Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yes Godiva but Chris west is no longer employed by the council. In principle though yep
Did sisu save ACL? (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter Godiva
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
Where is he now?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking I may have made it up. Sure he isn't still in post though
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
linkedin has him as Director of Finance and Legal Services at Coventry City Council
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
linkedin has him as Director of Finance and Legal Services at Coventry City Council
So did CCC website last week when I looked him up when his name cropped up in court, ..
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Surely Joy will have to attend and be questioned at the JR ?
Hobo
Well-Known Member
Chris West is still on the council. To my knowledge he has always been a CCFC fan. ACL is a small part of his professional remit.
I know Grendel has tried to make out "this is really HOT stuff" re his emails, but the day before he was claiming the case a non event....either way so much for Grendel's judgement.
I know Grendel has tried to make out "this is really HOT stuff" re his emails, but the day before he was claiming the case a non event....either way so much for Grendel's judgement.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
If Joy does turn up to give evidence will she be in a darkened corner, have her voice distorted to protect her identity, like on crime watch ?
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Don't worry about Grendel, he's off out this week on a jolly spending some of his £100k a year dough on them ladyboys in Stratford!
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sorry he us still director of financial and legal services for ccc he is no longer a director of acl. Left in 2013 after 6 years
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware there are any ladyboys in Stratford?
As for taking my visitors out then obviously that will be on my expense account.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You're an MP and I claim my five pounds.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I imagine that'll be like the Super Bowl for you and OSB.
Nick
Administrator
Hobo
Well-Known Member
On "your" expense account or "somebody else's" ?
Nah, I am not an accountant.
But I wonder if the auditors will hold their annual convention there. Most will be there anyway.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I'm thinking of you, your 'friends' and that 'scene' in Hangover Part 2.......But not too much!
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Weber Shandwicks
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Been busy at work and over weekend LS so have not been posting the last few days. :wave: Weekend involved helping run the Supporters team (my lad plays for them). They played MK Dons Supporters team and we deservedly (once we got going) won 4 :1.
Just thoughts musings and conjecture follows.......
Did SISU help save the Ricoh, I can see a certain logic to that thinking certainly. In 2008 ACL was far more dependent on CCFC for income to pay the loans than they are now. Could it have put the stadium at risk had no deal been done yes I would have thought so. But it was also an opportunity to bring everything together that was missed. Other than perhaps self interest of the previous regime I really can not see why CCFC didn't go into administration late 2007 and "investors" pick up both the team and stadium out of that.
The dispute has certainly sharpened up the ACL act commercially. But that's a two edge sword as it highlights what could/should have been achieved by ACL previously but better still by ACL and CCFC working together.
Have sat back and read the comments here and elsewhere regarding the Higgs vs SISU court case. I have read the SISU skeletal argument for the SISU defence together with the trial transcripts. It is clear that mistakes were made on all sides in this whole saga, but without trawling through all the points on this thread and others I would comment as follows.
The skeletal argument is just that a skeleton within which facts are fitted. Far too many, and some who should know better, take the details in that document to be THE facts, they are not. What that document is SISU's case in support of their defence & claim based on selected facts that placed within the skeleton to the defences best advantage and embroidered with commentary paints a particular picture. It is not the full story nor is it really intended to be. Put the facts alone in a timeline and it might become clearer to understand. Where it supported their counter claim then the Judge has ruled there was no actual basis to make the claim and struck the claim out without examining it.
"the smoking gun" Well to be honest I do not see one. Yes there is the West emails/reports but in the business world what businessman enters negotiations without an alternative plan (or two?). What I think would be wrong is if it is proven (and it has not been) is that West did not inform SISU at a reasonable point in time of there being alternatives to SISU involvement in settling the loan - but that is a matter of ethics rather than law. In much the same way that it was right and proper that the Directors/owners of CCFC should have informed the club landlords that CCFC Ltd had changed its known nature to that of a non trading property subsidiary sometime in 2011 or 2012 (that actually became evident in March 2013 however) The actions of the Council appear to put the plans of SISU at risk, the actions of SISU in reorganising the Club structures appear to put the Landlord's finances at risk. Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Are the contents of the skeletal argument open to question. Well yes that is the purpose of putting a case to court isn't it? For example was the reason for the club losses by 2007 largely due to the rent agreement? we only moved in to the stadium in 2006 and had been repaid all but £300k for the monies spent by the club on the project (including rolled up interest). Did SISU invest 9m in the club during 2012, the published accounts do not disclose that they did. Is ARVO a subsidiary of SISU Capital? again published SISU Capital accounts indicate it is not. Was the investment by 2012 by SISU £50m as stated? Are SISU the owners or are they the agents for investors? Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of lying or anything underhand, the document paints a picture favourable to SISU nothing more..... it is not, as I said before, all the facts
The Judge made it very clear that he saw no wrong in the actions of the Trustees and Charity. He made it clear that in his Judgement the Trustees had acted in "Good faith" in their dealings with SISU. Certain parts of their evidence contradicted the SISU argument. What the Judge has ruled, and this was confirmed by L Deering, the deal to acquire the Charity was long dead by probably the end of August because both sides did not want to proceed with it. There was a conversation apparently later around a £2m figure but no ITS or HOT's in support of it - so that can not be relied upon for the basis of a deal or even an offer. So if there was no deal with the Charity how could there be a deal with the Council that was on going? The Charity indicated that they were not involved in any formal discussions about their shares from August onwards. Sale of the Charity shares goes to the very heart of a deal to be done between CCC and SISU doesn't it?
