Did sisu save ACL? (32 Viewers)

[oldskyblue58]

I think the issue of SISU unilaterally approaching Yorkshire Bank without consent of ACL is dealt with on pages 28 to 31 of Day 1 Court transcripts. Seppalas reaction to it is on page 31. It is made clear that the approach strategy in March 2012 should be ACL & CCC & Charity. As it later turned out the Charity were not party to it. The approach was ACL & CCC as borrower and new lender respectively. Professional help I believe on this approach was sought from PwC but the Charity did not form part of that engagement, never signed their engagement letter or agreed to it.

Admittedly the approach was to set up a meeting but not very ethical to make approaches without agreement of the other parties is it? Who were the Chartered Surveyors who made the approach?

Basically the situation was ACL seeking new lenders to replace YB and the new lender being CCC. In the approach to YB then CCC is doing so as lender not stakeholder as I understand it. It would be usual for the company to approach its bankers not the shareholders as the contract for the loan is between ACL & YB, not YB & CCC/Charity. Unless invited to then in my opinion SISU could claim no rights to be part of the approach unless it was to be the lender (and as far as I can see there was intention yes but no agreed commitment). They could of course have tried to buy the loan from YB without involving ACL, as a private deal but were YB convinced that ACL were in dire straights financially to indicate a substantial discount?

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

So evidence of the smoking gun SISU were holding.. an attempt to go behind ACL's back to YB without authority.. and who knows maybe they disclosure some details of ACL finances to the bank they got from the due diligence exercise in order to negotiate a distressed price to buy out the loan, all of which I'm sure that must have been under a NDA.

Is it any wonder there is no trust.

 

[oldskyblue58]

So evidence of the smoking gun SISU were holding.. an attempt to go behind ACL's back to YB without authority.. and who knows maybe they disclosure some details of ACL finances to the bank they got from the due diligence exercise in order to negotiate a distressed price to buy out the loan, all of which I'm sure that must have been under a NDA.

Is it any wonder there is no trust.

Could simply have been someone getting carried away and over stepping their authority though.:thinking about:

 

[Jack Griffin]

Could simply have been someone getting carried away and over stepping their authority though.

That circumstance doesn't quite explain PWKHs' email in reaction.. and if that is how the situation arose is it any worse that what we've heard ACL/CCC accused of in the past few days. There are clearly issues on both sides, I'm trying to redress the balance that has been tipped by posters taking statements in the SISU skeleton argument as cast iron evidence of heinous CCC/ACL misbehaviour. when in fact it is a case made by one side ignoring the arguments to the contrary.

 

[lordsummerisle]

That circumstance doesn't quite explain PWKHs' email in reaction.. and if that is how the situation arose is it any worse that what we've heard ACL/CCC accused of in the past few days. There are clearly issues on both sides, I'm trying to redress the balance that has been tipped by posters taking statements in the SISU skeleton argument as evidence of heinous CCC/ACL misbehaviour. when in fact it is a case made by one side ignoring the arguments to the contrary.

I don't think anybody has used the skeleton argument as evidence, merely the minutes and emails.

However they don't count apparently for some, so no do any others.

 

[Godiva]

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.

I had difficulties finding the passages you refer to. In my copy that is on p27 (11) and p30 (5) - if anybody else is following this.

Just a few lines later - p30 (17) in my copy - he continue:

We move then to the two-month period between, broadly speaking, 19 April to the execution of the ITS agreement on 19 June.

To me that suggest the approach to YB was long before the ITS with Higgs and the HoT with CCC. So sisu's approach to YB was not a breech of any contracts or understanding between the parties.

The Chris West plan on the other hand was a clear a deliberate hostile action to cut out sisu. Even Mr Harris from the charity was clearly surprised and requested sisu be told about the new plan. Which of course didn't happen.

Can we agree on that?

