Didn't see your post - otherwise I would have included yours.
Another angle ... surely DA will have signed an NDA, so if it could be proven that he was telling YB he could be found liable?
Did sisu save ACL? (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Godiva
- Start date
Didn't see your post - otherwise I would have included yours.
Another angle ... surely DA will have signed an NDA, so if it could be proven that he was telling YB he could be found liable?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Wasn't it Daniel Gidney that moved from ACL to YB?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Nope, he went to Lancashire County Cricket Club.
Did ACL ever actually recruit a replacement CEO?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it that hearts bloke
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
As for David Allvey, he had more than one non exec directorship so him moving on might be just coincidence.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No, Pressley's the manager
Jackie whats her name took over the role .
The scottish fella from Hearts now In role.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
We were told it was in distress but then other things that came out in court suggest it wasn't really or certainly wasn't to the same extent.
Depends If he went with a package I guess ,as opposed to just walking?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
TBF FP was It anymore exposed than at the GET GO,they had been paying down the loan at double rate ?
Isaacs,Ingram??
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
nothing to suggest they did........... you might have expected that to come out in the documents disclosed so far though
I didn't mean to suggest they did. I was saying that they could have - if they really wanted to drive a hard bargain.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
So who was telling us? You might expect the bank to have a reasonable idea particularly as they had appointed accountants to look at it and had details of day to day transactions via the bank account. So if the picture put out didn't stick with the Bank would they discount the settlement massively?
ACL always maintained that they had a good viable business. There was mention in the court docs of painting pictures but that is something that would have been investigated by accountants working for the bank before any deal done
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Not sure, it doesn't suggest so
I assume it somehow links to the valuation of ACL - where PwC advised Higgs to accept a deal way above their valuation.
So you have the cash flow situation (increasingly under pressure) in combination with a low valuation.
I don't really know the mechanics of such negotiations, but maybe sisu (experts in distressed debts) could have done a better deal?
duffer
Well-Known Member
Boy, it took a long time to wade through all of that court stuff. I think what I took out of it (in a nutshell) was this:
In March 2012 SISU threatened to pull out of CCFC (twice) if they didn't get their hands on the Ricoh and access to revenue streams. This at the start of negotiations.
The 'roadmap' proposed by Fisher that month suggested amongst other things that:
1) SISU bought Higgs shares.
2) SISU bought out the bank debt (for a substantial discount).
3) That the club could take a 'rent holiday'.
4) That it would all be wrapped up by 30 Jun 2012.
SISU claimed that everyone agreed to the plan, but in fact within a matter of days after the meeting it was clear that ACL weren't prepared to accept the roadmap as was.
Despite this, SISU approached YB on it's own without any of the other parties' agreement.
The original offer to Higgs for the share talked about £1.5m up front, and £4m payable over ten years. The charity asked for clarity over how the £4m would be secured, but they never received anything that gave them confidence that they'd receive the funds.
ACL and AEHC asked for proof of funding, and a business plan for the club. It seems that neither was ever provided.
By August, the plan had already unravelled (this is the Judge's opinion, btw).
In terms of facts, I think they're the most relevant ones. From this point on, I'm offering my opinion!
Even within this Mar - Aug period, imho, it's SISU's behaviour that causes most of the problems. They start the negotiation with threats, they go behind everyone's back to talk to the bank (which indirectly threatens ACL's business), and they don't provide sufficient information on either the security for Higgs, or their funding/plan for everyone else. It's little wonder, to me, that the other parties get very nervous.
It becomes obvious fairly quickly, I think, that SISU aren't really conducting negotiations in a particularly open way, and I think by August the Council and ACL are already starting to plan for what will happen if either SISU bail out of CCFC, or if they simply continue to refuse to pay the rent.
In fairness, I think the plan that the Council concoct to take over the mortgage and protect ACL doesn't necessarily close SISU out - and indeed in one of the emails Chris West (I think) points out that a better deal on the debt means ACL has scope to do a better deal on the rent, which undoubtedly benefits the club. There's also still scope to do a deal for the Higgs shares if that goes through, although given the lack of assurances from SISU (as above), I think most parties are starting to see that see that as dead in the water.