Given that the Judge clearly accepted that the share deal was dead by end of August (he said so) that then raises the question of whether there was a conspiracy between Council & Charity against SISU. The Judge is clear that the Trustees had acted in good faith in their dealings with SISU, they confirmed they had not been involved in later discussions and the Judge clearly accepted this as truth.... then could there be? There was only the Council left. It is hard to conspire with yourself surely?. The Judge makes clear it was ACL (the borrower) and CCC (the new lender) that approached the Yorkshire Bank how does that constitute conspiracy between Council & Charity? The Judge also makes clear that the allegations against the Trustees as to their conduct made by SISU were unfounded and ill judged.
Does that mean that clears the actions of the Council, no we can not say that because we have not got the evidence from both sides. The report by West was to others and is there evidence all of it was enacted? Yes the CCC loan came about but the PR campaign? Seems to me SISU are good at doing others PR for them but that's just an opinion. Could there be Council wrong doing yes but as yet that has not been proven in court so there must also be the notion that CCC have got it right too.
It is clear from the transcript that the Charity drew clear lines of responsibility for themselves, made it clear what they were party to or not...... and this was accepted as the case by the Judge. It is also clear there were considerable differences between Council and charity about the way forward and approach.
The JR. Well did we learn much in the Higgs case that affects the JR? Not really. There were apparently sensational revelations that some have focussed attention on but the reality is there is no smoking gun I can see. If there were surely they would have used it before now? Throwing lots of carefully chosen documents at it with emotive words like perverse conspiracy does not make it true. The Judge will make a decision on the facts alone. The JR first and foremost will test the procedures or process for state aid that were adopted by the council it wont be about arguing figures or auditors slugging it out. Just an aside but PwC and Deloittes are not auditors to any of the parties. The state aid part of it will be interesting but I doubt it will be decided on the internet summary knowledge available to us, as with the Charity judgement it will come down to the fine print.
So overall I was left fairly under whelmed by what we actually learnt from the Higgs case. There was nothing game changing as such, a few surprising unanswered questions yes.
One thing that may well have changed is would the Charity now be interested in selling its shares to SISU? In deed do they still want to sell at all?
I suspect there will be a lot of documents flying around between now and the JR. Lot of comment and affirmation that "this is the truth" personally I am going to try to keep an open mind and wait for the judgement to be issued after a detailed examination in court of all the facts. I think it is important to keep asking questions, to be sure of the validity or purpose of what is seen.
From the fans point of view nothing has changed- the club still appears in trouble, we are told little that is factual and our team still plays a long way out of Coventry
Just thoughts musings and conjecture follows.......
Did SISU help save the Ricoh, I can see a certain logic to that thinking certainly. In 2008 ACL was far more dependent on CCFC for income to pay the loans than they are now. Could it have put the stadium at risk had no deal been done yes I would have thought so. But it was also an opportunity to bring everything together that was missed. Other than perhaps self interest of the previous regime I really can not see why CCFC didn't go into administration late 2007 and "investors" pick up both the team and stadium out of that.
The dispute has certainly sharpened up the ACL act commercially. But that's a two edge sword as it highlights what could/should have been achieved by ACL previously but better still by ACL and CCFC working together.
Have sat back and read the comments here and elsewhere regarding the Higgs vs SISU court case. I have read the SISU skeletal argument for the SISU defence together with the trial transcripts. It is clear that mistakes were made on all sides in this whole saga, but without trawling through all the points on this thread and others I would comment as follows.
The skeletal argument is just that a skeleton within which facts are fitted. Far too many, and some who should know better, take the details in that document to be THE facts, they are not. What that document is SISU's case in support of their defence & claim based on selected facts that placed within the skeleton to the defences best advantage and embroidered with commentary paints a particular picture. It is not the full story nor is it really intended to be. Put the facts alone in a timeline and it might become clearer to understand. Where it supported their counter claim then the Judge has ruled there was no actual basis to make the claim and struck the claim out without examining it.