The exclusivity period ended 31 july and that it seems clear to me that sisu expected the whole deal to be executed shortly after. As there were still a lot of unanswered question they asked for an extension to the exclusivity period, but that was turned down.
There are references within the transcripts to Hoffman and Elliott and potential third party purchasers as to why the exclusivity period wasn't extended.


The roadmap was never underwritten as a legal document, in fact the AEHC and ACL didn't agree to the rent holiday. Nevertheless and despite the rent strike started in April they agree the ITS and HoT in June and August.

 

[sky blue john]

Is this not underhand that Sisu have tried to deal with the YB prior to any agreements ?

 

[Godiva]

I think the issue of SISU unilaterally approaching Yorkshire Bank without consent of ACL is dealt with on pages 28 to 31 of Day 1 Court transcripts. Seppalas reaction to it is on page 31. It is made clear that the approach strategy in March 2012 should be ACL & CCC & Charity. As it later turned out the Charity were not party to it. The approach was ACL & CCC as borrower and new lender respectively. Professional help I believe on this approach was sought from PwC but the Charity did not form part of that engagement, never signed their engagement letter or agreed to it.

Admittedly the approach was to set up a meeting but not very ethical to make approaches without agreement of the other parties is it? Who were the Chartered Surveyors who made the approach?

Basically the situation was ACL seeking new lenders to replace YB and the new lender being CCC. In the approach to YB then CCC is doing so as lender not stakeholder as I understand it. It would be usual for the company to approach its bankers not the shareholders as the contract for the loan is between ACL & YB, not YB & CCC/Charity. Unless invited to then in my opinion SISU could claim no rights to be part of the approach unless it was to be the lender (and as far as I can see there was intention yes but no agreed commitment). They could of course have tried to buy the loan from YB without involving ACL, as a private deal but were YB convinced that ACL were in dire straights financially to indicate a substantial discount?

There is somewhere a reference to Deloitte inviting a meeting with sisu to help facilitate the on going rental talks. Clearly this was because the Escrow account was (getting?) empty and a solution had to be found if ACL should continue to service the YB loan.

 

[Jack Griffin]

The roadmap was never underwritten as a legal document, in fact the AEHC and ACL didn't agree to the rent holiday. Nevertheless and despite the rent strike started in April they agree the ITS and HoT in June and August.

Wasn't the rent strike a hostile act?

 

[oldskyblue58]

So you are saying that before any basis for working together SISU via this firm of Chartered Surveyors had unilaterally approached the ACL loan providers to arrange meetings ? If not hostile you would have to say it would be viewed as unhelpful and certainly without authority by ACL and its stakeholders. So no breach of ITS or HOT but would you not feel it a breach of Trust if you were ACL or its stakeholders?

I think Mr Harris saw it as poor ethics. But it seems poor ethics were not uncommon. The only ones to have been proven in court to have acted in good faith are the Charity

I think also people are taking the potential share deal and the CCC deal as dependent on each other. Is that the case for the Charity? Should the two be mixed together or is it two separate strands of negotiation running in parallel but separate?

The exclusivity period was not extended because SISU failed to provide the financial comfort that the Charity required. Had they done that the implication I feel is that the exclusivity and negotiations would continue

I think also it is clear from the PWKH emails that the Charity had very serious concerns about this "roadmap" and did not actually sign up to it. What SISU expected we do not know but surely there is plenty of evidence in the emails presented that there were serious issues affecting the timescales and security that means if they expected a quick resolution they were not listening to what was being said

 

[oldskyblue58]

There is somewhere a reference to Deloitte inviting a meeting with sisu to help facilitate the on going rental talks. Clearly this was because the Escrow account was (getting?) empty and a solution had to be found if ACL should continue to service the YB loan.

That was the meeting in December ...... a long time after the escrow was depleted. There was £536k in the Escrow account rent was £110k pm. Rent strike started 02/04/12.