I think it would have been more honest for the Council and ACL to do the deal for the mortgage upfront, rather than behind SISU's back, but then in fairness they're not doing anything different to what SISU tried right at the start of the process. Given that SISU weren't paying the rent, and didn't seem likely to be able to secure the Higgs shares (and couldn't come up with a business plan) then by that point I think ACL and CCC were entitled to start considering alternatives and protecting themselves from what SISU had been threatening from the start.
One last point, despite all of the talk about ACL's value it's clear to see that the bank were never likely to let the loan go for the kind of amount that SISU wanted to pay for it. The council made three offers to YB before the final one for £14m was accepted (and this was at the absolute low point with the club heading into Administration).
In truth, I think the 'roadmap' was doomed to failure from the start - it doesn't seem likely that SISU were either likely to pay for the Higgs shares at the value the Trustees wanted, or the bank loan at the value that the YB wanted.
It could be that everyone could have done better, but from what I've read the vast majority of the blame still lies with SISU and the way that they try to handle 'negotiations'. Just my opinion of course, others will differ!
In March 2012 SISU threatened to pull out of CCFC (twice) if they didn't get their hands on the Ricoh and access to revenue streams. This at the start of negotiations.
The 'roadmap' proposed by Fisher that month suggested amongst other things that:
1) SISU bought Higgs shares.
2) SISU bought out the bank debt (for a substantial discount).
3) That the club could take a 'rent holiday'.
4) That it would all be wrapped up by 30 Jun 2012.
SISU claimed that everyone agreed to the plan, but in fact within a matter of days after the meeting it was clear that ACL weren't prepared to accept the roadmap as was.
Despite this, SISU approached YB on it's own without any of the other parties' agreement.
The original offer to Higgs for the share talked about £1.5m up front, and £4m payable over ten years. The charity asked for clarity over how the £4m would be secured, but they never received anything that gave them confidence that they'd receive the funds.
ACL and AEHC asked for proof of funding, and a business plan for the club. It seems that neither was ever provided.
By August, the plan had already unravelled (this is the Judge's opinion, btw).
In terms of facts, I think they're the most relevant ones. From this point on, I'm offering my opinion!
Even within this Mar - Aug period, imho, it's SISU's behaviour that causes most of the problems. They start the negotiation with threats, they go behind everyone's back to talk to the bank (which indirectly threatens ACL's business), and they don't provide sufficient information on either the security for Higgs, or their funding/plan for everyone else. It's little wonder, to me, that the other parties get very nervous.
It becomes obvious fairly quickly, I think, that SISU aren't really conducting negotiations in a particularly open way, and I think by August the Council and ACL are already starting to plan for what will happen if either SISU bail out of CCFC, or if they simply continue to refuse to pay the rent.
In fairness, I think the plan that the Council concoct to take over the mortgage and protect ACL doesn't necessarily close SISU out - and indeed in one of the emails Chris West (I think) points out that a better deal on the debt means ACL has scope to do a better deal on the rent, which undoubtedly benefits the club. There's also still scope to do a deal for the Higgs shares if that goes through, although given the lack of assurances from SISU (as above), I think most parties are starting to see that see that as dead in the water.
I think it would have been more honest for the Council and ACL to do the deal for the mortgage upfront, rather than behind SISU's back, but then in fairness they're not doing anything different to what SISU tried right at the start of the process. Given that SISU weren't paying the rent, and didn't seem likely to be able to secure the Higgs shares (and couldn't come up with a business plan) then by that point I think ACL and CCC were entitled to start considering alternatives and protecting themselves from what SISU had been threatening from the start.
One last point, despite all of the talk about ACL's value it's clear to see that the bank were never likely to let the loan go for the kind of amount that SISU wanted to pay for it. The council made three offers to YB before the final one for £14m was accepted (and this was at the absolute low point with the club heading into Administration).