"the smoking gun" Well to be honest I do not see one. Yes there is the West emails/reports but in the business world what businessman enters negotiations without an alternative plan (or two?). What I think would be wrong is if it is proven (and it has not been) is that West did not inform SISU at a reasonable point in time of there being alternatives to SISU involvement in settling the loan - but that is a matter of ethics rather than law. In much the same way that it was right and proper that the Directors/owners of CCFC should have informed the club landlords that CCFC Ltd had changed its known nature to that of a non trading property subsidiary sometime in 2011 or 2012 (that actually became evident in March 2013 however) The actions of the Council appear to put the plans of SISU at risk, the actions of SISU in reorganising the Club structures appear to put the Landlord's finances at risk. Pot and kettle comes to mind.
Are the contents of the skeletal argument open to question. Well yes that is the purpose of putting a case to court isn't it? For example was the reason for the club losses by 2007 largely due to the rent agreement? we only moved in to the stadium in 2006 and had been repaid all but £300k for the monies spent by the club on the project (including rolled up interest). Did SISU invest 9m in the club during 2012, the published accounts do not disclose that they did. Is ARVO a subsidiary of SISU Capital? again published SISU Capital accounts indicate it is not. Was the investment by 2012 by SISU £50m as stated? Are SISU the owners or are they the agents for investors? Just to be clear I am not accusing anyone of lying or anything underhand, the document paints a picture favourable to SISU nothing more..... it is not, as I said before, all the facts
The Judge made it very clear that he saw no wrong in the actions of the Trustees and Charity. He made it clear that in his Judgement the Trustees had acted in "Good faith" in their dealings with SISU. Certain parts of their evidence contradicted the SISU argument. What the Judge has ruled, and this was confirmed by L Deering, the deal to acquire the Charity was long dead by probably the end of August because both sides did not want to proceed with it. There was a conversation apparently later around a £2m figure but no ITS or HOT's in support of it - so that can not be relied upon for the basis of a deal or even an offer. So if there was no deal with the Charity how could there be a deal with the Council that was on going? The Charity indicated that they were not involved in any formal discussions about their shares from August onwards. Sale of the Charity shares goes to the very heart of a deal to be done between CCC and SISU doesn't it?
Given that the Judge clearly accepted that the share deal was dead by end of August (he said so) that then raises the question of whether there was a conspiracy between Council & Charity against SISU. The Judge is clear that the Trustees had acted in good faith in their dealings with SISU, they confirmed they had not been involved in later discussions and the Judge clearly accepted this as truth.... then could there be? There was only the Council left. It is hard to conspire with yourself surely?. The Judge makes clear it was ACL (the borrower) and CCC (the new lender) that approached the Yorkshire Bank how does that constitute conspiracy between Council & Charity? The Judge also makes clear that the allegations against the Trustees as to their conduct made by SISU were unfounded and ill judged.
Does that mean that clears the actions of the Council, no we can not say that because we have not got the evidence from both sides. The report by West was to others and is there evidence all of it was enacted? Yes the CCC loan came about but the PR campaign? Seems to me SISU are good at doing others PR for them but that's just an opinion. Could there be Council wrong doing yes but as yet that has not been proven in court so there must also be the notion that CCC have got it right too.
It is clear from the transcript that the Charity drew clear lines of responsibility for themselves, made it clear what they were party to or not...... and this was accepted as the case by the Judge. It is also clear there were considerable differences between Council and charity about the way forward and approach.
The JR. Well did we learn much in the Higgs case that affects the JR? Not really. There were apparently sensational revelations that some have focussed attention on but the reality is there is no smoking gun I can see. If there were surely they would have used it before now? Throwing lots of carefully chosen documents at it with emotive words like perverse conspiracy does not make it true. The Judge will make a decision on the facts alone. The JR first and foremost will test the procedures or process for state aid that were adopted by the council it wont be about arguing figures or auditors slugging it out. Just an aside but PwC and Deloittes are not auditors to any of the parties. The state aid part of it will be interesting but I doubt it will be decided on the internet summary knowledge available to us, as with the Charity judgement it will come down to the fine print.
So overall I was left fairly under whelmed by what we actually learnt from the Higgs case. There was nothing game changing as such, a few surprising unanswered questions yes.
One thing that may well have changed is would the Charity now be interested in selling its shares to SISU? In deed do they still want to sell at all?
I suspect there will be a lot of documents flying around between now and the JR. Lot of comment and affirmation that "this is the truth" personally I am going to try to keep an open mind and wait for the judgement to be issued after a detailed examination in court of all the facts. I think it is important to keep asking questions, to be sure of the validity or purpose of what is seen.
