Samo
Well-Known Member
Some posters. You want names?
Sky Blues owners to bid for Higgs' shares in ACL (26 Viewers)
- Thread starter SimonGilbert
- Start date
Some posters. You want names?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Can CCFC ltd purchase the share and sell it on again?
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
I would think they can, as could Wasps. You have to wonder why that Leonard Brodby character suddenly made an appearance at the Peterborough game. I believe he is a major investor in the original sisu deal.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What was the point in the FL's award to ACL?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which paper was that in?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I haven't seen anyone posting as you describe, it just seems a bit like saying there's people who are hypocrites when they don't exist, but it suits an argument to say they do.
Samo
Well-Known Member
As you wish
I think this has now been posted about 50 times so I'm obviously talking to a wall but one last attempt.
The vast vast majority of people who had a moral problem with the move to sixfields was not because they were terribly angry about franchise sport, it was because they were terribly angry about our football club being moved 35 miles away despite it being extreamly clearly against the clubs best interests in order to distress a company owned by coventry council and a coventry charity so that the hedge fund owners could obtain the stadium on the cheap.
It was not and is not hypocrisy to be furiously against the move to sixfields and yet not be outraged about the wasps situation.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There were a couple and i do mean a couple who post on here that saw it that way but lets face it they are a tiny minority of fans who post on a chat site who's members are the minority of a fan base that support CCFC. So to say "some" is hardly a consensus of any sort so therefore a point not worth making in the first place. Unless you have an interest in causing division of course
The Reverend Skyblue
Well-Known Member
Which yet again brings me back to my main point, are bald men inheritantly nasty,or are they just misunderstood
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
So you were less bothered about the move but more bothered about its reasoning.
I was bothered about the move because my football club was being damaged unnecessarily, if there had actually been a valid reason for the move then I'd have supported it. If for instance the Ricoh had burnt down and the club had no home through no fault of their own I'd have supported us moving temporarily to northampton (or wherever) and gone to the games. But we all know that we could have stayed at the ricoh and it would have been in everyone's best interests to do so.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I would imagine that was the same for everybody isn't it? It's not like we were kicked out, the doors were locked behind us and told never to come back was it? If that's what had happened A) We would still be in Northampton B) We would have been selling tickets in considerably larger numbers than we did at Suxfields and C) SISU would have had the majotiy of the fan base on side.
Last edited:
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Dunno, ask Robo
It has to go to / come from PA - it is an Option to CCFC Ltd
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
It's done. Sisu wanted the shares at well less than market value (zero ?) so in effect lost all chance of buying into ACL.
Surely with JR appeal in progress they are taking the piss by even discussing a deal.
They have tried and lost and CCFC and us fans will now suffer for years to come with the "pie and pint" stadium.
I doubt that Wasps want to work with these preditory bast@£@S so even 50% is lost while they are at the helm.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
People are not really bothered by Wasps coming to Coventry for so called franchising reasons, they are concerned that CCFC will not own the stadium.
In reality and thanks to Sisu, we won't even have a piece of the management company, let alone the 'never achievable' stadium freehold.
"The original JV deal SISU should already have details of from the previous due diligence, if they haven't what the hell were they doing at that time? They could make an offer that matches or betters Wasps subject to disclosure of the revised JV details (if it has been revised at all). Do the ACL stakeholders have to disclose the details of anything at the moment - would have thought they are within their rights not to release anything detailed at the moment. Make an offer subject to disclosure that is of interest and that's different. Is that possible though considering AEHC probably want nothing to do with SISU - so it would have to be a better offer to make them have to consider it "
If PA puts in an offer subject to seeing the JV with WASPS and he is refused sight of that - then what would happen?
No one will buy without seeing the new JV so will ACL show some and not others?
The ACL position has clearly changed since SISU / CCFC negotiated - we do not know if for better or worse
If PA puts in an offer subject to seeing the JV with WASPS and he is refused sight of that - then what would happen?
No one will buy without seeing the new JV so will ACL show some and not others?
The ACL position has clearly changed since SISU / CCFC negotiated - we do not know if for better or worse
I have said before and will repeat - until we have actually seen what CCC have "sold" to WASPS you do not know what they have "bought". WASPS may have been tempted by added incentives above those available to SISU - this might be the reason they are refusing to give out details
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I think (and this is just my take on the situation) thanks to the council accepting the Wasps bid and Joy saying we were following Plan A or B whichever was the new stadium, (and then saying she wouldn't interfere with the sale) the Higgs decided to sell to Wasps. Now I think anybody could have made an offer for the share before the Wasps bid came in. However once the Higgs accepted the Wasps bid then the only people who could make an offer for the Higgs share was the company holding the option (because that gives you first refusal on buying the share) which would be Ltd. Therefore now for anyone other than Wasps to buy the share they have to do so through Mr Appleton as he is the liquidator of Ltd.
I think after the comments from Simon above about the council share, that the veto now rests with Wasps. I have no idea if that's a good thing or not but I guess at this point we have to hope they are open to a 50:50 partnership with out club.
