Alan Higgs Charity (1 Viewer)

From memory the loan was for the building of the stadium taken out by CNR (a wholly owned council subsidiary formed solely for the basis of building the stadium). ACL had the option to pay a lump sum up front (rather than an annual rent) so that CNR could clear this loan. In theory ACL would have to pay more rent if they make more than 3 million a year profit. I can post the details later when i get home.

If the national press pick this up it will be a PR disaster for SISU . On one hand they are going after CCC which I can understand but to go after a charity , surely it puts them into the morally repugnent class of companies to do business with. I think in the long run this could be the straw that broke the camels back.

DaleM said:

If the national press pick this up it will be a PR disaster for SISU . On one hand they are going after CCC which I can understand but to go after a charity , surely it puts them into the morally repugnent class of companies to do business with. I think in the long run this could be the straw that broke the camels back.

Click to expand...

Sure, but has anyone considered even the possibility that maybe Higgs are in the wrong. Maybe Sisu were happy to let the whole thing drop - their counter suit only comes in response to Higgs suing them. Perhaps they see being sued by Higgs as the point of no return and as such no point holding back now.

I for one will based my own judgement on what happens in court, rather than based on my uninformed opinion which may or may not be wrong...

ACL got given a choice, either pay an annual rent of £1.9m or pay a one off lease premium of £21m. They chose the lease premium. To do that ACL accessed a loan from Yorkshire bank. By the time the CCC replaced YB as lender that loan had a settlement figure of 14.4m

The council used the £21m to repay a Prudential loan of £21m that had been taken out to part fund the stadium build.

Council contribution to the project

£10m original stake
£ 69m proceeds of the Tesco sale (the CCC owned the land so the proceeds were theirs) all proceeds were invested in the build
£ 21m lease premium received that repaid the Prudential loan that the CCC were liable to repay. Prudential loan used to fund build costs
£ 1m in interest received on the monies deposited (eg Tesco proceeds) that was used to fund the build

Total build costs £118.7m

You have to keep an open mind, of course there is a chance the Charity would lose the case but consider this that I posted yesterday

To defend against the Charity claim of £29000 (pocket money surely to our owners) then you do not need to counter sue. All you have to do is prove there was no such agreement to pay the costs. However if you cant do that, need to put pressure on the other side and their associates you put in a huge counter claim, not saying SISU are not entitled to "counter" sue if they so wish but I get the feeling this action is part of a bigger game.

Say the Charity withdrew their claim (i do not think they will for a second) then I doubt SISU would withdraw theirs. If you think about it though it isnt a big leap to think that such an action against the Charity was inevitable and SISU can now hide behind argument of Higgs sued first. The most vulnerable point financially is the Charity, they do not have lots of money to fund long expensive legal battles, embroil them in that and it puts pressure on them and their partners ACL & CCC.

All perfectly legal and part of business at its hard nosed money edge but like many, probably nearly all Coventry citizens that are aware of this action it leaves a very nasty taste all the same.

oldskyblue58 said:

ACL got given a choice, either pay an annual rent of £1.9m or pay a one off lease premium of £21m. They chose the lease premium. To do that ACL accessed a loan from Yorkshire bank. By the time the CCC replaced YB as lender that loan had a settlement figure of 14.4m

The council used the £21m to repay a Prudential loan of £21m that had been taken out to part fund the stadium build.

Council contribution to the project

£10m original stake
£ 69m proceeds of the Tesco sale (the CCC owned the land so the proceeds were theirs) all proceeds were invested in the build
£ 21m lease premium received that repaid the Prudential loan that the CCC were liable to repay. Prudential loan used to fund build costs
£ 1m in interest received on the monies deposited (eg Tesco proceeds) that was used to fund the build

Total build costs £118.7m

Click to expand...

Perfect many thanks.

1.9m a year or 420kpy via lease... massive difference!

So currently it is 10m outlay, plus 14m mortgage, less any profits received via ACL or am I right in saying that ACL have to put all profits into repaying the lease first?

oldskyblue58 said:

You have to keep an open mind, of course there is a chance the Charity would lose the case but consider this that I posted yesterday

To defend against the Charity claim of £29000 (pocket money surely to our owners) then you do not need to counter sue. All you have to do is prove there was no such agreement to pay the costs.

Click to expand...

….and judging by some comments on here this is what a lot of others don’t understand. A counter claim does not have to be valid claim. The claim can be baseless, spurious or a complete fabrication of the truth.

I’ve been through the small claims court myself on behalf of my wife against an equally repugnant employer who refused to pay her monies owed.

The counter claim was outrageous in terms of the truth and the sum of money counter claimed. It was so amateurish that a child could have pick the many flaws in it but nevertheless the function of the counter claim is to distress and exert pressure into the claimant dropping the case.

These judges aren’t stupid, they are razor sharp and can see through any ruse. In this case the counter claimant was made to look a complete fool in the County Court and if Higgs have evidence that there was an agreement in place for SISU to pay this money then it will be a no contest win for Higgs.

As for the counter claim made by SISU, I obviously don’t know the facts but on the face of it, it would appear to be as spurious a claim as the JR. Time will tell.

neither of the stakeholders has taken any profits out of ACL. The council has a mechanism whereby if profits are over £3.75m then they get a slice of those super profits on a sliding scale - no such payment has ever been made. The Charity and CCC directors are not paid by ACL either.