I believe the meeting was intended to give the bank comfort as to the way forward. Deloittes acted for YB I believe and suggested a rent proposal to settle this of £400k I believe (on the way to and from a lift if the trial transcripts are right )

 

[shmmeee]

I don't think anybody has used the skeleton argument as evidence, merely the minutes and emails.

However they don't count apparently for some, so no do any others.

They count as what they are, selectively quoted documents presented to help one side.

 

[Godiva]

Wasn't the rent strike a hostile act?

It a valid question and I suspect that the answer will be different depending on bias.

If you are sisu you will argue that they were only going to keep funding the club if there was a real prospect of them acquiring the Higgs shares plus the YB loan and an extension of the ACL lease to 125yr coupled with a substantial rent reduction for the club. They wanted the deal completed quickly and everybody - especially the charity - acknowledged the reason behind the rent holiday. If the deal was concluded by August anyway, then the rent strike/holiday wouldn't pose any problem as the escrow would make up for the missing payments by the club.
So in a way and from sisu perspective - this was not a hostile action.

But it did put ACL under pressure if the deal was not completed by August, and this is why ACL/Higgs/CCC didn't agree to a rent holiday. They had to protect their own business, and rightly so.

 

[Godiva]

That was the meeting in December ...... a long time after the escrow was depleted. There was £536k in the Escrow account rent was £110k pm. Rent strike started 02/02/12.

I believe the meeting was intended to give the bank comfort as to the way forward. Deloittes acted for YB I believe and suggested a rent proposal to settle this of £400k I believe (on the way too a from a lift if the trial transcripts are right )

I think rent strike started April 2nd, but I may be wrong.

The rest we agree on.

 

[oldskyblue58]

I think rent strike started April 2nd, but I may be wrong.

The rest we agree on.

yes you are right typo by me have corrected

 

[Godiva]

So you are saying that before any basis for working together SISU via this firm of Chartered Surveyors had unilaterally approached the ACL loan providers to arrange meetings ? If not hostile you would have to say it would be viewed as unhelpful and certainly without authority by ACL and its stakeholders. So no breach of ITS or HOT but would you not feel it a breach of Trust if you were ACL or its stakeholders?

I think Mr Harris saw it as poor ethics. But it seems poor ethics were not uncommon. The only ones to have been proven in court to have acted in good faith are the Charity

I think also people are taking the potential share deal and the CCC deal as dependent on each other. Is that the case for the Charity? Should the two be mixed together or is it two separate strands of negotiation running in parallel but separate?

The exclusivity period was not extended because SISU failed to provide the financial comfort that the Charity required. Had they done that the implication I feel is that the exclusivity and negotiations would continue

I think also it is clear from the PWKH emails that the Charity had very serious concerns about this "roadmap" and did not actually sign up to it. What SISU expected we do not know but surely there is plenty of evidence in the emails presented that there were serious issues affecting the timescales and security that means if they expected a quick resolution they were not listening to what was being said

I am not trying to suggest that AEHC acted unethical - at least not until mid august. Especially Mr Harris seem to care for the club and did his best to facilitate the deals.
It is more clouded to me if PWKH was equally focused on making the deal happen - and I get the impression that both Mrs PWKH and Mr Higgs by August have come to the conclusion that it is better to abandon sisu and go with the CCC ... even if that meant liquidation of the club.

Sisu says they couldn't provide more financial comfort (your words) than was in the ITS - that Higgs would be paid £1.5m up front and £4m secured in preferential assets in ACL. And that the cash up front could increase depending on the deal with YB.

Sisu argue that they couldn't conclude the DD as they were not allowed to see budgets and business plans for some of ACL's operations and they were not allowed to speak directly with PwC.
Do you - as an auditor - agree this is a valid argument?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Even Mr Harris from the charity was clearly surprised and requested sisu be told about the new plan. Which of course didn't happen.

