Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Also Godiva the Judge ruled that there was no willingness on either side after the exclusivity period to agree a deal
Also Godiva the Judge ruled that there was no willingness on either side after the exclusivity period to agree a deal
Just out of curiosity, do you think that anything will come to light in the JR that will paint Sisu in a bad light?
He used the word 'appetite' and I understand why he came to that conclusion. Remember that by 'either side' he meant for sisu and Higgs to reach the proposed deal within the ITS.
Sisu were not allowed to speak to Higgs advisors - PwC - and so unable to directly address their concerns. They were also still negotiating with CCC on the parts in the ITS that the Higgs deal depended on.
So the judge could not find that Higgs were interested in concluding the deal - otherwise they would have allowed sisu to speak to PwC.
And he could not find that sisu were interested in concluding the deal - as contact between sisu and Higgs were sparse while sisu negotiated with CCC.
I read it all, and I believe that Higgs were messed around by SISU. Higgs asked for proof of funds and asked how any future payments would be secured, there were no answers.
Hm - hard to answer. It's a case about illegal state aid.
If anything I would say it doesn't look pretty that sisu were involved in a plan to distress the YB loan.
But then again, when CCC negotiated with YB to buy the loan for themselves they tried the same tactic.
Frankly, the whole "won't let us speak to their advisors" is a bullshit excuse.
What questions did they want to ask? Why didn't they ask Higgs to ask their advisors those questions? It would very easy for Higgs to say we didn't have access to SISU advisors, but they don't bother, because it's nonsense.
Showing proof of funds require you to show a bank or an escrow balance with the money in it.
That's not the way sisu operate - they have an agreement with investors and obtain their accept for the investment on given conditions.
As long as the conditions wasn't met, sisu could not agree terms with Higgs/CCC/YB and so could not have the money released.
I think ACL/Higgs/CCC knew that.
According to the transcripts the future payment of £4m should be secured against assets until paid.
Is it? Then why didn't Higgs simply set up a meeting with sisu and PwC?
Just saying 'it's nonsense' is not really an argument.
There's a lot of 'he said, she said', but I read from court transcripts and all evidence - spoken and written - were given under oath.
So you think they are both as bad as each other? Also, not having read all these transcripts and emails from the recent case (due to having a busy life and spare time spent on a golf course), do you think that the emails indicate that it was illegal state aid?
Speculation mixed with nonsense.
You don't need to have money in an account to show proof of funds.
Are you seriously telling us you know the 'way SISU operate'?
You think ACL/Higgs/CCC knew that SISU wouldn't be able to meet the terms, a bit weird that SISU thought they could meet them, I guess you know best though.
'Secured against assets until paid' well that's alright then, what could possibly go wrong. I don't know why they didn't just ask SISU for a pinky promise.
They didn't want SISU to meet their advisors, seems fair enough to me. If SISU have questions, pass the questions on.
Just saying that what someone else says isn't really an argument, isn't really an argument.
I've read all of it, I found PWKH very believable, I found that Deering was on maternity a lot of the time, or it was up to Fisher, or it was up to Joy.
Ok - you are not really arguing anything. Just attacking.
So I will hit the sack.
Showing proof of funds require you to show a bank or an escrow balance with the money in it.
That's not the way sisu operate - they have an agreement with investors and obtain their accept for the investment on given conditions.
As long as the conditions wasn't met, sisu could not agree terms with Higgs/CCC/YB and so could not have the money released.
I think ACL/Higgs/CCC knew that.
According to the transcripts the future payment of £4m should be secured against assets until paid.
Who would trust SISU to pay a debt in the future? I would expect litigation before repayment. Maybe Higgs did too.
And what assets would the 4m have been secured on? They were trying to say that the contract was valueless so if they were right there how can they say by taking it over it would be equity with a value :thinking about: CCFC have no assets. Or what they do have would go to SISU's investors first.
I regularly consider myself to be saving my landlord ....... Actually FUCK HIM. Im gonna move to Bell Green.
Maybe try somewhere between Bell Green and Wood End.
There is no doubt that the rearranged loan helped the situation and scuppered the Sisu plan, hence their need to pursue the JR.
Is there a place called Green Wood??
I regularly consider myself to be saving my landlord ....... Actually FUCK HIM. Im gonna move to Bell Green.
Is there a place called Green Wood??
Was thinking of Bell Wood myself.
A particularly good plan that would, after too many years, have reunited club with stadium.
Scuppered deliberately, and in a rather underhand way by CCC, which is why we're in Northampton and The Ricoh has Spider Pig or whatever.
If you swapped round the Sisu and ACL/CCC words in the emails and documents released last week the outrage on here would be incredible.
Would all be "Fucking sisu stitch-up, don't blame the council for moving out after being treated like that"
Bell End?
Why don't you put a bid in for the house instead.
I bet if you told him you were going to stop the rent for a year and then move out of town he might be interested.
I know when he took you in you were homeless but sod him, offer him 50% of what it's worth.
You can always take him to court, they are bound to agree that he threw you out.
Bell End?
A particularly good plan that would, after too many years, have reunited club with stadium.
Scuppered deliberately, and in a rather underhand way by CCC, which is why we're in Northampton and The Ricoh has Spider Pig or whatever.
If you swapped round the Sisu and ACL/CCC words in the emails and documents released last week the outrage on here would be incredible.
Would all be "Fucking sisu stitch-up, don't blame the council for moving out after being treated like that"
The club will never be reunited with the stadium as the only way that can happen is if they own the stadium.
If Sisu own the stadium they will rent it to the club not give it too them.
Surely you can understand that?
If they own both are they not united?
ARVO now owns the club (Otium), but it's under the SBS&L umbrella.
It would make no sense for sisu not to place the stadium under the same umbrella.
Probably right. But anyone who thought CCC had no role in this are moronic. Two wrongs don't make a right though, and ultimately the final decision to play in Northampton was from 1 side only.
Not sure on this.
I feel that CCC should have been more sympathetic to CCFC plight and charged rent accordingly.
Can't remember any requests from CCFC to reduce the rent and CCC refusing. Or in fact any discussions.
But I feel that because they didn't reduce it initially they played into Sisu hands and gave them the excuse to stress the Ricoh.
I am convinced that Sisu always planned to stress the Ricoh from day one.
If they charge us rent though we are back to square 1?
It may be an interdepartmental transfer of costs but its still rent.
I think I am blinded by Sisu treatment of fans and will never be able to accept them even if their intentions are good.
If they charge us rent though we are back to square 1?
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?