Higgs Charity,CCFC/Sisu, City Council. (3 Viewers)

[PWKH]

I apologise in advance if this post doesn’t answer all your questions and you find it makes you more frustrated but it seems to me that it might help some posters understand what is going on.

Who is actually talking to whom?

As has been reported on BBC C&W and in the CT “parties are in talks”.
This means that the Higgs Charity are in commercial discussions with Sisu/CCFC about their purchase of the Charity’s 50% of the joint venture company Arena Coventry Ltd, and for the record no other party is involved and to date never have been, including Hoffman. These are complex negotiations involving many different facets and discussions are in the very early stages.
Coventry City Council are talking to Sisu/CCFC about the potential purchase of the Charity’s shares by Sisu/CCFC. The Council needs to satisfy itself that any strategy that Sisu/CCFC have for the future development of ACL and the Ricoh, are sensible and do not put at risk the Council’s investment in ACL. As a part of this process the Council needs to evaluate whether Sisu/CCFC have a robust and achievable plan for the Football Club going forward. The Council need to establish exactly the intent of Sisu/CCFC, and be convinced that it will be to the good of ACL, the City and CCFC to allow them to become partners in ACL.

What is the Charity’s role?

There has been a lot of coverage discussing the strength of ACL and the need to develop the site further. Since the Ricoh opened each year there has been steady investment by ACL to assist growth and underpin the business strategy of this wonderful venue. To date the investment has been restricted to within the structure of the original building. The latest investment is focused on increasing on-site hotel capacity by a further 38 bedrooms. This work will start before the Olympics, pause during the Games and restart, with the first rooms coming on-line at the beginning of 2013. To date neither the Charity nor the Council have had any return on their investment, have had no dividends, interest or other payments, all has been re-invested or used to pay down ACL’s debt with Yorkshire Bank.

To provide the impact the Charity and the City Council want to see from a business at the core of the regeneration of this part of the City, further substantial investment is needed to optimise the development potential.
This type of long term investment is not something the Charity envisaged being part of. The Trustees have always stated their intention of exiting ACL as soon as there was a realistic partner for the City Council. It had always been hoped that it would be the Football Club, sadly I don’t need to elaborate on why that has been an impossible dream. The role of the Charity was to save the project from extinction as CCFC had failed at every stage to come up with the money. It was always recognised by the City Council and the Charity that the Football Club was a vital part of Coventry, but neither could provide the level of investment in the way necessary to assist in saving a poorly managed Football Club: The prize was and still remains the economic and social regeneration of North East Coventry.

The Charity does not have the substance necessary to be a long term strategic partner for the City Council, and the Trustees cannot tie all its funds up in the Ricoh. The Charity has completed its job at the Ricoh and now needs to move out of the way to allow a partner with greater investment strength to partner the City Council. It is up to the City Council to decide whether Sisu/CCFC is that partner, of course the Charity will remain a committed shareholder in ACL for as long as it is necessary, if the SISU/CCFC deal is not converted.

What happens next:

• Agreement has to be reached between the Charity and Sisu/CCFC, to purchase the Charity’s 50% ownership, these discussions are complex and at a very early stage.
• Sisu/CCFC have to provide evidence they have sustainable funds to the satisfaction of the Charity and the City Council, and the Council have to be happy with the mechanics of their funding of the purchase of the Charity’s shares.
• The Council and Sisu/CCFC have to agree on their joint plans for ACL going forward.
• The legals surrounding all of these transactions have to worked through
the separate due diligence processes need to be completed
the existing agreements between parties need to be understood by all parties
those existing agreements need to be changed to reflect a new set of arrangements and partnerships
the revised agreements need to be agreed by all parties

When all of that has been done the Trustees will have to make a formal decision as will the full Council.