Not sure it has been proven that it didn't happen.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I am not trying to suggest that AEHC acted unethical - at least not until mid august. Especially Mr Harris seem to care for the club and did his best to facilitate the deals.
It is more clouded to me if PWKH was equally focused on making the deal happen - and I get the impression that both Mrs PWKH and Mr Higgs by August have come to the conclusion that it is better to abandon sisu and go with the CCC ... even if that meant liquidation of the club.

Sisu says they couldn't provide more financial comfort (your words) than was in the ITS - that Higgs would be paid £1.5m up front and £4m secured in preferential assets in ACL. And that the cash up front could increase depending on the deal with YB.

Sisu argue that they couldn't conclude the DD as they were not allowed to see budgets and business plans for some of ACL's operations and they were not allowed to speak directly with PwC.
Do you - as an auditor - agree this is a valid argument?

£4m security on something that was viewed by them as worthless, they are clearly excellent at adding immediate value (obviously they haven't added value to CCFC so far but it's early days I guess).

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just to be clear when I ask the following I am not alleging illegality by any party but a lot seems to be made of West not telling SISU the plan B. As far as I can see there is no legal requirement to do so nor any contractual obligation to be met. My own feeling is similar to Harris, ethics say disclosure should be made as soon as practical.

So the question is in moving the assets around the companies (all perfectly legal) and leaving CCFC Ltd a non trading property subsidiary at what point should SISU have disclosed this to ACL and those they were in negotiation with over shares, loan etc. ?

It seems that (although we will probably never know when exactly) the transactions took place in 2011 or 2012. It obviously changed the nature of CCFC Ltd. It would have materially affected the risk assessment of the Bank, Auditors, Profession advisors to the parties concerned etc. It may well have changed the nature of any discussions to be had or even the possibility of those discussions at al. It would certainly alerted ACL to a risk and the need to take further security. As it happens the status of CCFC Ltd only became apparent after the administrator was appointed in March 2013.

 

[shmmeee]

The thing about the Harris email, and in fact CCC's entire mindset at the time, is that there seems to me to be a serious belief that as soon as Sisu know the deal if off it's goodnight Vienna. In that case, why would you tell Sisu unless absolutely necessary?

It's not about ethics, it's about common sense.

Sisu positioned themselves as aggressors when Joy threatened to liquidate the club if her demands weren't met upon relegation. From that point on you have to have at the back of your mind that if you upset her, or otherwise go against her wishes she will do as she threatened. With this in mind, and the aim of trying to keep the club alive, why on earth would you not try and cut Sisu out of the YB deal, why would you not ask for confirmation of funds, why would you not look around for someone who could buy in a pinch if Sisu quit?

 

[Godiva]

Just to be clear when I ask the following I am not alleging illegality by any party but a lot seems to be made of West not telling SISU the plan B. As far as I can see there is no legal requirement to do so nor any contractual obligation to be met. My own feeling is similar to Harris, ethics say disclosure should be made as soon as practical.

So the question is in moving the assets around the companies (all perfectly legal) and leaving CCFC Ltd a non trading property subsidiary at what point should SISU have disclosed this to ACL and those they were in negotiation with over shares, loan etc. ?

It seems that (although we will probably never know when exactly) the transactions took place in 2011 or 2012. It obviously changed the nature of CCFC Ltd. It would have materially affected the risk assessment of the Bank, Auditors, Profession advisors to the parties concerned etc. It may well have changed the nature of any discussions to be had or even the possibility of those discussions at al. It would certainly alerted ACL to a risk and the need to take further security. As it happens the status of CCFC Ltd only became apparent after the administrator was appointed in March 2013.

The general consensus on here have for a long time been that sisu were acting underhanded, immoral and unethical. It is new evidence that CCC have acted that way.

The first real game-changer was CCC buying out the YB mortgage. That is what effectively stopped any hope of club and stadium become re-united. It seems very likely that the idea was to force out sisu and I guess there must have been a lot of head scratching when this didn't happen.

