Erm... at what point did the council veto the deal?
What I took from the Higgs case transcripts is that the deal fell apart because SISU offered £5m on buy-now, pay-later terms without any security that Higgs could accept. I didn't see any evidence of the Council shooting down the deal, in fact there can't be any because no agreement between Higgs and SISU was ever struck - in essence then, no deal to veto.
(Higgs v Sisu transcript day 3 p155)
'Those irreconcilable differences, as I see it, were
4 that SISU no longer wished to offer a price of the kind
5 set out in the indicative term sheet, the trustees for
6 their part did not wish to go ahead without guarantees
7 of security for the deferred consideration, which SISU
8 was not prepared to offer, nor, from late August
9 onwards, were the trustees seriously interested in
10 pursuing the offer in the term sheet at all because
they
11 knew that the council were not prepared to consent to
12 it.'
Ultimately all three parties should share the 'blame'. Higgs wanted their investment money back, Sisu didn't want to shell out full price (according to them, having performed due dil and finding cash-flow & contract liability issues) and the council didn't want Sisu to have an investment.
This is the crux of this whole issue. We can point fingers at any one side but all sides are responsible.
As part of the only fans campaign who has actually called for negotiations based on all stadium occupation scenarios (rent, leasehold, freehold) I have no problem pointing the finger at Sisu as well as everyone else.