Football League deadline update (7 Viewers)

[Hobo]

Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.

The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.

Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.

Where players contracts were was a key factor in the administration process, otherwise you are creating a blind garage sale. If players contracts were moved from one company to another, then potentially it was illegal.

Liquidation after administration has turned out in SISU's favour as those messy accounts they never published won't have to be. There would have been more answers gleaned from that set of accounts than will probably be answered in the JR.

 

---

[The Gentleman]

Where players contracts were was a key factor in the administration process, otherwise you are creating a blind garage sale. If players contracts were moved from one company to another, then potentially it was illegal.

Liquidation after administration has turned out in SISU's favour as those messy accounts they never published won't have to be. There would have been more answers gleaned from that set of accounts than will probably be answered in the JR.

Spot on, people seem to be more interested in what some company who at present we have nothing to do with rather than what are current owners may or may not have done by the book with regard to players contracts etc and the overall running of our club. But hey, if it keeps the focus on ACL rather than Sisu/Otium and what actually has happened with our club then fine. Just makes me laugh when some on here say that some people care more for ACL than the club but it is the same people who seem to be obsessed with ACL rather than what happens to our club and continually talk about ACL.

 

[skybluetony176]

I wouldn't say that CCC approaching the bank 3 days after heads of terms was agreed, trying to buy out the mortgage cheap and even approaching AEG to come work with CCC instead of the club sticking to the road map

Did sisu stick religiously to the road map and within the time frame?

 

[Bennets Afro]

I'm sure they stuck to it longer than 3 days

Did sisu stick religiously to the road map and within the time frame?

 

[Houdi]

Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.

The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.

Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.

The only trouble with you last paragraph,is that were SISU to pay a fair market price whatever that might be, it is then more difficult to see how then they get the kind of return on any sale which they seem to want.They need and want to make a big profit on their eventual sale, which is why they are desperate to 'get' the Ricoh for next to nothing.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Which road map are we talking about BA ? The one proposed in March 2012 by TF?

 

[Bennets Afro]

The heads of terms signed in August 2012

Which road map are we talking about BA ? The one proposed in March 2012 by TF?

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm sure they stuck to it longer than 3 days

thats a yes then. do you know what in the road map that sisu didn't stick too and the time scale?

 

[skybluetony176]

The heads of terms signed in August 2012

heads of terms signed with who? CCC, Higgs or ACL? I thought the only HOT's that have been signed at any time was with Higgs? In which case what would it matter what CCC did or didn't do?

 

[oldskyblue58]

You see that's where I find things get unclear. How I understand it .....

TF proposed the road map in March 2012. That was rejected by the Charity Trustees April 2012. Which is important because the "Road Map" included the purchase of the Charity shares. However the Charity and SISU talked and got to their own heads of terms. Discussions and due diligence on an offer for the Charity shares took us to 31st July when no deal was concluded and Charity free to deal with other suitors. In the words of the judge the Charity deal had died by end of August because both sides had no appetite for it. I think we are safe to say the difference in both sides valuation was terminal. SISU and CCC apparently signed heads of terms in August which included the purchase of the Charity shares as I understand it.

It leaves me with these questions ...... if the purchase of the Charity shares was key to any agreement between CCC & SISU and there was no likelihood of that how could the heads of terms (which are not legally binding in any case) be worth anything? The deal on the basis of the road map or the heads of terms could not actually be done could it?

 

[skybluetony176]

You see that's where I find things get unclear. How I understand it .....

TF proposed the road map in March 2012. That was rejected by the Charity Trustees April 2012. Which is important because the "Road Map" included the purchase of the Charity shares. However the Charity and SISU talked and got to their own heads of terms. Discussions and due diligence on an offer for the Charity shares took us to 31st July when no deal was concluded and Charity free to deal with other suitors. In the words of the judge the Charity deal had died by end of August because both sides had no appetite for it. I think we are safe to say the difference in both sides valuation was terminal. SISU and CCC apparently signed heads of terms in August which included the purchase of the Charity shares as I understand it.

It leaves me with these questions ...... if the purchase of the Charity shares was key to any agreement between CCC & SISU and there was no likelihood of that how could the heads of terms (which are not legally binding in any case) be worth anything? The deal on the basis of the road map or the heads of terms could not actually be done could it?

if i understood that correctly then the HOT's between the council & sisu failed before they were even signed as sisu couldn't agree a price fore the higgs share? is that about the jist of it?