The second game-changer was ccfc ltd turning out to be just a prop co holding the lease.
Surely that must have been planned some time before - probably in 2012 and probably as a precaution by sisu to protect against a hostile take over. Not really a bad decision by them, but certainly a surprise for everyone.

So it seems they are just as bad as each other.

 

[shmmeee]

The general consensus on here have for a long time been that sisu were acting underhanded, immoral and unethical. It is new evidence that CCC have acted that way.

The first real game-changer was CCC buying out the YB mortgage. That is what effectively stopped any hope of club and stadium become re-united. It seems very likely that the idea was to force out sisu and I guess there must have been a lot of head scratching when this didn't happen.

The second game-changer was ccfc ltd turning out to be just a prop co holding the lease.
Surely that must have been planned some time before - probably in 2012 and probably as a precaution by sisu to protect against a hostile take over. Not really a bad decision by them, but certainly a surprise for everyone.

So it seems they are just as bad as each other.

So, you're admitting that Sisu acted against FA/FL rules to move the Golden Share without permission?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I am not trying to suggest that AEHC acted unethical - at least not until mid august. Especially Mr Harris seem to care for the club and did his best to facilitate the deals.
It is more clouded to me if PWKH was equally focused on making the deal happen - and I get the impression that both Mrs PWKH and Mr Higgs by August have come to the conclusion that it is better to abandon sisu and go with the CCC ... even if that meant liquidation of the club.

Sisu says they couldn't provide more financial comfort (your words) than was in the ITS - that Higgs would be paid £1.5m up front and £4m secured in preferential assets in ACL. And that the cash up front could increase depending on the deal with YB.

Sisu argue that they couldn't conclude the DD as they were not allowed to see budgets and business plans for some of ACL's operations and they were not allowed to speak directly with PwC.
Do you - as an auditor - agree this is a valid argument?

Firstly I would be careful of making any allegation of unethical behaviour against AEHC. They had a duty of care towards SISU only until such time as the exclusivity period ended. The Judge was very specific in his judgement making it clear that the conduct of the Charity was in good faith and beyond reproach. The Judge said the deal died or fell away by 31st August. After 31st July SISU were notified very plainly that the Charity would not extend the exclusivity because they had not satisfied the questions the Charity had and that AEHC would accept interest in their shares by other parties.

PWKH's position is as clerk to the trustees. It is the Trustees that make the decisions. Whilst the Trustees may well be supporters of CCFC their first duty is to the Charity not the Club. The situation has always been that if SISU decide to withdraw funding and cant or wont find an alternative owner then they (SISU) liquidate the club. Liquidation of the club is not a decision for the Charity at any time.

Well if SISU cant find the way to satisfy the concerns of the legal owner of the shares then there is only one logical conclusion isn't there. No deal. There are many ways it could have been done - putting money on deposit with a firm of solicitors for instance, we were assured by the FL that SISU had large funds of money available to them were we not?

The discussion with PwC is a red herring I feel. The concerns were raised directly by the Trustees (yes on advice) but were fully understood by them. They knew what was required in order to allay those concerns did they need their advisors to explain it? The deal didn't flounder because SISU couldn't talk to PwC. Just to be clear this is PwC advising the charity on the share deal nothing else. They were not appointed by the charity to advise on any loan deal

I think the budgets and business plans were asked from SISU not by SISU. As it stood due diligence on the share transaction was not completed in the exclusivity period, but apparently SISU were eager to get the deal done? There was due diligence done in October according to Deerings evidence I believe, the problem I have with that is the deal with the Charity was dead by then and that deal was necessary in order to complete the deal with CCC on the loan and extended lease.......... SISU surely knew all that ...........so what was the point of any due diligence outside of the exclusivity period. Is there evidence that information was with held from SISU regarding financials, budgets and business plans?

