A few questions for PWKH (20 Viewers)

Forums New posts
sky blue john

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
Any Higgs sale could not be done without consent of the council. That was in the Joint Ventures Agreement set out in 2003.
Click to expand...

Lol.
We all know this !!!
Which makes no difference if Sisu offered a derisory amount that would never have been excepted by the Higgs charity !!!
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
Did Higgs and SISU ever come to heads of terms agreements? If they did that would indicate some agreement on price.
 
sky blue john

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
The point is that in the end only 2million was on offer from Sisu which was a derisory amount that the higgs charity would never except. Half of what they originally paid !!
And because of this would never got as far as the council using their veto. And for what its worth with everything that went on yes I would have expected the council to use their veto.
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
sky blue john said:
The point is that in the end only 2million was on offer from Sisu which was a derisory amount that the higgs charity would never except. Half of what they originally paid !!
And because of this would never got as far as the council using their veto. And for what its worth with everything that went on yes I would have expected the council to use their veto.
Click to expand...

But your clearly said that Higgs did not accept the £2m offer. But then you said an agreement was in place that SISU backed out of by not completing.

So which is it??
 
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
Yes. Thank you Nick. It would never be part of a potential sale of Higgs' share.
Click to expand...

Whatever funds/debtors/creditors ACL has in it, regardless of when they were received/arose would be part of any sale. If you buy the shares you take over that portion of the existing business.
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
But your clearly said that Higgs did not accept the £2m offer. But then you said an agreement was in place that SISU backed out of by not completing.

So which is it??
Click to expand...

It's both.

The agreement wasn't for the price of £2m. The agreement was for a price of £5.5m, and it wasn't completed (see a million other threads for people's arguments).
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
But your clearly said that Higgs did not accept the £2m offer. But then you said an agreement was in place that SISU backed out of by not completing.

So which is it??
Click to expand...

Didn't a price get agreed and then SISU changed the payment terms to £2m up front and installments but couldn't offer any proof of funds to pay? From memory think it was something along those lines.

Not sure it ever got as far as the council needing to veto anything. Wouldn't a veto have to go to a full council vote which would presumably show up somewhere on the council records.
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
I meant a potential of Higgs' share to SISU.
Click to expand...

Various views are...

SISU didn't provide proof of funds to back up paying the £5.5m in instalments, so Higgs felt that was too risky.

The offer of £2m was outside of the agreement, and was below what Higgs valued the shares at.

The shares are worthless in the view of SISU, so naturally why pay £5.5m (or even £2m), and therefore the agreement died out.

Pick a favourite to support your views, other views are available.
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
On a slightly different note... I wonder of Higgs would have wanted half of the £7m fee from IoC straight away? That would have been a good windfall for them and their charity to invest on their ventures.
 
sky blue john

sky blue john

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
Which was vetoed by the council if i'm not mistaken? It would appear that Higgs/SISU negotiations aren't too bad... but they hit a brick wall as soon as council become involved?

Have a word John with your buddies.... bring us home.
Click to expand...

So you didn't mean it when you said the council were responsible and vetoed the deal ?
Make up your mind !!!!
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Ian1779 said:
On a slightly different note... I wonder of Higgs would have wanted half of the £7m fee from IoC straight away? That would have been a good windfall for them and their charity to invest on their ventures.
Click to expand...

You don't know whether ACL has received this money.

I'm sure Higgs want as much money as possible, what charity doesn't. By all accounts no money has been taken out of ACL by way of dividends to shareholders.
 
lewys33

lewys33

Well-Known Member
My new work phone would be the envy of all iphone users. It actually makes a successful phone call.
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure that the link to the file I posted earlier states they did. Check it out
 
torchomatic

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
But it's not a payment as part of the CVA as the CVA was rejected. I thought it was a condition of issuing the golden share the FL placed on Otium to make the payment which would mean the liquidation process had nothing to do with the payment being made.

The FL can put any condition they like on issuing the golden share, SISU could have taken legal action but they would have done the same as when Leeds tried to take legal action and state they won't issue the share to anyone taking legal action.
Click to expand...

I can't find the post I made on that subject back then, but in essence I suggested the offer from Otium was calculated to make sure ACL would receive the approx. amount of rent owed.

I am not sure, but isn't it the liquidation of Holding being contested? If that's the case, then it may hold back the liquidation of Limited as Holdings were a major creditor.
In any case, the real question is: Who have contested the liquidation of Holdings and what is the objective/motive?
Is the objective to have the whole administration/liquidation process overturned?
Or to make sure the process keep piling up costs? And if that is the case - is the end goal to make sure there are not enough money to pay ACL the amount FL have requested?
Interesting, isn't it?
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
Godiva said:
I can't find the post I made on that subject back then, but in essence I suggested the offer from Otium was calculated to make sure ACL would receive the approx. amount of rent owed.
Click to expand...

I get that but the point I was making was that the FL made payment a condition for Otium recieving the GS, now as Otium are technically a different entity to Holdings, Ltd etc the FL couldn't instruct them to make someone else pay so they must have instructed Otium to pay it in which case what relevance is the liqudation process of the other companies?
 
G

Godiva

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
I get that but the point I was making was that the FL made payment a condition for Otium recieving the GS, now as Otium are technically a different entity to Holdings, Ltd etc the FL couldn't instruct them to make someone else pay so they must have instructed Otium to pay it in which case what relevance is the liqudation process of the other companies?
Click to expand...

I think that when Otium had their bid accepted (and let's assume that bid was constructed to leave £600t to ACL - rest to minor creditors and to PA) they had to pay the amount to an account controlled by the administrator. In return Otium received whatever they bought out of Limited - and they were granted the GS from FL.

If I am right, then the money is sitting with Appelton awaiting the liquidation of Limited. And it is likely to be a final settlement, so no more money is coming from Otium to ACL.
 
S

SimonGilbert

Telegraph Tea Boy
Ian1779 said:
I don't know about this. I think this question highlights the problem with the CET. They did a story that SISU still hadn't paid the £590K owed. But what they don't do is put the all the facts in the story. It's not been paid as the liquidation process hasn't finished. When it is it will then be paid. Now the only logical explanation for it not being completed is that someone has challenged the process. So why can't they a) find out why the liquidation process is incomplete b) tell the full story or not tell it at all.

It was the same with the recent court case. Big headlines of 'SISU take charity to court'. Once you get through the tabloid bollocks you find it was Higgs that launched the legal action initially. All it does is drive the two sides further apart and hamper any prospect of solution.
Click to expand...

Firstly, that definitely wasn't the headline. Secondly, the fact the charity was taking Sisu to court was in the third sentence. Sorry if people couldn't make it that far. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-court-battle-6519080

As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677

Important to check these things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
covcity4life

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
SimonGilbert said:
Firstly, that definitely wasn't the headline. Secondly, the fact the charity was taking Sisu to court was in the third sentence. Sorry if people couldn't make it that far. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-court-battle-6519080

As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677

Important to check these things.


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

dont be so rude you pussyole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 21 (members: 0, guests: 21)
Top