All parties have professional advisers: the Charity for example has Bates Wells and Braithwaite who advise the Trustees on charity law and trustee responsibilities, PriceWaterhouse Coopers who advise on the commercial aspects of any deal, and Gateleys who ensure that all the legal agreements are properly drafted and reflect the agreements that are reached. Unfortunately deals such as this cannot be done by a few people sitting round a table, and helps to explain why it all seems to take so long.

How long will this take?

If all goes smoothly perhaps 60 days. Are there showstoppers? Yes. Could it all fall over? Yes. Does everyone understand the consequences? Yes. Is there anyone else in the frame other than Sisu/CCFC? Not to my knowledge. Is the Charity in talks with anyone else? No and they never have been.

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

Thanks for the update PWKH. I think that should explain to everyone where the process is right now particularly from the Charity's point of view.

I also hope people round here take note that Hoffman is not involved in any way in the process

cheers
OSB

 

[smouch1975]

PWKH, are you involved with the charity, or an observer?

 

[PWKH]

PWKH, are you involved with the charity, or an observer?

I am the Clerk to the Trustees, the statement I have used to start the thread is a statement from the Higgs Charity.

 

[smouch1975]

Cheers mate

 

[johnniericoh]

I apologise in advance if this post doesn’t answer all your questions and you find it makes you more frustrated but it seems to me that it might help some posters understand what is going on.

Who is actually talking to whom?

As has been reported on BBC C&W and in the CT “parties are in talks”.


This means that the Higgs Charity are in commercial discussions with Sisu/CCFC about their purchase of the Charity’s 50% of the joint venture company Arena Coventry Ltd, and for the record no other party is involved and to date never have been, including Hoffman. These are complex negotiations involving many different facets and discussions are in the very early stages.
Coventry City Council are talking to Sisu/CCFC about the potential purchase of the Charity’s shares by Sisu/CCFC. The Council needs to satisfy itself that any strategy that Sisu/CCFC have for the future development of ACL and the Ricoh, are sensible and do not put at risk the Council’s investment in ACL. As a part of this process the Council needs to evaluate whether Sisu/CCFC have a robust and achievable plan for the Football Club going forward. The Council need to establish exactly the intent of Sisu/CCFC, and be convinced that it will be to the good of ACL, the City and CCFC to allow them to become partners in ACL.

What is the Charity’s role?

There has been a lot of coverage discussing the strength of ACL and the need to develop the site further. Since the Ricoh opened each year there has been steady investment by ACL to assist growth and underpin the business strategy of this wonderful venue. To date the investment has been restricted to within the structure of the original building. The latest investment is focused on increasing on-site hotel capacity by a further 38 bedrooms. This work will start before the Olympics, pause during the Games and restart, with the first rooms coming on-line at the beginning of 2013. To date neither the Charity nor the Council have had any return on their investment, have had no dividends, interest or other payments, all has been re-invested or used to pay down ACL’s debt with Yorkshire Bank.

To provide the impact the Charity and the City Council want to see from a business at the core of the regeneration of this part of the City, further substantial investment is needed to optimise the development potential.
This type of long term investment is not something the Charity envisaged being part of. The Trustees have always stated their intention of exiting ACL as soon as there was a realistic partner for the City Council. It had always been hoped that it would be the Football Club, sadly I don’t need to elaborate on why that has been an impossible dream. The role of the Charity was to save the project from extinction as CCFC had failed at every stage to come up with the money. It was always recognised by the City Council and the Charity that the Football Club was a vital part of Coventry, but neither could provide the level of investment in the way necessary to assist in saving a poorly managed Football Club: The prize was and still remains the economic and social regeneration of North East Coventry.

The Charity does not have the substance necessary to be a long term strategic partner for the City Council, and the Trustees cannot tie all its funds up in the Ricoh. The Charity has completed its job at the Ricoh and now needs to move out of the way to allow a partner with greater investment strength to partner the City Council. It is up to the City Council to decide whether Sisu/CCFC is that partner, of course the Charity will remain a committed shareholder in ACL for as long as it is necessary, if the SISU/CCFC deal is not converted.