Do me a favour as well please look up the definition of an auditor. The assignments for Deloittes and PwC were never as auditors. They were business advisors there is a great difference in the role of each

 

[Godiva]

£4m security on something that was viewed by them as worthless, they are clearly excellent at adding immediate value (obviously they haven't added value to CCFC so far but it's early days I guess).

If the YB loan was discharged and ACL left debt free - that would add value. The loan stood at something like £19m so that alone would increase the value quite substantially.
Then the ACL lease would be extended from 42(?) years to 125 years. That is adding a lot of value too.
(In addition the club would pay considerable less rent and gain access to ACL revenue - that would mean less risk for sisu and less need for funding).

Do you now agree that the deal would add value and that there would be plenty of security for the outstanding £4m?

 

[James Smith]

I am not trying to suggest that AEHC acted unethical - at least not until mid august. Especially Mr Harris seem to care for the club and did his best to facilitate the deals.
It is more clouded to me if PWKH was equally focused on making the deal happen - and I get the impression that both Mrs PWKH and Mr Higgs by August have come to the conclusion that it is better to abandon sisu and go with the CCC ... even if that meant liquidation of the club

Isn't Mrs PWKH a Higgs, obviously getting the KH from marriage as PWKH said he'd married into the family. Not sure they'd ever want to see the club liquidated given the family history supporting us although I may be wrong and happy to correct if needed.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The thing about the Harris email, and in fact CCC's entire mindset at the time, is that there seems to me to be a serious belief that as soon as Sisu know the deal if off it's goodnight Vienna. In that case, why would you tell Sisu unless absolutely necessary?

It's not about ethics, it's about common sense.

Sisu positioned themselves as aggressors when Joy threatened to liquidate the club if her demands weren't met upon relegation. From that point on you have to have at the back of your mind that if you upset her, or otherwise go against her wishes she will do as she threatened. With this in mind, and the aim of trying to keep the club alive, why on earth would you not try and cut Sisu out of the YB deal, why would you not ask for confirmation of funds, why would you not look around for someone who could buy in a pinch if Sisu quit?

Where is the evidence that JS threatened to the liquidate the club? Have we got it anywhere?

 

[wingy]

If the YB loan was discharged and ACL left debt free - that would add value. The loan stood at something like £19m so that alone would increase the value quite substantially.
Then the ACL lease would be extended from 42(?) years to 125 years. That is adding a lot of value too.
(In addition the club would pay considerable less rent and gain access to ACL revenue - that would mean less risk for sisu and less need for funding).

Do you now agree that the deal would add value and that there would be plenty of security for the outstanding £4m?

How come £19M ?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Firstly I would be careful of making any allegation of unethical behaviour against AEHC. They had a duty of care towards SISU only until such time as the exclusivity period ended. The Judge was very specific in his judgement making it clear that the conduct of the Charity was in good faith and beyond reproach. The Judge said the deal died or fell away by 31st August. After 31st July SISU were notified very plainly that the Charity would not extend the exclusivity because they had not satisfied the questions the Charity had and that AEHC would accept interest in their shares by other parties.

PWKH's position is as clerk to the trustees. It is the Trustees that make the decisions. Whilst the Trustees may well be supporters of CCFC their first duty is to the Charity not the Club. The situation has always been that if SISU decide to withdraw funding and cant or wont find an alternative owner then they (SISU) liquidate the club. Liquidation of the club is not a decision for the Charity at any time.

Well if SISU cant find the way to satisfy the concerns of the legal owner of the shares then there is only one logical conclusion isn't there. No deal. There are many ways it could have been done - putting money on deposit with a firm of solicitors for instance, we were assured by the FL that SISU had large funds of money available to them were we not?