From the fans point of view nothing has changed- the club still appears in trouble, we are told little that is factual and our team still plays a long way out of Coventry
Last edited:
I have taken two points from your post:
1) I am happy that you largely agree with the premise of the thread.
But I guess the point of the OP was quickly buried and the thread became one more Higgs vs Sisu case thread.
2) I actually made a couple of remarks in the threads supported by Rob and Simons posts/tweets during the court days - that it seemed like Higgs were somehow distancing themselves from the CCC. They were clearly not in total agreement over everything that happened and it makes me wonder if there was division with the charity also?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
I think what the Charity did was to tell it truthfully as it was. Not putting distance as a decision to do so but letting facts speak for themselves.
In supporting your premise we are also ignoring the role other investors may have played had the team and stadium become available together though are we not? It would be far more attractive proposition than a financially lame football club. So you could argue the choice SISU hampered things for both because there is no real evidence to support the theory that they had the necessary funds available to really make it a success.
I guess we will never know but your premise is a valid one none the less
In supporting your premise we are also ignoring the role other investors may have played had the team and stadium become available together though are we not? It would be far more attractive proposition than a financially lame football club. So you could argue the choice SISU hampered things for both because there is no real evidence to support the theory that they had the necessary funds available to really make it a success.
I guess we will never know but your premise is a valid one none the less
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I wondered if that might be in part planned with the council too. Just like Sisu were distancing themselves from CCFC (you'd assume by consent of CCFC) IMO in prep for the JR. In both cases it provides a ready made "it wos the other guy wot did it" defence.
I think the really telling thing to be honest is that anti-CCC people are still anti-CCC and anti-Sisu types are still anti-Sisu, so I'm not sure either side can claim much of substance TBH.
I think what the Charity did was to tell it truthfully as it was. Not putting distance as a decision to do so but letting facts speak for themselves.
In supporting your premise we are also ignoring the role other investors may have played had the team and stadium become available together though are we not? It would be far more attractive proposition than a financially lame football club. So you could argue the choice SISU hampered things for both because there is no real evidence to support the theory that they had the necessary funds available to really make it a success.
I guess we will never know but your premise is a valid one none the less
Out of interest - are you going to the Auditors annual convention? I believe it will be held during the JR as it is convenient for PwC, Deloitte and BDO.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Out of interest - are you going to the Auditors annual convention? I believe it will be held during the JR as it is convenient for PwC, Deloitte and BDO.
can't think of anything more boring :laugh::laugh: so no
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Something that I haven't seen highlighted is the bank loan settlement figures
Mr Fisher and others have often said, I believe, that they could have settled the loan for around £5m...... that CCC had paid too much
The court documents disclosed the following
28/09/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £6m to settle loan rejected
17/12/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £12m to settle loan rejected
20/12/12 Final offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £14m (accepted on 21/12/12)
Doesn't look like Yorkshire Bank were of a mind to accept a massively discounted figure does it?
Mr Fisher and others have often said, I believe, that they could have settled the loan for around £5m...... that CCC had paid too much
The court documents disclosed the following
28/09/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £6m to settle loan rejected
17/12/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £12m to settle loan rejected
20/12/12 Final offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £14m (accepted on 21/12/12)
Doesn't look like Yorkshire Bank were of a mind to accept a massively discounted figure does it?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
You've obviously never heard of stocktaking, which is tedious and boring and happens more than once a year.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Is that not because CCC were never really settling a distressed loan but merely refinancing?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Do you still have to count manually? Is it not all based on EPOS now?
Was It ever possible once David Alvey left ACL and joined YB?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The essential facts didn't really change though did they? The loan was already in distress we are told because of the ACL finances and CCFC withholding rent. Only difference being who was providing the pay off...... you could argue that SISU being involved would have promised more liquidity than the Charity and therefore kept the settlement high. If SISU had 50% then CCC still had the other 50% and a bank might seek to rely on the stability of a council so either way settlement would be high. It wasn't buying the loan off in an administration situation. So last question does this actually point to Yorkshire Bank not believing that things were as bad as portrayed?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Yes we still have to count manually even though the till and stock management software are obviously electronic. We have to freeze stock levels when we start and then once we've accounted for everything (including random category re-checks) you unfreeze the stock. Then you let the till reconcile the sales done during the take with the stock on the system. Invariably there is a discrepancy at this point where the stock on at least one item shows as -1 and you do another manual check for those items - fun!
I raised it at some point - I tried to link it to David Allvey leaving ACL after the roadmap had been discussed (May 2012) and him joining YB (I think that was October 2012).
I think his involvement is somehow important, but not something we have discussed and it wasn't part of the court case either.
If ACL were under pressure due to the rent-strike, then they could have lined up for a voluntary administration. That would likely persuade YB to accept a large discount?