 

[Bennets Afro]

Then why was it the hot agreed and signed in August if it had already failed. Surely it would of just not been signed???

 

[oldskyblue58]

if i understood that correctly then the HOT's between the council & sisu failed before they were even signed as sisu couldn't agree a price fore the higgs share? is that about the jist of it?

looks like it yes unless there is other things that counter that view. The Charity position has been examined pretty thoroughly in court already. The Judge said there was no deal to be done and that the Trustees had acted in good faith at all times. His judgement was that the Charity/SISU deal died in August 2012. There has as far as we know been no other deal agreed or even proposed between Charity & SISU.

The deal between CCC and SISU seemed to rely on two things (1) dealing with the YB loan and (2) SISU acquiring the Charity shares in ACL - take out either and the deal fails. Both sides had plan "B"'s I am sure and not disclosing them (if that is what happened) is not illegal but good ethics would suggest you should point out there are other options.

Just a point on the changing of assets around in CCFC. I would be extremely surprised if that happened in an illegal manner. I just don't see it. What happened I would think was completely legal. However as with the plan "B"'s you would think that it was good ethics to inform the landlord of a fundamental change to their tenant CCFC Ltd. The change would have put ACL on alert that there was an increased risk to their business because of the action. It might even have forced their hand to negotiate further. Indeed many leases will include clauses about fundamental changes to a tenants business (a breach of that clause is not illegal, it is a civil matter). Was such notice given to ACL?- it seems to me not. Why might be a good question

 

[oldskyblue58]

Then why was it the hot agreed and signed in August if it had already failed. Surely it would of just not been signed???

I agree ......... it is hard to believe everyone was not aware of the situation isn't it. Did SISU and CCC believe they could force the Charity to sell?

It seems to me the HOT's were worthless and should not have been signed so why were they

 

[skybluetony176]

Then why was it the hot agreed and signed in August if it had already failed. Surely it would of just not been signed???

I think we can add that to the long list of things that don't make sense in this sorry affair.

 

[Godiva]

You see that's where I find things get unclear. How I understand it .....

TF proposed the road map in March 2012. That was rejected by the Charity Trustees April 2012. Which is important because the "Road Map" included the purchase of the Charity shares. However the Charity and SISU talked and got to their own heads of terms. Discussions and due diligence on an offer for the Charity shares took us to 31st July when no deal was concluded and Charity free to deal with other suitors. In the words of the judge the Charity deal had died by end of August because both sides had no appetite for it. I think we are safe to say the difference in both sides valuation was terminal. SISU and CCC apparently signed heads of terms in August which included the purchase of the Charity shares as I understand it.

It leaves me with these questions ...... if the purchase of the Charity shares was key to any agreement between CCC & SISU and there was no likelihood of that how could the heads of terms (which are not legally binding in any case) be worth anything? The deal on the basis of the road map or the heads of terms could not actually be done could it?

There were two agreements - one with Higgs (ref 'ITS' or 'Term Sheet') and another with CCC (ref 'Heads of Terms'). The latter was agreed Aug. 2nd. These agreements were in combination the 'Road Map' if you exclude the 'rent holiday'. The ITS was about Sisu buying the Higgs shares and the HOT was about sisu discharging the ACL mortgage and the council extending the ACL lease to 125yr.

In my opinion they should go back to those agreements, but I also think that CCC should 'pay a penalty' for reneging on their own agreement (buying the mortgage themselves effectively sabotaging the deal and coursing all what happened since). That penalty should be to hand over their shares in ACL as part of sisu buying the £14m loan.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Separate agreements true Godiva but without either one then the "road map" falls down.

I think you will be waiting a long time for the parties involved to go back to those agreements. Just do not see it happening. Neither side will want to.

So it is all the councils fault then ?

 

[Hobo]

Did CCC sabotage the deal by buying the mortgage or was it already dead in the water? Were they fed up of SISU shuffling from foot to foot, were SISU already trying to distress ACL?

It could be convenient for them to bleat about it now and play the victim, but how much did they contribute to the deals failing?

As an ACL director once said to me "You have a meeting with them on Tuesday and you think you have made progress, by Thursday it's like the meeting never happened."

 

[Kingokings204]

Did CCC sabotage the deal by buying the mortgage or was it already dead in the water? Were they fed up of SISU shuffling from foot to foot, were SISU already trying to distress ACL?

It could be convenient for them to bleat about it now and play the victim, but how much did they contribute to the deals failing?