The discussion with PwC is a red herring I feel. The concerns were raised directly by the Trustees (yes on advice) but were fully understood by them. They knew what was required in order to allay those concerns did they need their advisors to explain it? The deal didn't flounder because SISU couldn't talk to PwC. Just to be clear this is PwC advising the charity on the share deal nothing else. They were not appointed by the charity to advise on any loan deal

I think the budgets and business plans were asked from SISU not by SISU. As it stood due diligence on the share transaction was not completed in the exclusivity period, but apparently SISU were eager to get the deal done? There was due diligence done in October according to Deerings evidence I believe, the problem I have with that is the deal with the Charity was dead by then and that deal was necessary in order to complete the deal with CCC on the loan and extended lease.......... SISU surely knew all that ...........so what was the point of any due diligence outside of the exclusivity period. Is there evidence that information was with held from SISU regarding financials, budgets and business plans?

Do me a favour as well please look up the definition of an auditor. The assignments for Deloittes and PwC were never as auditors. They were business advisors there is a great difference in the role of each

How were they able to advise the business without conducting some sort of audit on its position?

 

[Godiva]

Where is the evidence that JS threatened to the liquidate the club? Have we got it anywhere?

They made it very clear they would stop funding the club if they could not agree a purchase of the Higgs shares and gain access to ACL revenue. That was the premise to start the discussions back in 2011 and forward in 2012.

 

[oldskyblue58]

debt free............ SISU and CCC were supposed to pay off a discounted loan from YB........... would that not mean ACL would owe CCC and SISU for the amount with which the loan was settled? Could SISU actually have achieved a far better deal than was arrived at, well we can only take their word for that although i must admit there is no real evidence so far to support it

An extended lease and a lower loan creditor should mean more value to ACL in theory yes. Who is to say that after all is settled such a lease will not be achieved by ACL.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The general consensus on here have for a long time been that sisu were acting underhanded, immoral and unethical. It is new evidence that CCC have acted that way.

The first real game-changer was CCC buying out the YB mortgage. That is what effectively stopped any hope of club and stadium become re-united. It seems very likely that the idea was to force out sisu and I guess there must have been a lot of head scratching when this didn't happen.

The second game-changer was ccfc ltd turning out to be just a prop co holding the lease.
Surely that must have been planned some time before - probably in 2012 and probably as a precaution by sisu to protect against a hostile take over. Not really a bad decision by them, but certainly a surprise for everyone.

So it seems they are just as bad as each other.

Hind sight is a wonderful thing so using that, in reasonable chronological order did the game changers start with the establishment of Otium? or the ARVO mortgage charge over CCFC assets? or the restructuring by error or other means of the playing side? by CCFC Ltd become something its accounts say it was not? the decision to stop paying rent? the West email of plan? the break down of Charity talks? the loan by CCC?

So CCFC Ltd changed probably in 2012 but only became known March 2013 ........ that would be when these talks were supposed to be going on in good faith ...........:thinking about:

 

[wingy]

Hind sight is a wonderful thing so using that, in reasonable chronological order did the game changers start with the establishment of Otium? or the ARVO mortgage charge over CCFC assets? or the restructuring by error or other means of the playing side? by CCFC Ltd become something its accounts say it was not? the decision to stop paying rent? the break down of Charity talks? the loan by CCC?

So CCFC Ltd changed probably in 2012 but only became known March 2013 ........ that would be when these talks were supposed to be going on in good faith ...........:thinking about:

Any chance of the books and FL being called into the JR evidence?

 

[Jack Griffin]

As it happens the status of CCFC Ltd only became apparent after the administrator was appointed in March 2013.

though I think people had got wind of it earlier. ISTR Fisher was cracking on about CCFC Ltd being non-trading property subsidiary before it came out in the wash.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Any chance of the books and FL being called into the JR evidence?

would not have thought so wingy. The JR will primarily be about state aid and the actions of the Council so cant see why they would be relevant

 

[oldskyblue58]

though I think people had got wind of it earlier. ISTR Fisher was cracking on about CCFC Ltd being non-trading property subsidiary before it came out in the wash.

any idea when that was Jack ?