The 1.9m would have been a lease and over its life would have meant ACL paid 95m. Paying the lease premium as a one off sum made sense.

no it is not £10m plus £14m. The £14m is a loan and due to be repaid sooner or later. It is not true to say the Council investment is £10m because the funds from the sale to Tesco and the funds from the lease premium were due to the council and therefore the councils money to invest in the build, which is what happened. If the council didn't put the money in who did put it in?

Specs WT-R75 said:

Sure, but has anyone considered even the possibility that maybe Higgs are in the wrong. Maybe Sisu were happy to let the whole thing drop - their counter suit only comes in response to Higgs suing them. Perhaps they see being sued by Higgs as the point of no return and as such no point holding back now.

I for one will based my own judgement on what happens in court, rather than based on my uninformed opinion which may or may not be wrong...

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Sisu win . What matters is they are suing a charity. In PR terms it's a total disaster. The big boys will eventually pick up on this and no matter how it's painted they will look like the bad guys in all this.

DaleM said:

It doesn't matter if Sisu win . What matters is they are suing a charity. In PR terms it's a total disaster. The big boys will eventually pick up on this and no matter how it's painted they will look like the bad guys in all this.

Click to expand...

Hang on a minute, they are not suing Oxfam, they are suing a charity that in their terms is part owner of the football ground that has made it impossible for the team to play there. In SISUs world, the cosy relationship of Higgs and the Council has conspired against the club to drive the owners out. I dont subscribe to that, but you have to understand the position SISU take on these things.

oldskyblue58 said:

neither of the stakeholders has taken any profits out of ACL. The council has a mechanism whereby if profits are over £3.75m then they get a slice of those super profits on a sliding scale - no such payment has ever been made. The Charity and CCC directors are not paid by ACL either.

The 1.9m would have been a lease and over its life would have meant ACL paid 95m. Paying the lease premium as a one off sum made sense.

no it is not £10m plus £14m. The £14m is a loan and due to be repaid sooner or later. It is not true to say the Council investment is £10m because the funds from the sale to Tesco and the funds from the lease premium were due to the council and therefore the councils money to invest in the build, which is what happened. If the council didn't put the money in who did put it in?

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying... I can't argue with you because you are of course correct, but this info answers the question I had in my own head

Thanks again!

AndreasB said:

Hang on a minute, they are not suing Oxfam, they are suing a charity that in their terms is part owner of the football ground that has made it impossible for the team to play there. In SISUs world, the cosy relationship of Higgs and the Council has conspired against the club to drive the owners out. I dont subscribe to that, but you have to understand the position SISU take on these things.

Click to expand...

In Sisu world they could have just paid the 6.5million for the Higgs share in 2007 and then perhaps all these shenanigans wouldn't have taken place and the club would be self sufficient by now. Oh and talking to a lad who worked there at the time they left and they weren't driven out they packed up and fucked off of their own accord.

AndreasB said:

Hang on a minute, they are not suing Oxfam, they are suing a charity that in their terms is part owner of the football ground that has made it impossible for the team to play there. In SISUs world, the cosy relationship of Higgs and the Council has conspired against the club to drive the owners out. I dont subscribe to that, but you have to understand the position SISU take on these things.

Click to expand...

Yeah the bustards at ACL have left the pitch to die and haven't looked after it at all, meaning it's impossible to play there.

DaleM said:

In Sisu world they could have just paid the 6.5million for the Higgs share in 2007 and then perhaps all these shenanigans wouldn't have taken place and the club would be self sufficient by now. Oh and talking to a lad who worked there at the time they left and they weren't driven out they packed up and fucked off of their own accord.

Click to expand...

........unless the plan to stress ACL started in 2007 and we were always destined to be where we are now.

AndreasB said:

In SISUs world, the cosy relationship of Higgs and the Council has conspired against the club to drive the owners out. I dont subscribe to that, but you have to understand the position SISU take on these things.

Click to expand...

In SISU's world we want a 12,000 stadium in the Coventry Area
In SISU's world they will announce where that will be in 3 weeks
In SISU's world they have threatened to sue CCFC fan groups
In SISU's world they think it is more profitable to play in Northampton than rent Ricoh
In SISU's world they thought 6,000 would go to Northampton
In SISU's world they thought it would be ok to have a director on the bench
In SISU's world, its acceptable to never see the owner
In SISU's world we only need 5,000 tickets for Arsenal


I dont want to be in SISU's world !

ccfcway said:

In SISU's world we want a 12,000 stadium in the Coventry Area
In SISU's world they will announce where that will be in 3 weeks
In SISU's world they have threatened to sue CCFC fan groups
In SISU's world they think it is more profitable to play in Northampton than rent Ricoh
In SISU's world they thought 6,000 would go to Northampton
In SISU's world they thought it would be ok to have a director on the bench
In SISU's world, its acceptable to never see the owner
In SISU's world we only need 5,000 tickets for Arsenal


I dont want to be in SISU's world !

Click to expand...

WHY ?, What A Wonderful World.