What happens next:

• Agreement has to be reached between the Charity and Sisu/CCFC, to purchase the Charity’s 50% ownership, these discussions are complex and at a very early stage.
• Sisu/CCFC have to provide evidence they have sustainable funds to the satisfaction of the Charity and the City Council, and the Council have to be happy with the mechanics of their funding of the purchase of the Charity’s shares.
• The Council and Sisu/CCFC have to agree on their joint plans for ACL going forward.
• The legals surrounding all of these transactions have to worked through
the separate due diligence processes need to be completed
the existing agreements between parties need to be understood by all parties
those existing agreements need to be changed to reflect a new set of arrangements and partnerships
the revised agreements need to be agreed by all parties

When all of that has been done the Trustees will have to make a formal decision as will the full Council.

All parties have professional advisers: the Charity for example has Bates Wells and Braithwaite who advise the Trustees on charity law and trustee responsibilities, PriceWaterhouse Coopers who advise on the commercial aspects of any deal, and Gateleys who ensure that all the legal agreements are properly drafted and reflect the agreements that are reached. Unfortunately deals such as this cannot be done by a few people sitting round a table, and helps to explain why it all seems to take so long.

How long will this take?

If all goes smoothly perhaps 60 days. Are there showstoppers? Yes. Could it all fall over? Yes. Does everyone understand the consequences? Yes. Is there anyone else in the frame other than Sisu/CCFC? Not to my knowledge. Is the Charity in talks with anyone else? No and they never have been.

"60 days" - does that mean AT's scouting/recruitment plans are delayed accordingly awaiting the removal of the transfer embargo ???

PUSB

 

[Sub]

"60 days" - does that mean AT's scouting/recruitment plans are delayed accordingly awaiting the removal of the transfer embargo ???

PUSB

was just thinking the same myself also don't they have to submit the books by the 31st ?? what happens if they dont because a deal can not be agreed by all parties?

 

[lordsummerisle]

I also hope people round here take note that Hoffman is not involved in any way in the process

cheers
OSB

Wouldn't hold your breath on that one OSB, if he can be shoehorned into it somehow he will be by some on here.

 

[Diehard Si]

Thank you for taking the time to be open and inform us of the situation.

For us City fans, 60 days is quite a long time we have to realise, that will be just before the season starts again at the earliest. If this is going to impact on the budget and therefore the confirmation that we are to be treated as a going concern, it could also mean the embargo stays most of the summer. I'm hoping SISU can resolve this seperately though, but I feel it all goes hand in hand.

Nothing is ever quick and straightforward when CCFC are involved.

 

[wingy]

PWKH ,at what point have you become convinced that Sisu were worthy of talking to re; the Higgs stake,were there any approaches forthcoming when they first aquired CCFC,or did the penny drop when Ken Delliu Cut around 14 players from our squad through the last season ,whilst keeping us competitive for the division we were in ,or was it when Sisu set up ARVO in march ,securing all the assets for themselves in the event of liquidation ,a vehicle they've used previously.Or finally with that competitive squad spectacularly failing @ the expense of £4m. prize/tv money.Nothing personal but was that the moment the knees started to tremble ,appreciate your input

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Isn't the question the other way round: when did SISU approach the charity?

 

[Grendel]

Wouldn't hold your breath on that one OSB, if he can be shoehorned into it somehow he will be by some on here.

Mr Coventry will want his seat in the Directors Box next season

 

[wingy]

Isn't the question the other way round: when did SISU approach the charity?

Surely that was when ken put the article in mail OCT/NOV,the point is the effect of falling income associated to the clubs failure has to have effected all the stakeholders ,Compass included ,we hav'nt heard this placatory statement regards "other projects to focus on" before .Therefore has the clubs
dire position induced this position.Why, when the Club was in a far better position after move in with bigger crowds were the Manhatton Group deemed unsatisfactory people to deal with,was'nt that the moment to push this through .

