Didn't see your post - otherwise I would have included yours.
Another angle ... surely DA will have signed an NDA, so if it could be proven that he was telling YB he could be found liable?
Was It ever possible once David Alvey left ACL and joined YB?
Wasn't it Daniel Gidney that moved from ACL to YB?
Wasn't it that hearts bloke
Nope, he went to Lancashire County Cricket Club.
Did ACL ever actually recruit a replacement CEO?
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?
Didn't see your post - otherwise I would have included yours.
Another angle ... surely DA will have signed an NDA, so if it could be proven that he was telling YB he could be found liable?
We were told it was in distress but then other things that came out in court suggest it wasn't really or certainly wasn't to the same extent.
As for David Allvey, he had more than one non exec directorship so him moving on might be just coincidence.
If ACL were under pressure due to the rent-strike, then they could have lined up for a voluntary administration. That would likely persuade YB to accept a large discount?
nothing to suggest they did........... you might have expected that to come out in the documents disclosed so far though
We were told it was in distress but then other things that came out in court suggest it wasn't really or certainly wasn't to the same extent.
TBF FP was It anymore exposed than at the GET GO,they had been paying down the loan at double rate ?
So who was telling us? You might expect the bank to have a reasonable idea particularly as they had appointed accountants to look at it and had details of day to day transactions via the bank account. So if the picture put out didn't stick with the Bank would they discount the settlement massively?
So who was telling us? You might expect the bank to have a reasonable idea particularly as they had appointed accountants to look at it and had details of day to day transactions via the bank account. So if the picture put out didn't stick with the Bank would they discount the settlement massively?
ACL always maintained that they had a good viable business. There was mention in the court docs of painting pictures but that is something that would have been investigated by accountants working for the bank before any deal done
Boy, it took a long time to wade through all of that court stuff. I think what I took out of it (in a nutshell) was this:
In March 2012 SISU threatened to pull out of CCFC (twice) if they didn't get their hands on the Ricoh and access to revenue streams. This at the start of negotiations.
The 'roadmap' proposed by Fisher that month suggested amongst other things that:
1) SISU bought Higgs shares.
2) SISU bought out the bank debt (for a substantial discount).
3) That the club could take a 'rent holiday'.
4) That it would all be wrapped up by 30 Jun 2012.
SISU claimed that everyone agreed to the plan, but in fact within a matter of days after the meeting it was clear that ACL weren't prepared to accept the roadmap as was.
Despite this, SISU approached YB on it's own without any of the other parties' agreement.
The original offer to Higgs for the share talked about £1.5m up front, and £4m payable over ten years. The charity asked for clarity over how the £4m would be secured, but they never received anything that gave them confidence that they'd receive the funds.
ACL and AEHC asked for proof of funding, and a business plan for the club. It seems that neither was ever provided.
By August, the plan had already unravelled (this is the Judge's opinion, btw).
In terms of facts, I think they're the most relevant ones. From this point on, I'm offering my opinion!
Even within this Mar - Aug period, imho, it's SISU's behaviour that causes most of the problems. They start the negotiation with threats, they go behind everyone's back to talk to the bank (which indirectly threatens ACL's business), and they don't provide sufficient information on either the security for Higgs, or their funding/plan for everyone else. It's little wonder, to me, that the other parties get very nervous.
It becomes obvious fairly quickly, I think, that SISU aren't really conducting negotiations in a particularly open way, and I think by August the Council and ACL are already starting to plan for what will happen if either SISU bail out of CCFC, or if they simply continue to refuse to pay the rent.
In fairness, I think the plan that the Council concoct to take over the mortgage and protect ACL doesn't necessarily close SISU out - and indeed in one of the emails Chris West (I think) points out that a better deal on the debt means ACL has scope to do a better deal on the rent, which undoubtedly benefits the club. There's also still scope to do a deal for the Higgs shares if that goes through, although given the lack of assurances from SISU (as above), I think most parties are starting to see that see that as dead in the water.
I think it would have been more honest for the Council and ACL to do the deal for the mortgage upfront, rather than behind SISU's back, but then in fairness they're not doing anything different to what SISU tried right at the start of the process. Given that SISU weren't paying the rent, and didn't seem likely to be able to secure the Higgs shares (and couldn't come up with a business plan) then by that point I think ACL and CCC were entitled to start considering alternatives and protecting themselves from what SISU had been threatening from the start.
