Nick
Administrator
What is a fair price?
If they weren't involved why do they care? I think that SISU are very much involved in the sale of the Ricoh or should we say the sale of ACL. They tried to get it cheaply and were out flanked. All this is to do with a company not getting their way, and sour grapes. Why are they not investigating other government bodies and taking them to court? Just CCC?
I think you are technically right, nothing to do with the sale of the Ricoh. This has everything to do with the sale of ACL to the WASPS, even then SISU were offered the charity half, but no. They would have had to bay a fair price, which if they had done would have been a bargain.
SISU were offered the charity half, but no. They would have had to bay a fair price, which if they had done would have been a bargain.
It's in the report!
Appendix 4 of Goacher's report. Was said on CWR in an interview with Shane O'Connor on 13 March 2013.
What is a fair price?
The formula price for the Higgs half was in the region of £10m. That would have been for ACL with the existing lease. Wasps have got 100% of ACL with a 200 year lease extension for just over half that!
Any link to it or was it just a say so? I find it hard to believe that the SISU legal woman would have let it go If true.
SISU refused to take on the loan as they said it was worthless. Wasps paid off the loan. Wasps raised a lot of money to pay off the loan from bonds. So who was right?
He did indeed, he said “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”. That's not being disputed. He's now saying he was only quoting Ainsworth but he (Ainsworth) didn't actually say SISU was a predator :thinking about:
"But SISU are not entitled to bully their way to control over an asset they never provided. They must prove they are not simply a predator with greed running through their DNA before they could expect such treatment."
BA speech to Parliment
Isn't that what was quoted?
They paid off £14m loan by taking out a £35m loan!
What is a fair price?
A fair price is whatever a party is happy to pay or market value, WASPS paid off the loan, while doing that they negotiated a 200 year lease. I'm sure that any party that went into mutually beneficial negotiations that were astute could of got the same deal. Now, I do not know all of the facts probably true to say I know none of the facts, I only know what I have seen and heard on the internet, the papers and on the radio, so that is what I draw my own conclusions from. From the 'none facts' I believe the following to have happened.
A football club over stretched to try and compete with the big boys and in doing so put themselves in a pretty ropey position financial and had to take a deal offered by a local Authority and a Local Charity to finish a project, while doing so signed unto what would be come a mill stone rental agreement.
They failed in what they thought would be a quick return to the sky cash cow, and had to seek a buyer. The buyer would only play ball if everybody handed over their rights to any sort of involvement with the football club.
Many people, The Local authority, fans were hoodwinked and thought this will save use, they have done all this due diligence, have rich backers, they will want to get back to the poem to sell on for a profit? Win Win!
The due diligence that was carry out was not adequate and did not spot that the rental was far to high and that should have been addressed before the purchase of the club.
Once the error was spotted no involvement of the fans to try and engage in a way to gain support, but a hard nose do this or else.
Local authority steps in to protect its assets.
Business gets more hard nose, then try to out flank the LA by putting itself into admin.
Business goes even further consults the fans about the situation and cuts still further into financial problems by cutting of its fans base by moving it away from it home town.
All the while the owners think 'we're the only party in town, we can all the shots and get the operating company for not a lot'
Unknown to all but those involved, astute business men see an opportunity to get their hands on a state of the art sports and leisure complex for about a sixth of the price of building one, get in and do a deal.
Football club owners think' S**t ! didn't see that coming. LCFC got theirs for next to nothing? Stuff it later take them to court.
Charity say's you still have the option to buy our half, Rugby club say ' you can come in if you like if not we will buy it. Football club say we'll take you to court and spend 2 or 3 times the amount to buy on on something some where, some time in the future.
Charity say's you still have the option to buy our half, Rugby club say ' you can come in if you like if not we will buy it. Football club say we'll take you to court and spend 2 or 3 times the amount to buy on on something some where, some time in the future.
Isn't that what was quoted?
Indeed it was, Ainsworth said SISU must prove they are not a predator. Mutton said they were a predator. Therefore Mutton was not quoting Ainsworth and was asserting his own view.
I think it's fair to say considering the terminology this is what Mutton was referring to. You are really grasping at straws a bit, surely?
Pretty clear to me, one says "It (SISU) must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA", that quite clearly does not say they are a predator. The other says “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”, that quite clearly does say they are a predator. Not sure how much clearer it can be!
Can you show us where then?
Can you show us where then?
Can you show us where then?
He stated that he felt that the comments were justified giving thedealings which he had with SISU.
Fucking hell. How many times has it been shown to you. Have a day off ffs.Can you show us where then?
Councillor Mutton’s role as a Trustee of the Alan Higgs CentreTrust was not declared on his register of interest form submittedon 19 July 2012;
Pretty clear to me, one says "It (SISU) must prove that it is not simply a predator with greed running through its DNA", that quite clearly does not say they are a predator. The other says “It’s absolutely true that Sisu is a predator with greed running through its DNA”, that quite clearly does say they are a predator. Not sure how much clearer it can be!
And you don't think one is making reference to the other?
Are you missing the point on purpose?
At least you aren't trying to tell people he didn't say it though
It is like you saying "Person X needs to prove they aren't a dickhead" and me saying "Person X absolutely is a dickhead". It is referencing it and then a bit more.
But if you are suggesting they need to prove that they aren't one. Would you not think that it is plausible that you are suggesting that they are and you are challenging them to prove they are not?
Ie innocent until proven guilty but in BA's case guilty and challenging them to prove they are innocent? That's the way I interpreted that he meant it. I assume Mutton has interpreted it as BA describing them as this and saying it himself as I think it was what Mutton personally believed but now he could get away with saying it as VA had already got it out there.
Not really.
Whether he got mixed up with the original quote or not, the words came out of his mouth... It is pretty much for certain that is what he thought and that is what he said.. Then it is back tracked to "quoting" BA, although being different.
Where what? Ainsworth spoke in parliament its on their record of that debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130312/halltext/130312h0002.htm
Mutton's comments were made on CWR but are quoted in the Council's report (Appendix 4):
http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=161&MId=11019&Ver=4
He has said it, said he thought it was justified and then suddenly it is being denied he ever said it ...
Fucking hell. How many times has it been shown to you. Have a day off ffs.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?