 

[lordsummerisle]

Surely that was when ken put the article in mail OCT/NOV,the point is the effect of falling income associated to the clubs failure has to have effected all the stakeholders ,Compass included ,we hav'nt heard this placatory statement regards "other projects to focus on" before .Therefore has the clubs
dire position induced this position.Why, when the Club was in a far better position after move in with bigger crowds were the Manhatton Group deemed unsatisfactory people to deal with,was'nt that the moment to push this through .

Ah, the old Manhatten Transfer, forgot about them.

 

[SkyblueBri]

Looking at this timescale we are well and truly stuffed come the FA League meeting in 2 weeks time.
What happens then?
OSB do you know of anyone who has gone through this scenario and what penalty was incurred?

 

[rob9872]

The bit between the lines; SISU are trying to get their grubby little paws on the Ricoh, this was their only real agenda once the Premiership gravy train looked off-limits. If they gain control they can enjoy the revenue streams and make the profits for their investors by slicing off the top to one of the various company names. Coventry City doesn't matter to SISU nor which 11 kids are out there or what league they are in once a breakeven position has been achieved. Any success after that will not be because of SISU but in spite of them. I imagine they will do their best once they have what they need to sell the club for £1 to Hoffman or AN other and enjoy the benefits of the stadium and all the other income that it can generate for the long-term. Pretty smart by them, if only they applied the same acumen to running the football side of things.

Cliff notes; we're screwed!

 

[oldskyblue58]

Sorry SBB I dont know off hand I would have to check the Football League rules to see if that says anything

 

[mexico88]

Here's what I take from this statement - would love to have a response.

Higgs want rid of acl. It's a burden to them. They have been looking for a way, but haven't found anyone to invest that will also agree to 'safeguard' the football club to satisfy their partners (the council).

Now SISU have 'found' some cash to re-generate (build hotels on land), have scared most of the fan base into a fear of liquidation, thus creating a senario where by the council have been pressured to 'eat their words of "we'll never sell to SISU" (gun to head?). So Higgs now get heir wish to bail out for (probably the same money they put in) and its all for the 'benefit of the club'. It's good PR, eh?

Notice the heavy use of the SISU/CCFC tag. SISU buy under the CCFC banner to please the council and fans - then make sure the docs say that one of the SISU company's have title should stuff go wrong.

OSB will then find out about the dirty deed and then tell us all - only for a SISU Receptionist to tell us to Feck off again. Joy Sep will of course respond to the accusation via a writtwn Q and A session through their voice 'the SISU Evening Telegraph' using words like: possibly, maybe, could be, trying to, intend to, etc.

So It leaves one question... Why would the council agree to the sale? The detailed plan of course. Although, I'd love to know how they can take a detailed plan and agree its going to work, from a company who have had plan after plan, after plan fall flat on its face and several 'high profile' 'plan makers' resign stating that the club is not 'following the plan'.

But it is of course the council we're talking about - the same people who can't even run a wee up in a brewery.

Blind leading the blind?

I'll leave it there...

Ta. X

 

[ccfcway]

BANG BANG BANG

Thorn has his targets already in a row

In 60 days from now, providing they havent gone anywhere else, and we have sold more 1st teamers, and SISU bring us out the embargo, we will have 2 BRAND NEW players in our camp....

Cant wait,

 

[ccfcway]

oh, and again, had to FIND this thread on this board

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

And the CT have pulled this statement and put it on their own website-SBT is being used as their source of news now; shame that the people using this forum do more digging and are more in the know than they are.

 

[Paxman II]

The statement by the OP is nothing new to me and a few others on here who have managed to understand what is likely going on barring knowledge of the finer details.

We should all sit this out and wait and see what comes of it. There is nothing we can do to influence what is happening. The council have received enough information from fans regarding our suspicions of SISU and as I've said many times it's the here and now that matter and SISU are the only people at the table.
Like it or not they are currently still our best option going forward if only because there are no others. I personally hope they get the opportunity under strict agreements to move forward the only way this whole mess can now go and then in time make an honourable exit without anything fleecing our football club or the taxpayers of Coventry with stability being put back into CCFC.