One last point, despite all of the talk about ACL's value it's clear to see that the bank were never likely to let the loan go for the kind of amount that SISU wanted to pay for it. The council made three offers to YB before the final one for £14m was accepted (and this was at the absolute low point with the club heading into Administration).
In truth, I think the 'roadmap' was doomed to failure from the start - it doesn't seem likely that SISU were either likely to pay for the Higgs shares at the value the Trustees wanted, or the bank loan at the value that the YB wanted.
It could be that everyone could have done better, but from what I've read the vast majority of the blame still lies with SISU and the way that they try to handle 'negotiations'. Just my opinion of course, others will differ!
A Les Reid article, LOL quel surprise.
May 19, Here is another one about CCC dissatisfaction with SISU in the period they were talking to AEHC http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/show-money-sisu-says-john-3025138
Jun 9, And this one showing the deal was falling apart http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/exclusive-offer-coventry-city-owners-3023213
Jun 29, And stalemate http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/no-more-talks-planned-sisu-3024168
Jul 9, then CCC yield a bit on rent, but SISU have no acceptable plans http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...cil-prepared-principle-lower-coventry-3021822
Jul 10, And here negotiations have broken down totally http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/time-running-out-coventry-city-3021862
During this period Mutton was given the heave ho as leader of labour group.
Boy, it took a long time to wade through all of that court stuff. I think what I took out of it (in a nutshell) was this:
In March 2012 SISU threatened to pull out of CCFC (twice) if they didn't get their hands on the Ricoh and access to revenue streams. This at the start of negotiations.
The 'roadmap' proposed by Fisher that month suggested amongst other things that:
1) SISU bought Higgs shares.
2) SISU bought out the bank debt (for a substantial discount).
3) That the club could take a 'rent holiday'.
4) That it would all be wrapped up by 30 Jun 2012.
SISU claimed that everyone agreed to the plan, but in fact within a matter of days after the meeting it was clear that ACL weren't prepared to accept the roadmap as was.
Despite this, SISU approached YB on it's own without any of the other parties' agreement.
Excellent post. Almost word for word my feelings on the matter.
Great, then you can perhaps show me where it says that sisu went to YB on their own?
It's kind of important as going jointly to YB was crucial to the plans for all involved.
I have no in depth knowledge, can only comment on what ive read on here and one or two other places but...
If SISU went to YB alone without informing anyone else with regards to the loan surely their plan is to put pressure on ACL/Higgs in the long run, hard play, at around the same time the guy from YB goes to ACL (or vice versa beer memory right now) and the council go in for the loan and get it, a self defence mechanism, makes me think insider trading as it where, he has the info and can help the council against the big bad wolf, for the right price, which it seems they paid a very good price!
Considering they ended up paying more than twice their original offer, I'm not sure they got such a great deal TBH.
I stopped reading here.
The Roadmap
As you describe, except your point 4). That was never within the roadmap. I think you are confused by the 6 week exclusivity agreement within the ITS.
The roadmap was changed several times and finally agreed by all parties so far as the basic principles for the ITS and HoT.
The ITS (Indicative Term Sheet) between sisu and higgs was signed June 19th 2012. Outlining the conditions of the sale of Higgs shares.
The HoT (Head of Terms) between sisu and CCC was signed Aug 2nd 2012. Basically CCC agree to let sisu buy the loan and Higgs shares.
Where did you read that sisu went alone to YB? - I can't find it.
In fact I can only find references that says it was CCC who went to YB. And that they did their best to make sure sisu did not find out!
If you could please point to where the transcripts reveal that sisu went to YB on their own I would be most grateful.
Great, then you can perhaps show me where it says that sisu went to YB on their own?
It's kind of important as going jointly to YB was crucial to the plans for all involved.
This doesn't look like a 'negotation' imho, one party seems to be trying to bulldoze their way through all of the others objections or concerns.
Sisu QC said:First, the Report makes repeated references to the “risk” of SISU acquiring the Bank debt. This is despite that outcome having been exactly what was envisaged under the heads of terms which the Defendant had signed in August 2012
There is no credible reason given for SISU or any of the Claimants having posed a “risk”. On the contrary, the Claimants have shown themselves to be responsible citizens investing considerable sums in the Club and thereby contributing to the economic and social well-being of the local community in Coventry and, in particular, contributing to the regeneration of the area surrounding the Arena.
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?