Certainly been a waste of my employers time and money.
Done fuck all else but look at SBT at work.
Anyone got the judges full summing up ?
No smoking guns !
No game changers !
Expecting same for the JR
If people are reading the docs and not seeing some very important new info and points to consider they're either missing them (understandable given the legalese) or trying to brush them under the carpet.
I've caught up on yesterday's transcript and I'm going to do some more research and digging off the back of it to make sure I'm dealing with some real facts rather than some vague suspicion, but I think there are some really important things to consider and I think even Simon might have missed a key issue in his reports (but considering the deadline pressures he has to work under and the amount if info to process, also understandable).
I'll try and get and update and any docs up later on.
No smoking guns !
No game changers !
Expecting same for the JR
On the sisu transcript it says that sisu wanted a separate management company to take over the running of all events. It claims all parties signed a document agreeing this? Is that right?
Thank God your exclamation mark key is working again!!!!
Question. Why did Higgs buy the share off CCFC.
A1. If it was to help CCFC out then there is surely some morals in business and CCFC/SISU should buy it back at the original value or at least the lower value agreed. This is particularly poignant if CCFC had agreed to buy it back in the future at the price they paid.
A2. If it was because Higgs thought they were onto a fast buck then it should be sold at the market value. However there is no doubt that dropped when CCFC broke the lease!!
If people are reading the docs and not seeing some very important new info and points to consider they're either missing them (understandable given the legalese) or trying to brush them under the carpet.
I've caught up on yesterday's transcript and I'm going to do some more research and digging off the back of it to make sure I'm dealing with some real facts rather than some vague suspicion, but I think there are some really important things to consider and I think even Simon might have missed a key issue in his reports (but considering the deadline pressures he has to work under and the amount if info to process, also understandable).
I'll try and get and update and any docs up later on.
One thing I find curious is that PwC advises Higgs that their shares are pretty worthless and they should take whatever cash they could get upfront.
That advise was based on their valuation of ACL being worthless and in serious trouble if the bank debt was not discharged.
The HoT with CCC and the ITS with Higgs was clearly anchored on sisu buying out the YB loan and discharge it.
At that point it was not an option for CCC or Higgs to do it as the original Joint Venture Agreement disallowed any loan to ACL from the shareholders. That was changed in August(?) 2012 to pave the way for CCC to buyout and replace the YB loan.
Why did CCC leave the original agreement where sisu would have bought the loan and discharge it when this transaction would clearly have increased the value of the CCC shares????
This is one issue we will hear much more about in the JR.
Not only was the CCC loan unnecessary as all parties agreed that sisu should buy it, but the loan itself became much higher as they failed to agree the price suggested by a 'distressed debt expert' - sisu. Add to that the roundabout way they had to go to get the Joint Venture Agreement changed.
The end result is that ACL now sits with a loan of £14m where they could have been debt free. The shares of CCC are worth considerably less due to this liability and Higgs still haven't been able to offload their shares - they have also lost a lot of value.
The change to the JVA wasn't enacted until 14th or 15th January 2013 mate, I think it was discussed at a Trustees meeting on 14th Jan.
One thing I find curious is that PwC advises Higgs that their shares are pretty worthless and they should take whatever cash they could get upfront.
That advise was based on their valuation of ACL being worthless and in serious trouble if the bank debt was not discharged.
The HoT with CCC and the ITS with Higgs was clearly anchored on sisu buying out the YB loan and discharge it.
At that point it was not an option for CCC or Higgs to do it as the original Joint Venture Agreement disallowed any loan to ACL from the shareholders. That was changed in August(?) 2012 to pave the way for CCC to buyout and replace the YB loan.
Why did CCC leave the original agreement where sisu would have bought the loan and discharge it when this transaction would clearly have increased the value of the CCC shares????
This is one issue we will hear much more about in the JR.
Not only was the CCC loan unnecessary as all parties agreed that sisu should buy it, but the loan itself became much higher as they failed to agree the price suggested by a 'distressed debt expert' - sisu. Add to that the roundabout way they had to go to get the Joint Venture Agreement changed.
The end result is that ACL now sits with a loan of £14m where they could have been debt free. The shares of CCC are worth considerably less due to this liability and Higgs still haven't been able to offload their shares - they have also lost a lot of value.
One thing I find curious is that PwC advises Higgs that their shares are pretty worthless and they should take whatever cash they could get upfront.
That advise was based on their valuation of ACL being worthless and in serious trouble if the bank debt was not discharged.
The HoT with CCC and the ITS with Higgs was clearly anchored on sisu buying out the YB loan and discharge it.
At that point it was not an option for CCC or Higgs to do it as the original Joint Venture Agreement disallowed any loan to ACL from the shareholders. That was changed in August(?) 2012 to pave the way for CCC to buyout and replace the YB loan.
Why did CCC leave the original agreement where sisu would have bought the loan and discharge it when this transaction would clearly have increased the value of the CCC shares????
This is one issue we will hear much more about in the JR.
Not only was the CCC loan unnecessary as all parties agreed that sisu should buy it, but the loan itself became much higher as they failed to agree the price suggested by a 'distressed debt expert' - sisu. Add to that the roundabout way they had to go to get the Joint Venture Agreement changed.
The end result is that ACL now sits with a loan of £14m where they could have been debt free. The shares of CCC are worth considerably less due to this liability and Higgs still haven't been able to offload their shares - they have also lost a lot of value.
We don't know how much ACL still have to pay off on the loan it could as you say be £14m or 14p we don't know.
All comes back to that Package Godiva.
The offer from SISU to CCC to jointly discharge YB reduced SISU's input there and ,giving the option to settle Higgs at required Value,Or the original where CCC pay Higgs the Other £3.5M.
Finally again,even for total settlement from SISU @ £12M. represents a mere 1% of that over the 100 yr lease.
It's a forty year loan at 4% per annul so we can hazard a pretty good guess. To suggest they have paid any capital above the standard term is without foundation.
It was just that, wasn't it - an offer. The prime offer was for sisu to buy it alone and discharge it. On top of that pay Higgs £5.5m for their shares (yes, £4m in instalments over 10 years). In return for an increase of the ACL lease to 125 years and a much reduced rent.
Why is that such a bad deal?
Who could offer a better deal?
You don't seem to want to see It ,Higgs were getting ripped when there was no need ,either SISU or CCC In either scenario could have settled Higgs for a fraction of their current exposures .
We don't know if they were getting ripped because we don't know what the true valuation is/was.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
No I don't see it. Please bear with me I am an old man and it's Friday.
How were Higgs getting ripped?
I genuinely want to know.
Remind me how they came by 50% of ACL,then remind me who benefited by It,and then who devalued it.
Alright, you argue that if it wasn't because of Higgs the club would have been eradicated. Or something like that.
Fine, I get that.
But please remember that sisu wasn't here when the Ricoh was planned and build. It wasn't sisu who sold to Higgs.
So why take that out on them?
After sisu came in the club kept paying £1.2m per year in rent. Had the club not existed and paid that money, then ACL wouldn't have existed either. They would have gone under.
So in a sense sisu saved not only the club, but also ACL.
And yes! I actually, really believe that.
ACL and ccfc are taking each other down. They should merge. My mantra over the past three years - they should merge.
Only that way can I see a future for the club.
I read in the case files that ACL pondered at taking over the club themselves. For a second I thought 'too bad they didn't'.
But then I realized that ACL is partly run by politicians and I came back to my senses.
Back to your point - yes, Higgs did save the club pre-sisu, but you really can't blame sisu for only offering to give them £2m over the shares value in a separate cash deal?
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?