In truth, I think the 'roadmap' was doomed to failure from the start - it doesn't seem likely that SISU were either likely to pay for the Higgs shares at the value the Trustees wanted, or the bank loan at the value that the YB wanted.
It could be that everyone could have done better, but from what I've read the vast majority of the blame still lies with SISU and the way that they try to handle 'negotiations'. Just my opinion of course, others will differ!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It was suggested in the PR campaign after the deal was made for the council to buy out the loan that the rent strike was an attempt to cripple ACL. Why all the talk of 'securing an asset' if that isn't what it was about?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Can't have it every way Fernando
Fisher said acl was not a reel business and in real trouble
Also the reduction in mortgage payments enables a lower rent to be offered to CCfc
Fisher said acl was not a reel business and in real trouble
Also the reduction in mortgage payments enables a lower rent to be offered to CCfc
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Excellent post. Almost word for word my feelings on the matter.
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
A Les Reid article, LOL quel surprise.
May 19, Here is another one about CCC dissatisfaction with SISU in the period they were talking to AEHC http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/show-money-sisu-says-john-3025138
Jun 9, And this one showing the deal was falling apart http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/exclusive-offer-coventry-city-owners-3023213
Jun 29, And stalemate http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/no-more-talks-planned-sisu-3024168
Jul 9, then CCC yield a bit on rent, but SISU have no acceptable plans http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...cil-prepared-principle-lower-coventry-3021822
Jul 10, And here negotiations have broken down totally http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/time-running-out-coventry-city-3021862
During this period Mutton was given the heave ho as leader of labour group.
Last edited by a moderator:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
All those were written by Les Reid so must be bollocks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I stopped reading here.
The Roadmap
As you describe, except your point 4). That was never within the roadmap. I think you are confused by the 6 week exclusivity agreement within the ITS.
The roadmap was changed several times and finally agreed by all parties so far as the basic principles for the ITS and HoT.
The ITS (Indicative Term Sheet) between sisu and higgs was signed June 19th 2012. Outlining the conditions of the sale of Higgs shares.
The HoT (Head of Terms) between sisu and CCC was signed Aug 2nd 2012. Basically CCC agree to let sisu buy the loan and Higgs shares.
Where did you read that sisu went alone to YB? - I can't find it.
In fact I can only find references that says it was CCC who went to YB. And that they did their best to make sure sisu did not find out!
If you could please point to where the transcripts reveal that sisu went to YB on their own I would be most grateful.
Great, then you can perhaps show me where it says that sisu went to YB on their own?
It's kind of important as going jointly to YB was crucial to the plans for all involved.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Definitely in there chap, but I'm on my phone and just about to turn in. It'll be in day one or two's transcript iirc, possibly in the PWKH. evidence. It's also referenced by JS, where in a meeting she mentions something along the lines of not needing permission to approach YB.
CCC may have signed HoT but by that point SISU had come up with neither adequate security for AEHC nor a business plan/proof of funding for the other parties. HoT, as we've seen indicates a willingness by both parties to do something according to certain conditions, it's a bit early to say why the one between CCC and SISU failed but looking at the above I'd guess it might be the failure to satisfy Higgs and the lack of a credible business plan. We'll soon see.
mds
Well-Known Member
I have no in depth knowledge, can only comment on what ive read on here and one or two other places but...
If SISU went to YB alone without informing anyone else with regards to the loan surely their plan is to put pressure on ACL/Higgs in the long run, hard play, at around the same time the guy from YB goes to ACL (or vice versa beer memory right now) and the council go in for the loan and get it, a self defence mechanism, makes me think insider trading as it where, he has the info and can help the council against the big bad wolf, for the right price, which it seems they paid a very good price!
