J
Jack Griffin
Guest
It was a tragedy that Sir Derek Higgs died in 2008, I feel sure he would have been able to steer the good ship CCFC through the storm more effectively than PKWH.
Isn't Mrs PWKH a Higgs, obviously getting the KH from marriage as PWKH said he'd married into the family. Not sure they'd ever want to see the club liquidated given the family history supporting us although I may be wrong and happy to correct if needed.
any idea when that was Jack ?
though I think people had got wind of it earlier. ISTR Fisher was cracking on about CCFC Ltd being non-trading property subsidiary before it came out in the wash.
How come £19M ?
How were they able to advise the business without conducting some sort of audit on its position?
Mr Thompson questioning Mr Harris:
Q. ... Whereas in fact, it was bought for 14 million.
A. It was. The debt at the time was 19 million.
Q. I think people know about that, there was the hedging element, so there's a question about how much it was, and you there say I think it's 15 million.
Hind sight is a wonderful thingso using that, in reasonable chronological order did the game changers start with the establishment of Otium? or the ARVO mortgage charge over CCFC assets? or the restructuring by error or other means of the playing side? by CCFC Ltd become something its accounts say it was not? the decision to stop paying rent? the West email of plan? the break down of Charity talks? the loan by CCC?
So CCFC Ltd changed probably in 2012 but only became known March 2013 ........ that would be when these talks were supposed to be going on in good faith ...........:thinking about:
Yes hindsight, we can't do without it, can we
And you forgot to mention Hoffman and Elliott. PWKH is quoted to say 'Hoffman is circulating just below the horizon'
with the greatest of respect to messrs Hoffman & Elliott I have never really seen them as a game changer ....... I know others have
Sadly think it's the fact that others did that contributed to the whole breakdown.
You think Joe and Hoff conned CCC into thinking there were options? You think CCC wouldn't have looked to gazump Sisu if they didn't think other offers were available?
Could be, but remember ACL looked at buying the club in case of liquidation, plus others were involved. I think you're putting the horse before cart.
Withdrawing any co-operation with Sisu in plans to buy out the Higgs share and share(or do themselves) buying out the YB mortgage they thought would force Sisu to just give up the club through sale or liquidation, with somebody ready to step in straight away.
It was a tragedy that Sir Derek Higgs died in 2008, I feel sure he would have been able to steer the good ship CCFC through the storm more effectively than PKWH.
You think Joe and Hoff conned CCC into thinking there were options? You think CCC wouldn't have looked to gazump Sisu if they didn't think other offers were available?
Could be, but remember ACL looked at buying the club in case of liquidation, plus others were involved. I think you're putting the horse before cart.
I know you're desperate to try and show Coventry City Council in a good light, but look at how many reasonable buildings they've demolished around Coventry after some nobody developer has submitted un-financed plans for something or other.
I think in particularly, where the old Smithfield Hotel was. It was demolished 12 years ago yet still nothing has materialised on the site.
They can hardly be called diligent when it comes to listening to empty promises (they more than welcomed SISU after all).
ACL's looking at buying the club after liquidation lasted about 2 minutes!
Really think that the influence behind the scenes of chancers such as Hoffman and Elliott, with their very attractive to a council desperate to get somebody to regenerate the area, American property developer, strongly influenced their direction.
Withdrawing any co-operation with Sisu in plans to buy out the Higgs share and share(or do themselves) buying out the YB mortgage they thought would force Sisu to just give up the club through sale or liquidation, with somebody ready to step in straight away.
I'd be interested to see the timescales.
It's a semantic argument, but an important one. Let's do a little thought experiment.
Let's say you're in charge of CCC and you've met with Joy and she's made it clear that no stadium=no funding. You then decide (for reasons totally unrelated to who owns the club) that this deal is not good for you, the club or the city you are in charge of.
Now you're in a position where Sisu are likely to pull funding.
What do you do?
The other point is: how can anyone force Sisu out of the club. It's their choice to stay on, to not pay rent, to put us into admin, etc. etc. etc. Literally none of this debacle couldn't have carried on without Sisu's implicit permission.
It just doesn't make sense as a plan to start with the preposition to remove Sisu.
This action is likely to be regarded by SISU as very hostile act.
however, ultimately this loan is ACL’s loan, and as major shareholder,acting with the complete support and agreement of the other
shareholder, I believe it is entirely appropriate for us to seek to have this negotiation with the Bank.
Having done this deal with the Yorkshire Bank, it is possible that SISU will put the Club straight into liquidation. Alternatively,
we may be able to persuade them to put the Club on the market
If the YB loan was discharged and ACL left debt free - that would add value. The loan stood at something like £19m so that alone would increase the value quite substantially.
Then the ACL lease would be extended from 42(?) years to 125 years. That is adding a lot of value too.
(In addition the club would pay considerable less rent and gain access to ACL revenue - that would mean less risk for sisu and less need for funding).
Do you now agree that the deal would add value and that there would be plenty of security for the outstanding £4m?
They were hoping, and indeed, expected to force the issue.
Am sure that they wouldn't have done so if they didn't think that there was somebody waiting in the wings.
Again, I'm not sure which bit in there contradicts what I said.
