Bad reading for a couple of you (11 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Nick

Nick

Administrator
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon) ;)
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?

Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.

Maybe he will next time.
Click to expand...

Why had it become devalued?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
lordsummerisle said:
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?

Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.

Maybe he will next time.
Click to expand...

Original proposed deal was gone by 31/08/12. Both sides had let if fall by then. The revised "deal" that never was is suggested at £2m in October 2012

West's valuation of the Charity share actually has nothing to do with the value at which the Trustees were prepared to sell at though does it. but it is mentioned in the other article on the CT

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-now-know-ricoh-arena-6950053
 
M&B Stand

M&B Stand

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Similarly, how much the average L1 or Championship rent is should have no bearing either.

But it does.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. It's for the market to decide. Ultimately do you want a better deal for the stadium management company or the football club. As much as I hate the owners I want a viable club, surely a new owner would then be easier to find.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
lordsummerisle said:
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?

Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.

Maybe he will next time.
Click to expand...

You mean apart from in this article? I'm pretty sure it was also in the court report at the time.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-now-know-ricoh-arena-6950053


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
James Smith

James Smith

Well-Known Member
Nick said:
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon) ;)
Click to expand...

To be fair to Les and Simon the current articles are based on things used and said in court and the CT have simply given us their verdict on the evidence.
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
fernandopartridge said:
So why did the council refinance the loan? Are you saying that it wasn't necessary and basically just a state aid to assist ACL?
Click to expand...

I think that there are two primary reasons.
1. If they own the debt, they can control what happens to the asset. They could not do that if the debt is owed to YB.
2. As part owners of ACL if they can get commercial terms to both lower the debt (19 million down to 14 million) and pay a lower interest rate then that is just good business

Is it State aid? No more than what is happening at Northampton.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58 said:
Original proposed deal was gone by 31/08/12. Both sides had let if fall by then. The revised "deal" that never was is suggested at £2m in October 2012

West's valuation of the Charity share actually has nothing to do with the value at which the Trustees were prepared to sell at though does it. but it is mentioned in the other article on the CT

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-now-know-ricoh-arena-6950053
Click to expand...

Do you know if, when then exclusivity deal with Sisu ended in order to be available to speak to any other interested parties, there were any serious interested parties to speak to, and were they negotiated with?
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Nick said:
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon) ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure that is right Nick. LR was heavily criticised for bias and conjecture, not lies. His article with JS was the final straw. Simon does a good job in getting access to facts, that may now be easier as more is coming into domain. Today's article in the CT has two links to the recent court judgement which is very good and helps those of us on the outside appreciate the complexities better
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
4. The Higgs charity and the council hatched a "secret and perverse plan" to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank without Sisu/the football club
Click to expand...

I wonder if this allegation was 'the sisu fishing expedition' most agreed formed part of the trial?
Sadly I don't have the time to go back and look at the evidence that was used to support and rebuff the claim, so for now it's just a hunch.
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert said:
That September's PWC report might provide some clarification. But there's bound to be conjecture regardless. Plus this information is now two years out of date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Isn't pretty much everything from the Higgs v Sisu trial two years out of date?
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Why had it become devalued?
Click to expand...

Interesting though isn't it. Ccfc not paying 'way too high' rent devalued/distressing ACL, whilst Ccfc paying 'way too high' rent (along with wage bill,etc) contributes towards devaluing/distressing ccfc.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
SimonGilbert said:
That September's PWC report might provide some clarification. But there's bound to be conjecture regardless. Plus this information is now two years out of date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
To see that report would indeed be very interesting. I have used this type of report before and they almost always generate a number of potential scenarios (As it is impossible to be certain what might happen) ranging from best possible through most likely to worst case. SISU have published the worst case scenario, and who can blame them for doing that?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
lordsummerisle said:
Do you know if, when then exclusivity deal with Sisu ended in order to be available to speak to any other interested parties, there were any serious interested parties to speak to, and were they negotiated with?
Click to expand...

Exclusivity ended 31/07/12, Charity contacted SISU 07 August to say it would not be extended because no progress made, assurances not received etc, at that point (before West report 17/08/12) the Charity felt they were free deal with other third parties if there were any. Certainly it was made very clear to SISU that was the case

As to whether there was any other serious interest I don't know
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Sub said:
This version of events has yet to be refuted but further evidence may emerge as part of the Judicial Review.
It's difficult to take Sisu's complaint seriously when the court also heard they used CBRE - the property firm working on their plan for a new stadium - to approach Yorkshire Bank behind the backs of the council and the charity.

what about this bit though ?
Click to expand...

The CCC/ACL were using CBRE for their own valuations ,SISU got them to do one for them simultaneously.
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
So there was no need to use state aid then? Brilliant strengthens the JR case for sisu.
Click to expand...

Other than the loan was reduced from £19M to £14M.
Sounds a good deal to me ?

Also there must have been some risk to the bank otherwise they would have left it at the £19M ?
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
wingy said:
The CCC/ACL were using CBRE for their own valuations ,SISU got them to do one for them simultaneously.
Click to expand...

Does that not mean there was a conflict of interest though for CBRE?
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Cheshire Sky Blue said:
I think that there are two primary reasons.
1. If they own the debt, they can control what happens to the asset. They could not do that if the debt is owed to YB.
2. As part owners of ACL if they can get commercial terms to both lower the debt (19 million down to 14 million) and pay a lower interest rate then that is just good business

Is it State aid? No more than what is happening at Northampton.
Click to expand...

And be able to offer a ridiculously low rent
That could keep the football club alive, ACL alive and the football club at Coventry
 
lordsummerisle

lordsummerisle

Well-Known Member
italiahorse said:
Other than the loan was reduced from £19M to £14M.
Sounds a good deal to me ?

Also there must have been some risk to the bank otherwise they would have left it at the £19M ?
Click to expand...

But the payments now spread over 40 years, rather than the 18 or so left on the previous mortgage, meaning rather more to be paid overall.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
Interesting though isn't it. Ccfc not paying 'way too high' rent devalued/distressing ACL, whilst Ccfc paying 'way too high' rent (along with wage bill,etc) contributes towards devaluing/distressing ccfc.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

CCFC not paying ANY rent devalued it.

That means you have a unstable bad anchor tenant. It is bound to devalue it
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
lordsummerisle said:
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?

Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.

Maybe he will next time.
Click to expand...

It also states somewhere ,possibly In todays article the Higgs share was valued @ £7.5M. maybe PWC ?
 
C

Cheshire Sky Blue

New Member
Godiva said:
I wonder if this allegation was 'the sisu fishing expedition' most agreed formed part of the trial?
Sadly I don't have the time to go back and look at the evidence that was used to support and rebuff the claim, so for now it's just a hunch.
Click to expand...

SISU going fishing didn't cause the trial, Higgs made the claim, I actually think the trail hasn't helped them at all. If anything the judges comments were rather withering of their legal teams approach.
However the Judge at the JR is looking at a different question and the evidence to support or refute SISU's claim will be different.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
I wonder if this allegation was 'the sisu fishing expedition' most agreed formed part of the trial?
Sadly I don't have the time to go back and look at the evidence that was used to support and rebuff the claim, so for now it's just a hunch.
Click to expand...

I still feel if SISU really wanted this trial to go ahead. Counter suing for 290 k was not the way to go about it.
That was a hammer to try and get the Higgs charity to withdraw.
If the trial was a fishing expedition that would just contest it surely or counter due for a non astronomical amout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top