Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.
The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.
Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.
Where players contracts were was a key factor in the administration process, otherwise you are creating a blind garage sale. If players contracts were moved from one company to another, then potentially it was illegal.
Liquidation after administration has turned out in SISU's favour as those messy accounts they never published won't have to be. There would have been more answers gleaned from that set of accounts than will probably be answered in the JR.
I wouldn't say that CCC approaching the bank 3 days after heads of terms was agreed, trying to buy out the mortgage cheap and even approaching AEG to come work with CCC instead of the club sticking to the road map
Did sisu stick religiously to the road map and within the time frame?
The only trouble with you last paragraph,is that were SISU to pay a fair market price whatever that might be, it is then more difficult to see how then they get the kind of return on any sale which they seem to want.They need and want to make a big profit on their eventual sale, which is why they are desperate to 'get' the Ricoh for next to nothing.Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.
The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.
Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.
Which road map are we talking about BA ? The one proposed in March 2012 by TF?
I'm sure they stuck to it longer than 3 days
The heads of terms signed in August 2012
You see that's where I find things get unclear. How I understand it .....
TF proposed the road map in March 2012. That was rejected by the Charity Trustees April 2012. Which is important because the "Road Map" included the purchase of the Charity shares. However the Charity and SISU talked and got to their own heads of terms. Discussions and due diligence on an offer for the Charity shares took us to 31st July when no deal was concluded and Charity free to deal with other suitors. In the words of the judge the Charity deal had died by end of August because both sides had no appetite for it. I think we are safe to say the difference in both sides valuation was terminal. SISU and CCC apparently signed heads of terms in August which included the purchase of the Charity shares as I understand it.
It leaves me with these questions ...... if the purchase of the Charity shares was key to any agreement between CCC & SISU and there was no likelihood of that how could the heads of terms (which are not legally binding in any case) be worth anything? The deal on the basis of the road map or the heads of terms could not actually be done could it?
if i understood that correctly then the HOT's between the council & sisu failed before they were even signed as sisu couldn't agree a price fore the higgs share? is that about the jist of it?
Then why was it the hot agreed and signed in August if it had already failed. Surely it would of just not been signed???
Then why was it the hot agreed and signed in August if it had already failed. Surely it would of just not been signed???
You see that's where I find things get unclear. How I understand it .....
TF proposed the road map in March 2012. That was rejected by the Charity Trustees April 2012. Which is important because the "Road Map" included the purchase of the Charity shares. However the Charity and SISU talked and got to their own heads of terms. Discussions and due diligence on an offer for the Charity shares took us to 31st July when no deal was concluded and Charity free to deal with other suitors. In the words of the judge the Charity deal had died by end of August because both sides had no appetite for it. I think we are safe to say the difference in both sides valuation was terminal. SISU and CCC apparently signed heads of terms in August which included the purchase of the Charity shares as I understand it.
It leaves me with these questions ...... if the purchase of the Charity shares was key to any agreement between CCC & SISU and there was no likelihood of that how could the heads of terms (which are not legally binding in any case) be worth anything? The deal on the basis of the road map or the heads of terms could not actually be done could it?
Did CCC sabotage the deal by buying the mortgage or was it already dead in the water? Were they fed up of SISU shuffling from foot to foot, were SISU already trying to distress ACL?
It could be convenient for them to bleat about it now and play the victim, but how much did they contribute to the deals failing?
As an ACL director once said to me "You have a meeting with them on Tuesday and you think you have made progress, by Thursday it's like the meeting never happened."
There were two agreements - one with Higgs (ref 'ITS' or 'Term Sheet') and another with CCC (ref 'Heads of Terms'). The latter was agreed Aug. 2nd. These agreements were in combination the 'Road Map' if you exclude the 'rent holiday'. The ITS was about Sisu buying the Higgs shares and the HOT was about sisu discharging the ACL mortgage and the council extending the ACL lease to 125yr.
In my opinion they should go back to those agreements, but I also think that CCC should 'pay a penalty' for reneging on their own agreement (buying the mortgage themselves effectively sabotaging the deal and coursing all what happened since). That penalty should be to hand over their shares in ACL as part of sisu buying the £14m loan.
Yes I agree that there was a lot of confusion about what was where during the process, but ultimately nothing illegal happened did it? Where players contracts were should be of no concern to ACL, they should have been interested in recouping the money that was owed to them.
The FL went round their own ruling due to the exceptional nature of the scenario, so the fact the owners wouldn't sign up to the deal proposed was accepted by the FL.. and although the worst possible outcome for us as fans.. they did sign a deal of 3 years - just with the wrong people in the wrong place.
Whether you agree with me or not - I believe that the existence of ACL is stopping the club returning to Coventry. Now SISU should do the right thing and offer to buy them out completely, at a price that is fair and includes all the things that they require to move the club forward.
Separate agreements true Godiva but without either one then the "road map" falls down.
I think you will be waiting a long time for the parties involved to go back to those agreements. Just do not see it happening. Neither side will want to.
So it is all the councils fault then ?
I never said it was 'all the councils fault' (why suggest I did?), but that particular move was definitely CCC's doing. In a previous post you were puzzled why an agreement was signed when the deal was already dead ... well, maybe the deal was not dead? In my old and hazy eyes it looks like the deal died when Mutton/West decided the council should buy the mortgage themselves. And they didn't even had the decency to tell their counter part it was over until January. Mr Harris at least tried to make sure sisu were informed, but clearly he wasn't taken serious. I don't think Higgs are especially happy with Mutton & West.
TF proposed the road map in March 2012
Is there a picture of this road map ?
Can we share it with the FL ?
Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?
Is it Plan A or B ?
Is there a picture of this road map ?
Can we share it with the FL ?
Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?
Is it Plan A or B ?
I never said it was 'all the councils fault' (why suggest I did?), but that particular move was definitely CCC's doing. In a previous post you were puzzled why an agreement was signed when the deal was already dead ... well, maybe the deal was not dead? In my old and hazy eyes it looks like the deal died when Mutton/West decided the council should buy the mortgage themselves. And they didn't even had the decency to tell their counter part it was over until January. Mr Harris at least tried to make sure sisu were informed, but clearly he wasn't taken serious. I don't think Higgs are especially happy with Mutton & West.
Is there a picture of this road map ?
Can we share it with the FL ?
Is the a forum set up to discuss the road map ?
Is it Plan A or B ?
You were saying that the council should pay a penalty for reneging on the deal. As has been pointed out the HOT's were dead before they were signed because sisu couldn't deliver a deal with higgs but you're not suggesting that sisu should pay a penalty. Whether you meant to or not the fact that you only suggested one side should pay a penalty and that is always going to be perceived as blaming one side only.
All sides need to draw a line under everything and start again with the best interests of the club. Until then the only parties being penalised is the club and us followers.
"I think the reality of the situation is that the price Higgs have negotiated, if not the payment mechanisms, is very significantly above the market value, and that, even after the restructure I am proposing, the charity would struggle to get much above this unless a substantial rent deal was agreed with the football club. The latter has got to be very unlikely."
Judges conclusion based on all the evidence was......
"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"
His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.
The two deals in the overall plan depended on each deal to be completed. There was no deal for the charity shares. It was certainly not anywhere near being signed, and no value had by 31st July 2012 been agreed - the two sides were millions apart in value. So how could they proceed with the other deal? They all must have know there was no deal with the Charity in September 2012 surely?
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?