Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yes Godiva but Chris west is no longer employed by the council. In principle though yep
Yes Godiva but Chris west is no longer employed by the council. In principle though yep
I'm thinking I may have made it up. Sure he isn't still in post though
linkedin has him as Director of Finance and Legal Services at Coventry City Council
Chris West is still on the council. To my knowledge he has always been a CCFC fan. ACL is a small part of his professional remit.
I know Grendel has tried to make out "this is really HOT stuff" re his emails, but the day before he was claiming the case a non event....either way so much for Grendel's judgement.
Don't worry about Grendel, he's off out this week on a jolly spending some of his £100k a year dough on them ladyboys in Stratford!
I wasn't aware there are any ladyboys in Stratford?
As for taking my visitors out then obviously that will be on my expense account.
There will be plenty of auditors.
YB will bring Deloitte.
CCC will bring PriceWaterhouse
Sisu will bring BDO.
It's almost guaranteed to be the most boring court session in history.
I imagine that'll be like the Super Bowl for you and OSB.
I wasn't aware there are any ladyboys in Stratford?
As for taking my visitors out then obviously that will be on my expense account.
I imagine that'll be like the Super Bowl for you and OSB.
Nah, I am not an accountant.
But I wonder if the auditors will hold their annual convention there. Most will be there anyway.
I wasn't aware there are any ladyboys in Stratford?
As for taking my visitors out then obviously that will be on my expense account.
On "your" expense account or "somebody else's" ?
Just thoughts musings and conjecture follows.......
1) Did SISU help save the Ricoh, I can see a certain logic to that thinking certainly. In 2008 ACL was far more dependent on CCFC for income to pay the loans than they are now. Could it have put the stadium at risk had no deal been done yes I would have thought so. But it was also an opportunity to bring everything together that was missed. Other than perhaps self interest of the previous regime I really can not see why CCFC didn't go into administration late 2007 and "investors" pick up both the team and stadium out of that.
The dispute has certainly sharpened up the ACL act commercially. But that's a two edge sword as it highlights what could/should have been achieved by ACL previously but better still by ACL and CCFC working together.
...............
2) It is clear from the transcript that the Charity drew clear lines of responsibility for themselves, made it clear what they were party to or not...... and this was accepted as the case by the Judge. It is also clear there were considerable differences between Council and charity about the way forward and approach.
I have taken two points from your post:
1) I am happy that you largely agree with the premise of the thread.
But I guess the point of the OP was quickly buried and the thread became one more Higgs vs Sisu case thread.
2) I actually made a couple of remarks in the threads supported by Rob and Simons posts/tweets during the court days - that it seemed like Higgs were somehow distancing themselves from the CCC. They were clearly not in total agreement over everything that happened and it makes me wonder if there was division with the charity also?
I think what the Charity did was to tell it truthfully as it was. Not putting distance as a decision to do so but letting facts speak for themselves.
In supporting your premise we are also ignoring the role other investors may have played had the team and stadium become available together though are we not? It would be far more attractive proposition than a financially lame football club. So you could argue the choice SISU hampered things for both because there is no real evidence to support the theory that they had the necessary funds available to really make it a success.
I guess we will never know but your premise is a valid one none the less
I wondered if that might be in part planned with the council too. Just like Sisu were distancing themselves from CCFC (you'd assume by consent of CCFC) IMO in prep for the JR. In both cases it provides a ready made "it wos the other guy wot did it" defence.
I think the really telling thing to be honest is that anti-CCC people are still anti-CCC and anti-Sisu types are still anti-Sisu, so I'm not sure either side can claim much of substance TBH.
It's actually interesting.
Yesterday Higgs put distance between themselves and CCC.
Today sisu put distance between themselves and club management.
Out of interest - are you going to the Auditors annual convention? I believe it will be held during the JR as it is convenient for PwC, Deloitte and BDO.
can't think of anything more boring :laugh::laugh: so no
Something that I haven't seen highlighted is the bank loan settlement figures
Mr Fisher and others have often said, I believe, that they could have settled the loan for around £5m...... that CCC had paid too much
The court documents disclosed the following
28/09/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £6m to settle loan rejected
17/12/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £12m to settle loan rejected
20/12/12 Final offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £14m (accepted on 21/12/12)
Doesn't look like Yorkshire Bank were of a mind to accept a massively discounted figure does it?
You've obviously never heard of stocktaking, which is tedious and boring and happens more than once a year.
Is that not because CCC were never really settling a distressed loan but merely refinancing?
Is that not because CCC were never really settling a distressed loan but merely refinancing?
Do you still have to count manually? Is it not all based on EPOS now?
Something that I haven't seen highlighted is the bank loan settlement figures
Mr Fisher and others have often said, I believe, that they could have settled the loan for around £5m...... that CCC had paid too much
The court documents disclosed the following
28/09/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £6m to settle loan rejected
17/12/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £12m to settle loan rejected
20/12/12 Final offer by CCC to Yorkshire Bank of £14m (accepted on 21/12/12)
Doesn't look like Yorkshire Bank were of a mind to accept a massively discounted figure does it?
The essential facts didn't really change though did they? The loan was already in distress we are told because of the ACL finances and CCFC withholding rent. Only difference being who was providing the pay off...... you could argue that SISU being involved would have promised more liquidity than the Charity and therefore kept the settlement high. If SISU had 50% then CCC still had the other 50% and a bank might seek to rely on the stability of a council so either way settlement would be high. It wasn't buying the loan off in an administration situation. So last question does this actually point to Yorkshire Bank not believing that things were as bad as portrayed?
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?