As an ACL director once said to me "You have a meeting with them on Tuesday and you think you have made progress, by Thursday it's like the meeting never happened."

Why doesn't this quote shock me.

What sickens me about all this and how many people in the know and professionals have said all it would take is adults in a room around a table and sort it out.

Sadly I think this whole sorry saga could of been that simple. Makes me sick.

 

[duffer]

There were two agreements - one with Higgs (ref 'ITS' or 'Term Sheet') and another with CCC (ref 'Heads of Terms'). The latter was agreed Aug. 2nd. These agreements were in combination the 'Road Map' if you exclude the 'rent holiday'. The ITS was about Sisu buying the Higgs shares and the HOT was about sisu discharging the ACL mortgage and the council extending the ACL lease to 125yr.

In my opinion they should go back to those agreements, but I also think that CCC should 'pay a penalty' for reneging on their own agreement (buying the mortgage themselves effectively sabotaging the deal and coursing all what happened since). That penalty should be to hand over their shares in ACL as part of sisu buying the £14m loan.

Or should SISU pay a penalty for approaching YB unilaterally (potentially damaging ACL), failing to provide Higgs with sufficient security to complete that deal, and going on a rent strike without the agreement of the other parties. All of that happened way before the council bought out the mortgage.

Maybe the smart move here is actually for all sides to move on from what's gone before and start talking sensibly about what's going to happen in the future. Once the JR is done, perhaps that can happen - ideally with the club back at the Ricoh and getting the benefit of half-decent crowds.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.

The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.

Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.

Illegal no, but a clear (and I think intentional) breech of FL/FA rules, yes most definitely!

 

[Godiva]

Separate agreements true Godiva but without either one then the "road map" falls down.

I think you will be waiting a long time for the parties involved to go back to those agreements. Just do not see it happening. Neither side will want to.

So it is all the councils fault then ?

I never said it was 'all the councils fault' (why suggest I did?), but that particular move was definitely CCC's doing. In a previous post you were puzzled why an agreement was signed when the deal was already dead ... well, maybe the deal was not dead? In my old and hazy eyes it looks like the deal died when Mutton/West decided the council should buy the mortgage themselves. And they didn't even had the decency to tell their counter part it was over until January. Mr Harris at least tried to make sure sisu were informed, but clearly he wasn't taken serious. I don't think Higgs are especially happy with Mutton & West.

 

[skybluetony176]

I never said it was 'all the councils fault' (why suggest I did?), but that particular move was definitely CCC's doing. In a previous post you were puzzled why an agreement was signed when the deal was already dead ... well, maybe the deal was not dead? In my old and hazy eyes it looks like the deal died when Mutton/West decided the council should buy the mortgage themselves. And they didn't even had the decency to tell their counter part it was over until January. Mr Harris at least tried to make sure sisu were informed, but clearly he wasn't taken serious. I don't think Higgs are especially happy with Mutton & West.

You were saying that the council should pay a penalty for reneging on the deal. As has been pointed out the HOT's were dead before they were signed because sisu couldn't deliver a deal with higgs but you're not suggesting that sisu should pay a penalty. Whether you meant to or not the fact that you only suggested one side should pay a penalty and that is always going to be perceived as blaming one side only.

All sides need to draw a line under everything and start again with the best interests of the club. Until then the only parties being penalised is the club and us followers.

 

[oldskyblue58]

"and coursing all what happened since" are your words not mine and the "penalties" you suggest are all aimed at the council. It was only a question though Godiva.

Could a deal of all that was outlined have taken place without an agreement between Charity and SISU? I don't see how and there was no prospect of one, there were not even any talks going on between Charity and SISU

I think I have already pointed out that "decency to inform" applies to both sides. So far I don't feel comfortable with the "negotiating" CCC were doing nor with what SISU were doing. The judge has stated in court he sees the actions of the Charity & Trustees as above reproach and professional so I believe they acted properly. As yet however there is no judgement or proof either side acted illegally. We might not like it but it doesn't make it wrong

When did they actually decide or agree to buy the mortgage though? That West email extract seems to me to be outlining an alternative plan yes, was it the only plan? I am not at all sure that was the decision point.

I would be very surprised if the Charity and Council always agree but you would have to assume they have a viable working relationship given the other projects going on unlike .............

 

[oldskyblue58]

It has been said before and perhaps we need to keep saying it

"We need to look forward not back in order to solve this"

 

[ccfcway]

TF proposed the road map in March 2012

Is there a picture of this road map ?

