to work under and the amount if info to process, also understandable).
I'll try and get and update and any docs up later on.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
On the sisu transcript it says that sisu wanted a separate management company to take over the running of all events. It claims all parties signed a document agreeing this? Is that right?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Thank God your exclamation mark key is working again!!!!
Thought they were just doing HOT with AEG as part of their Plan.
Also this one conflicts with SISU's paperwork yesterday ,where It's implicit that immediately after the March roadmap meeting Both Higgs and ACL indicated they would'nt sign up to the rent strike.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I hope your not taking the piss out of my punctuation tourettes ?
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
I think the jist of all this is that CCFC sold their share to Higgs because they needed the money.
When they came to buy it back they offered less when going into negotiations.
After negotiations started they offered even less.
Question. Why did Higgs buy the share off CCFC.
A1. If it was to help CCFC out then there is surely some morals in business and CCFC/SISU should buy it back at the original value or at least the lower value agreed. This is particularly poignant if CCFC had agreed to buy it back in the future at the price they paid.
A2. If it was because Higgs thought they were onto a fast buck then it should be sold at the market value. However there is no doubt that dropped when CCFC broke the lease!!
It all boils down to what was agreed when Higgs bought the share.
When they came to buy it back they offered less when going into negotiations.
After negotiations started they offered even less.
Question. Why did Higgs buy the share off CCFC.
A1. If it was to help CCFC out then there is surely some morals in business and CCFC/SISU should buy it back at the original value or at least the lower value agreed. This is particularly poignant if CCFC had agreed to buy it back in the future at the price they paid.
A2. If it was because Higgs thought they were onto a fast buck then it should be sold at the market value. However there is no doubt that dropped when CCFC broke the lease!!
It all boils down to what was agreed when Higgs bought the share.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I've always been under the impression it was done as a short term thing to help out CCFC. I also thought the formula cost for Higgs share was nearer £10m but if we're talking about a moral argument and Higgs were helping out the club then I think you're correct you would expect them to not be left out of pocket when selling the share back.
One thing I find curious is that PwC advises Higgs that their shares are pretty worthless and they should take whatever cash they could get upfront.
That advise was based on their valuation of ACL being worthless and in serious trouble if the bank debt was not discharged.
The HoT with CCC and the ITS with Higgs was clearly anchored on sisu buying out the YB loan and discharge it.
At that point it was not an option for CCC or Higgs to do it as the original Joint Venture Agreement disallowed any loan to ACL from the shareholders. That was changed in August(?) 2012 to pave the way for CCC to buyout and replace the YB loan.
Why did CCC leave the original agreement where sisu would have bought the loan and discharge it when this transaction would clearly have increased the value of the CCC shares????
This is one issue we will hear much more about in the JR.
Not only was the CCC loan unnecessary as all parties agreed that sisu should buy it, but the loan itself became much higher as they failed to agree the price suggested by a 'distressed debt expert' - sisu. Add to that the roundabout way they had to go to get the Joint Venture Agreement changed.
The end result is that ACL now sits with a loan of £14m where they could have been debt free. The shares of CCC are worth considerably less due to this liability and Higgs still haven't been able to offload their shares - they have also lost a lot of value.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The change to the JVA wasn't enacted until 14th or 15th January 2013 mate, I think it was discussed at a Trustees meeting on 14th Jan.
Alright - I stand corrected.
But it doesn't change the fact that it was necessary to make the change for CCC to loan the money to ACL.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
We don't know how much ACL still have to pay off on the loan it could as you say be £14m or 14p we don't know.
All comes back to that Package Godiva.
The offer from SISU to CCC to jointly discharge YB reduced SISU's input there and ,giving the option to settle Higgs at required Value EDIT: They were going to give It to a bank.Or the original where CCC pay Higgs the Other £3.5M.
Finally again,even for total settlement from SISU @ £12M. represents a mere 1% of that over the 100 yr lease.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It's a forty year loan at 4% per annul so we can hazard a pretty good guess. To suggest they have paid any capital above the standard term is without foundation.
It was just that, wasn't it - an offer. The prime offer was for sisu to buy it alone and discharge it. On top of that pay Higgs £5.5m for their shares (yes, £4m in instalments over 10 years). In return for an increase of the ACL lease to 125 years and a much reduced rent.
Why is that such a bad deal?
Who could offer a better deal?
It was £14M.ish, the fact they had payed the loan down at double rate does'nt seem to have been taken into account with any leeway In ACL's Value or from the YB enabled enabled a
Of Course paying It down at twice that necessary was apoor decision from the /clubs point as a fairer level could have been offered from the beginning.
You don't seem to want to see It ,Higgs were getting ripped when there was no need ,either SISU or CCC In either scenario could have settled Higgs for a fraction of their current exposures .
No I don't see it. Please bear with me I am an old man and it's Friday.
How were Higgs getting ripped?
I genuinely want to know.
We don't know if they were getting ripped because we don't know what the true valuation is/was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I may be wrong, but I think Wingy want Higgs to be paid what they initially invested - maybe plus interests. Regardless of factual/actual valuation of the shares worth.
Remind me how they came by 50% of ACL,then remind me who benefited by It,and then who devalued it.
Alright, you argue that if it wasn't because of Higgs the club would have been eradicated. Or something like that.
Fine, I get that.
But please remember that sisu wasn't here when the Ricoh was planned and build. It wasn't sisu who sold to Higgs.
So why take that out on them?
After sisu came in the club kept paying £1.2m per year in rent. Had the club not existed and paid that money, then ACL wouldn't have existed either. They would have gone under.
So in a sense sisu saved not only the club, but also ACL.
And yes! I actually, really believe that.
ACL and ccfc are taking each other down. They should merge. My mantra over the past three years - they should merge.
Only that way can I see a future for the club.
I read in the case files that ACL pondered at taking over the club themselves. For a second I thought 'too bad they didn't'.
But then I realized that ACL is partly run by politicians and I came back to my senses.
Back to your point - yes, Higgs did save the club pre-sisu, but you really can't blame sisu for only offering to give them £2m over the shares value in a separate cash deal?
Neither should Higgs have been There ,like SISU ,but they were .
I can when i see my team playing where they are ,the destruction ,Division of the fanbase ,destabalised and headed for god only knows what destiny ,yeah that all critical £3.5M over a 100 yr lease whats that come out at ,£35K. a yr ....£3K. per Month or £1500 per match ...Or £750 Per wk
Or for the full £5.5M. ....£55K. per yr ... £4.6K per M...£2.3K per match ....£1150 per wk. All of these figures would diminish with time and Inflation.
So something else at play here ,my guess short termism ,failing that absolute Insanity.