That email is after the council have decided to not go ahead. The question is why did they not go ahead?
There are a million reasons to not go through with a deal that only Sisu had actually shown any appetite for from what I can see. You can't just pull out your favourite theory and say "that's it".
You say forcing the issue, I say taking Joy at her word.
As I've said before, if I put a gun to your head and say I'll kill you if you don't do X, and you don't. It's still murder, not suicide.
Your argument flounders on your first word. If.
What are you talking about? PWKH has nothing to do with CCFC. Neither would DH at that time.
That was from the August report, they were still talking to Sisu right up until December about doing a deal on the YB loan.
ACL's looking at buying the club after liquidation lasted about 2 minutes!
Really think that the influence behind the scenes of chancers such as Hoffman and Elliott, with their very attractive to a council desperate to get somebody to regenerate the area, American property developer, strongly influenced their direction.
Withdrawing any co-operation with Sisu in plans to buy out the Higgs share and share(or do themselves) buying out the YB mortgage they thought would force Sisu to just give up the club through sale or liquidation, with somebody ready to step in straight away.
Not really - that was the basis for the negotiations. The centrepiece in 'the package' they all agreed to and was written into both the ITS and the HoT.
Without sisu or sisu/ccc buying and discharging the loan everything else would make no sense to sisu.
Out of interest...
How much of the transcripts have you read?
The general consensus on here have for a long time been that sisu were acting underhanded, immoral and unethical. It is new evidence that CCC have acted that way.
The first real game-changer was CCC buying out the YB mortgage. That is what effectively stopped any hope of club and stadium become re-united. It seems very likely that the idea was to force out sisu and I guess there must have been a lot of head scratching when this didn't happen.
The second game-changer was ccfc ltd turning out to be just a prop co holding the lease.
Surely that must have been planned some time before - probably in 2012 and probably as a precaution by sisu to protect against a hostile take over. Not really a bad decision by them, but certainly a surprise for everyone.
So it seems they are just as bad as each other.
Every word, including Deering saying that ACL was worth nothing, but Joy being a charitable sort, would pay £2m. Also the bit where Deering said the decision to stop paying rent was purely down to Fisher, nothing to do with Joy (think this was after we were told she was 'hands on'). Also the bit where Higgs wrote to SISU but the letters were not replied to, and the bit where they asked, unsuccessfully, for proof of funds.
During early meetings with the Claimants, the Defendant’s representatives appeared to understand why the Club was not making payments in the amount prescribed under the lease and licence with ACL. At a meeting in March 2012, for example, the Defendant’s Director of Finance and Legal Services (who also serves as one of ACL’s directors), Mr Chris West, did not raise any objection to, and apparently understood the need to allow the Club, a rent holiday
Whether SISU have taken bad decisions or good decisions will perhaps depend on where we end up - but if you look at where we are now, I'd currently rate their decision making (and negotiating skills) as somewhere below terrible and possibly verging on fatal.
That's interesting, because in the JR application they state:
Leaving aside the question of whether West "understood" what was being agreed to, doesn't that suggest that Sisu were very clear about the "rent holiday" that they took? Wasn't Ms Deering at these meetings as Joy's representative?
Which company is the claimant in the JR? Is it SISU, or another of their companies?
How would the old club structure with Ltd and Holdings leave Sisu open to a hostile takeover?
(not picking a fight, curious)
Well, it quite obivious that had the Golden Share and the players contract been in the same company - then sisu would have been open to a take over attempt as anyone (Haskell), had he secured the Higgs shares first, would be able to put in a considerable bid for Limited and the administrator would have to do the best for 'limited' in that situation => sell to the one with access to a stadium as well as money to secure the creditors.
Whoops, you're right. It's CCFC, ARVO and SBS&L. My mistake. Still, wasn't Deering present? She seems to have been able to give testimony at every other point.
Personally I don't quite see it as 'just as bad as each other'.
SISU had a chance to do a deal with AEHC, CCC, and ACL - but they started off with threats, and never delivered anything that the other parties wanted in terms of security, proof of funding, or plans.
SISU going to the bank without getting authority first was also bound to cause issues, and again indicates to me that this wasn't a typical negotiation. It's clear that even at the time this made Higgs and CCC very unhappy - what a daft thing to do at the start such a critical process.
I also don't think that SISU's shifting of assets was to protect against a hostile takeover - it was much more about breaking the lease. Loading the debt protected against a takeover, but again there's no mechanism for anyone to takeover CCFC if SISU continue to pay the rent (or negotiate in a way that the 'road map' doesn't break down).
The one thing I can see as being unethical from CCC is going behind SISU's back to the bank. Although we've not heard from CCC yet, so this is still an assumption. Even so, from what I can see this wasn't done to force SISU out as much as to protect ACL, which the Council of course has a share in. Again, you can't force SISU out if they pay the rent - and even the CCC guy points out that if nothing else the deal allows a better rent to be offered to the club.
Whether SISU have taken bad decisions or good decisions will perhaps depend on where we end up - but if you look at where we are now, I'd currently rate their decision making (and negotiating skills) as somewhere below terrible and possibly verging on fatal.
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?