Les Reid Update (40 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Yeah course they could.
Click to expand...

It's a fact, they could. I'm suggesting they are perfectly happy with the deal in answer to someone who suggested they might not be, are you suggesting they have been forced into selling?
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
They could always go renegade and see whether SISU are prepared to go the extra mile or stay put
Not a bad position for them to be in
I reckon theres a sweetener in there for them somewhere
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
It's a fact, they could. I'm suggesting they are perfectly happy with the deal in answer to someone who suggested they might not be, are you suggesting they have been forced into selling?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting one party in the arrangement is far stronger than the other and one party may have to have a good working relationship to keep maintained for the future.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
At this point all that is on offer is the option to purchase a company who has the first option on 50% of the company ACL.

ACL shareholders are Higgs and WASPS.

I think the option to offer the shares to CCFC Ltd is required under the existing agreements so that there can be no comeback once the process it committed. This beneficial ownership of the option that SISU may claim does not mean that they can simply purchase the 50% share.

I would strongly believe that within the articles of ACL there will be the ability for each of the shareholders to Veto a purchase by another party by simply not consenting to the deal. This Veto will not be carte blanche and I would expect that there will be a clause whereby this consent cannot be reasonably denied to either party thus allowing each party to divest the shares to an acceptable new partner at a later Date. This decision would I expect be taken by the board members of ACL who have to deliver value for the company and shareholders so they will not necessarily be bound to accept the highest cash offer but what is best for the business. Just the same way that any company is not bound to accept the lowest price when running a tender.

Remember this is an option to make an offer not an option to have your offer accepted.

There is nothing stopping WASPS doing a deal directly with Higgs. The CCFC ltd route appears to be the only route for SISU and any direct deal may be cleaner / simpler and more expedient for Higgs to accept rather than go through the CCFC ltd option.

You have to separate the interests of The Higgs charity acting in their best interest and the the Liquidator acting in the interests of the creditor of CCFC ltd. They are two very different beasts

Please excuse random words correctly spelt . the Joys of MAC autocorrect supposedly knowing hat I want to say!
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Noggin said:
His words were "I'm hearing that" for the Ranson story, "my sources say" for the 14 councilers story and neither of those are very different to this story where he says "I understand that"

Les Reid did receive alot of praise and why would he not of done, he actually did some investigative journalism and he provided information we didn't have, I don't think any of the local journalism has been great but he did many praiseworthy things and so has Simon. I can not understand the attitude that you must only ever have one opinion about a certain person and their actions, this is an idiotic viewpoint that leads to idiotic after idiotic post, when you do well you get praised, when you throw your toys out of the pram, or do a poor job of interviewing someone, or you sing your own praises to sickening levels you get criticised. This is the reasonable viewpoint. This is how you reasonably dish out praise or criticism. There is no irony and no hypocrisy on criticising someone you have praised in the past and none in losing respect for someone you respected

Your final comment is nonsense
Click to expand...

The final comment is the same nonsense word for word used by another prolific poster
Clarke Kent style
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Why would anyone pay twice as much for the shares as someone has owning the other half.

Anyway makes no odds will still be rejected.
Click to expand...

They could not reject a deal that led to a charity getting twice the amount. That's the point if they pay that it would force the councils hand.
If they don't like you say it gets rejected and borrowing 25 million for a new inferior stadium here we come.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
They could not reject a deal that led to a charity getting twice the amount. That's the point if they pay that it would force the councils hand.
If they don't like you say it gets rejected and borrowing 25 million for a new inferior stadium here we come.
Click to expand...

Yes they can reject it as the deal rests on wasps getting 100% they would pull out.
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
I'm suggesting one party in the arrangement is far stronger than the other and one party may have to have a good working relationship to keep maintained for the future.
Click to expand...

As Higgs spend/donate a large amount of money in the city I guess you're saying they are the stronger party. CCC need Higgs far more than the other way around.
 
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
The other point to consider is what is the exposure of ACL or their owners if they sell to AN. Other party and are then taken to court by SISU. Can be any more that what they have paid for it (say £4m) + some costs. Once it had been sold and it is a done deal would that cash prize be big enough for SISU to pursue given it is the £10's of million development potential they are after?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Rusty Trombone said:
As Higgs spend/donate a large amount of money in the city I guess you're saying they are the stronger party. CCC need Higgs far more than the other way around.
Click to expand...

How much have donated in the last 5 years then?
 
albatross

albatross

Well-Known Member
I think Grendel has hit the nNail on the head there. This is a 100% purchase deal already agreed in principle . Any offer can be reasonably rejected by the Board of ACL if it is not in the best interests of the company.

I do recall the board of Liverpool selling the club from under the American owners as it was deemed to be in the best interests of the company (LFC) and it stood up in court.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
You maybe right?
I guess neither really know if it rests on that or not
Click to expand...

Find one article that suggests anything other than 100% control for wasps and look at all their communications -- 100% is what they have been always claiming was the deal
 
Rusty Trombone

Rusty Trombone

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
Sorry, i'm just trying to fit in with the other hypocrites.
Click to expand...

We're all hypocrites in different ways. Some people may argue that it's hypocritical to complain at wasps coming in when the same people went to Northampton, but deals and situations are never exactly the same.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Simon I know you are away but is anyone from the CeAt going to try and do some digging and establish what all are for the parties involved
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
dongonzalos said:
Has les led is up the garden path again.
Some will start turning on here like they did with Richard Keyes at this rate
Click to expand...

I thought that Reid & Nikki Sinclaire were once seen as heroes, but once they stopped saying what the sheep on here wanted to here they were the spawn of Satan. Much in the same way Ann Lucas was abused because she spoke out against the convicted criminal, Marlon King signing for the club.

Welcome to the most hypocritical club in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 41 (members: 0, guests: 41)
Top