Can we share it with the FL ?

Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?

Is it Plan A or B ?

 

[Covstu]

Is there a picture of this road map ?

Can we share it with the FL ?

Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?

Is it Plan A or B ?

Stop saying road map!!

 

[The Gentleman]

Is there a picture of this road map ?

Can we share it with the FL ?

Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?

Is it Plan A or B ?

Unfortunately I think Sisu's road map looks something like spaghetti junction, no-one has a fucking clue where it goes!

 

[bigfatronssba]

I never said it was 'all the councils fault' (why suggest I did?), but that particular move was definitely CCC's doing. In a previous post you were puzzled why an agreement was signed when the deal was already dead ... well, maybe the deal was not dead? In my old and hazy eyes it looks like the deal died when Mutton/West decided the council should buy the mortgage themselves. And they didn't even had the decency to tell their counter part it was over until January. Mr Harris at least tried to make sure sisu were informed, but clearly he wasn't taken serious. I don't think Higgs are especially happy with Mutton & West.

Who says sisu wasn't informed of the decision?

 

[skybluetony176]

Is there a picture of this road map ?

Can we share it with the FL ?

Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?

Is it Plan A or B ?

The only sisu road map we've ever seen is:-

Turn right ot of the Ricoh, join the M6 southbound at Junc 3, Merge southbound with the M1, Exit the M1 at Junc 16, at the round about turn left and continue until you see suxfields on your right. No U turn is possible.

 

[Godiva]

You were saying that the council should pay a penalty for reneging on the deal. As has been pointed out the HOT's were dead before they were signed because sisu couldn't deliver a deal with higgs but you're not suggesting that sisu should pay a penalty. Whether you meant to or not the fact that you only suggested one side should pay a penalty and that is always going to be perceived as blaming one side only.

All sides need to draw a line under everything and start again with the best interests of the club. Until then the only parties being penalised is the club and us followers.

I think that the deal with Higgs was agreed, so why continue negotiations? The only thing left was signing and delivering, but according to the road plan and everyone accept this - the deal with Higgs depended upon the deal with CCC.

In the court documents, The mail from Mr. West of Aug 15th:

"I think the reality of the situation is that the price Higgs have negotiated, if not the payment mechanisms, is very significantly above the market value, and that, even after the restructure I am proposing, the charity would struggle to get much above this unless a substantial rent deal was agreed with the football club. The latter has got to be very unlikely."

So how was the deal with Higgs dead?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Judges conclusion based on all the evidence was......

"the reality was that there was no real prospect of a deal on those terms being done and neither party had any appetite to seek to pursue any negotiations based on the term sheet to attempt to conclude such a deal."

and

"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"

His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.

The two deals in the overall plan depended on each deal to be completed. There was no deal for the charity shares. It was certainly not anywhere near being signed, and no value had by 31st July 2012 been agreed - the two sides were millions apart in value. So how could they proceed with the other deal? They all must have know there was no deal with the Charity in September 2012 surely?

 

[sky blue john]

Judges conclusion based on all the evidence was......

"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"

His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.

The two deals in the overall plan depended on each deal to be completed. There was no deal for the charity shares. It was certainly not anywhere near being signed, and no value had by 31st July 2012 been agreed - the two sides were millions apart in value. So how could they proceed with the other deal? They all must have know there was no deal with the Charity in September 2012 surely?

The question is did Sisu ever want a deal ?
To me it seems they were just dragging their heels and going through the motions. Probably just part of trying to distress ACL.

 

[Bennets Afro]

"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"

His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.

As I said earlier, CCC went to the bank to try and buy the mortgage at a reduced rate 3 days after heads of terms were signed.

Did the deal fall apart because of SISU or the councils actions?

 

[Spionkop]

There was always a deal to be done for Sisu earlier on. If they had negotiated in an above board manner at all times, with integrity, then I'm certain deals would have been struck. As has been pointed out a thousand times or more on here, they moved the goalposts, dragged their feet, used every devious tactic in the book to chisel away - little wonder others were heartily sick of them. If indeed there were alternative deals done then I wouldn't blame ACL, the Council, Higgs. Not one bit.
The time for negotiating with them is gone.
They are ruthless beyond belief. Driving along Lockhurst Lane the other day I looked out for their offices, couldn't see it. But it's the right location for them. Derelict, low rent. Shysters.