I may have that wrong in which case I apologise to anyone who feels slighted by it, especially the Higgs if their lawyers are reading this.
"However once the Higgs accepted the Wasps bid then the only people who could make an offer for the Higgs share was the company holding the option (because that gives you first refusal on buying the share) which would be Ltd."
Have WASPS made a bid for the Higgs shares and had it accepted?
Have WASPS made a bid for the Higgs shares and had it accepted?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Yes, confirmed by PWKH on the radio the other week.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Who really knows yet?
Wasps have the say on this. If they want Sisu in they will get them in somehow. If they want them out then Sisu play for ACL/Ricoh is over.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I thought that they had made a bid and that PWKH had said something like Wasps were the preferred bidder, but Ltd. have to have the opportunity to put an offer in and so the Wasps bid can't be accepted yet. Again same caveats as my last post.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The former.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
An offer does not have to go through the option or liquidator at all ............. the terms of the option say that if AEHC do get an acceptable offer then AEHC must inform CCFC ltd and give CCFC LTD the opportunity to match or better that offer. You do not have to buy via an option but AEHC has to allow CCFC Ltd to make an offer if AEHC receive an offer from a third party that AEHC find acceptable. SISU or one of their companies other than CCFC Ltd could declare an interest in bidding directly but AEHC do not have to consider it if they do not believe it is in the Charities best interests
It is not unusual to make a bid subject to due diligence and confirmation of other matters. The bid has to at least match the Wasps bid. If it doesn't then the bid from SISU or anyone else is dead in the water. Do they need to see the JV at this stage no. Is there a binding contract at this stage no. Would they lose their money no. Do they need to match the Wasps bid yes. So why exactly do they need to see the JV? I somehow doubt they would want to pay more than Wasps. At the moment there is apparently an interest in bidding from the liquidator that is supported by interest from other parties including notably SISU in financing CCFC Ltd/liquidator to make that bid. The bid level is equal to at least the offer by Wasps - it is not really about haggling a price based on information in JV's etc. (in normal circumstances it would be these are not normal circumstances)
If PA puts in an offer that is not acceptable or less than Wasps then he doesn't need sight of the JV because there is no deal. If he puts in one that AEHC finds acceptable then he has the right to a great deal of information subject to NDA's etc. The problem is if there is a stakeholders agreement between Wasps & AEHC then Wasps could block the release of information because they do not believe it is in the best interests of Wasps or ACL. We are not a contract stage, there is no sale to anyone yet, but there is a bottomline value and that is what Wasps are prepared to pay - JV or no JV
Details of the JV etc will be shown to parties that AEHC & Wasps feel are (A) acceptable and (B) put in a proper offer. The value of the offer from anyone has to be at least 2.77m if newspaper reports are to be believed
What we do know about CCC is that they no longer own the shares and no longer have directors on the board at ACL
It is not unusual to make a bid subject to due diligence and confirmation of other matters. The bid has to at least match the Wasps bid. If it doesn't then the bid from SISU or anyone else is dead in the water. Do they need to see the JV at this stage no. Is there a binding contract at this stage no. Would they lose their money no. Do they need to match the Wasps bid yes. So why exactly do they need to see the JV? I somehow doubt they would want to pay more than Wasps. At the moment there is apparently an interest in bidding from the liquidator that is supported by interest from other parties including notably SISU in financing CCFC Ltd/liquidator to make that bid. The bid level is equal to at least the offer by Wasps - it is not really about haggling a price based on information in JV's etc. (in normal circumstances it would be these are not normal circumstances)
If PA puts in an offer that is not acceptable or less than Wasps then he doesn't need sight of the JV because there is no deal. If he puts in one that AEHC finds acceptable then he has the right to a great deal of information subject to NDA's etc. The problem is if there is a stakeholders agreement between Wasps & AEHC then Wasps could block the release of information because they do not believe it is in the best interests of Wasps or ACL. We are not a contract stage, there is no sale to anyone yet, but there is a bottomline value and that is what Wasps are prepared to pay - JV or no JV
Details of the JV etc will be shown to parties that AEHC & Wasps feel are (A) acceptable and (B) put in a proper offer. The value of the offer from anyone has to be at least 2.77m if newspaper reports are to be believed
What we do know about CCC is that they no longer own the shares and no longer have directors on the board at ACL
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The lead singer of Right Said Fred is a very friendly bloke, or so I heard.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why would a bid that matches the Wasps one from SISU potentially not be in the charity's best interests?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Here's a bald man to beware.
http://www.mykegray.com/
(spotter points for recognising his previous career)
Last edited by a moderator:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Once bitten, twice shy?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
have to ask them that fp - I was just giving the context as to the decision process. The key really is not in matching it but exceeding it because then it would be harder for AEHC to turn it down due to past dealings etc
Trouble is even if AEHC accept the bid it doesn't mean it is a done deal does it ..........
If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?