If SISU went to YB alone without informing anyone else with regards to the loan surely their plan is to put pressure on ACL/Higgs in the long run, hard play, at around the same time the guy from YB goes to ACL (or vice versa beer memory right now) and the council go in for the loan and get it, a self defence mechanism, makes me think insider trading as it where, he has the info and can help the council against the big bad wolf, for the right price, which it seems they paid a very good price!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Reading over that again, it seems more and more likely that what made the council bail was lack of any proof of willingness from Sisy to invest in either the Ricoh or CCFC. The last thing they'd want would be it sold off quickly, you want a long term partner for that kind of role.
I don't think Joy understands local government or their aims and I doubt a hedge fund would be able to make the kind of commitments needed.
I don't think Joy understands local government or their aims and I doubt a hedge fund would be able to make the kind of commitments needed.
The Prefect
Active Member
I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that the original offer for the mortgage would have been accepted by the YB. Anyone can make low offers that don't come close to valuation - they're rejected very quickly. I'm sure that if SISU made an offer YB would go back to ACL / CCC to get a better deal - makes perfect sense. I may have missed something but I'm not sure SISU had any level of exclusivity on the YB mortgage. I don't like CCC's tactics in this but it could be argued that they were as entitled as SISU to talk to the YB. The first to the deal gets it. If SISU missed an opportunity to do a deal with the YB then that's tough. The question for me is exclusivity - if they had it then it could be a different story.
Having read SISU's skeleton case for their court case with Higgs Charity there does seem to be justification for the Judicial Review. I don't see it changes anything though except the funding of ACL. If SISU were still in the Ricoh and fighting for the right to buy then things could be different. As they have gone I'm not sure it matters.
This whole saga shows that offers and Heads of Terms don't make a sale.
duffer
Well-Known Member
First off the stuff about SISU approaching YB on their own. It's in the day one transcript:
p23 (AEHC QC's opening argument).
(11) What was, however, abundantly clear is that ACL shareholders, let alone its board of directors, had not at this point sanctioned a direct approach by SISU to Yorkshire Bank. Very shortly after this meeting, ACL got wind of the fact that SISU had sought to initiate a meeting with Yorkshire Bank itself, having, it is believed, misrepresented their authority to do so. This led to a sharp exchange by e-mail, which is to be found in the third bundle at tab 10. I say "sharp exchange". Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen pulled no punches. He rehearsed what he'd understood to be the position and he characterises this as disgraceful behaviour.
Later on at p25, during same opening, AEHC QC quotes letter from CCC to SISU...
"As I understand it, an employee of a firm of chartered surveyors representing SISU made contact with Yorkshire Bank to try and set up a meeting between the bank, ACL, and potentially also the city council and the Higgs charity without our consent..."
I think it's pretty clear that SISU went it alone here, and without agreement.
I take your point on the 30th June thing, it could well be that they were just talking about having the Higgs deal done by then - it's still not entirely clear to me after reading it through another couple of times.
There was a draft communication plan from TF (iirc) mentioned at p17 which called for the announcement of the purchase of Charity shares by 19 Mar. This would have been within ten days of that draft plan! Completion again by 30 June.
SISU were clearly in hurry-up mode by this point, but seemingly completely disregarding the wishes of the other parties and not providing sufficient detail to either give the charity security or anyone else comfort on funding or the overall business plan. As I've said, to my mind it's no surprise that the other parties were getting nervous. This doesn't look like a 'negotiation' imho, one party seems to be trying to bulldoze their way through all of the others objections or concerns.
As for all parties agreeing to the roadmap - can you point me to where that happens in the trial documents? It could be I've missed it, but everywhere that seems to be assumed by SISU, it seems to be contradicted by the other side a few days later.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I did say "almost word for word"
EDIT: Just realized I read through the JR application, not the Higgs Court case. Doh!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This. 100 times this.
As I've just read the JR application by mistake, I'll use that as an example. Sisu talk about how they have improved CCFCs league position, invested millions helping the local economy, and that therefore there is no reason whatsoever for CCC to think the deal was a "risk"
Sisu QC said:
Their entire case is basically "No-one would not trust Sisu, look at all the great work we do".