They did help the club financially, but knowing full well there would be some return on the investment. They didn't donate the money to CCFC did they?
Nobody in ANY party had the desire to a) stop this nonsense occurring in the first place and b) get a deal done. ALL of them were too driven by personal motives.
If Coventry City hadn't been run by such a bunch of chancers the Charity would never have had to step in, so talk of motive is just an absolute nonsense to me.
"I know", thought Ms Higgs, "we'll let the club run itself into the ground, and offer them a pittance for their share now, and then ask for an absolute fortune for it in return later". That, as you can see by the facts, is utter rubbish - you're not thinking straight.
There certainly doesn't seem to be any motive for profit here, except in your head - although of course the trustees of the charity have a legal duty to act according to their financial responsiblities. The charity clearly wasn't set up to give CCFC money every time they got into trouble, which is lucky because they'd have gone broke very quickly and some time ago!
As to the desire to sell, the charity agreed a price for the share with SISU for
less than they actually paid for it (so no profit there) but SISU's idea of buy-now, pay later without offering any great degree of security was just pushing it a bit too far perhaps.
So, I can see that you've got issues with the charity, but I don't think the evidence supports your opinion here.
As an aside I've got to admit that it boils my piss that a company that can pay so much to players, executives, and agents (and in interest to themselves) could still try to stiff a charity. It beggars belief that some people will support our owners in that.