Then and only then new outside investment may be attracted more easily and the vultures will then circle including Mr Hoffman, who for me is suspicious by his absence from anything he could have done in the here and now. That does not speak volumes for me.

 

[Godiva]

PWKH,

Thank you for your comprehensive explanation to how the negotiation is structured and what it involves.

Have sisu stated any intention to acquire the whole stadium or are they content with the 50% of the shares in ACL and a joint venture with the council?
Also, you do not mention anything about a potential rent reduction ... is that on the table, or something they will postpone till they have acquired the part of ACL?

 

[Sky Blues]

PWKH,

Thank you for the statement. Your openness is greatly appreciated. As I'm sure you are aware, many of us have real fears about what Sisu might do if they got their hands on part of the stadium. Despite the desire to sell, I'm sure the charity are also keen to ensure that the new owners (whoever they may be) will not let the Arena go to rack and ruin. Can you provide us some reassurance on this point?

Thanks again.

 

[PWKH]

Thank you for your comments and questions. I may not be able to answer them all because we are bound by rules of confidentiality. Some of the suggestions and ruminations I don't intend to deal with at all. This is a forum and everyone can have their say pretty freely: it doesn't mean that all of them are that meaningful. Sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

The Charity has not been looking for buyers, it has not been trying to sell. Its shareholding has been far from a burden: the growth of the business leading to growth in jobs and businesses in Coventry and the economic impact of the Ricoh is brilliant. It is happy to sell because there are some interesting projects that it wants to get involved in in the City where there is little likelihood of anybody else putting up the money. So the Charity hasn't approached anyone not even Sisu. The intiative has come from them and together with the Council we have engaged in a process that could lead them to purchase 50% of ACL, the company which has a lease on the Ricoh. The Council would remain as 50% owner of ACL. The control of the company is thus shared equally and neither shareholder can do anything without the full agreement of the other shareholder.

Matters such as the transfer embargo and the rent are nothing to do with this process.

 

[wingy]

Thank you for your comments and questions. I may not be able to answer them all because we are bound by rules of confidentiality. Some of the suggestions and ruminations I don't intend to deal with at all. This is a forum and everyone can have their say pretty freely: it doesn't mean that all of them are that meaningful. Sorry if that doesn't make you happy.

The Charity has not been looking for buyers, it has not been trying to sell. Its shareholding has been far from a burden: the growth of the business leading to growth in jobs and businesses in Coventry and the economic impact of the Ricoh is brilliant. It is happy to sell because there are some interesting projects that it wants to get involved in in the City where there is little likelihood of anybody else putting up the money. So the Charity hasn't approached anyone not even Sisu. The intiative has come from them and together with the Council we have engaged in a process that could lead them to purchase 50% of ACL, the company which has a lease on the Ricoh. The Council would remain as 50% owner of ACL. The control of the company is thus shared equally and neither shareholder can do anything without the full agreement of the other shareholder.

Matters such as the transfer embargo and the rent are nothing to do with this process.

So would you say if the embargo and rent are'nt part of the process ,the councils stance is unreasonable in trying to tie investment into the team as a condition to a deal being acceptable in their eyes ,when trying to protect the asset CCfC ,the one we all follow and fear for.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Can we now agree that all the "insiders", darknight, snozz, the prince, "Keys", etc., were all just talking bollocks?

 

[Chipfat]

I think the only way Hoff or any other of interested parties will come into the picture is if the deal between all parties at this time collaspes.. Shame because i dont think SISU will change if a deal was struck, as they didnt care before and they certainly wont care now,, This is all about securing the investors money,, im afraid CCFC will becomes a spot on an elephant arse where sisu are concerend, as they will be more interested in the money generated by the surronding area.

 

[wingy]

Just what chance will there be @ CV6 of a decent working relationship between the partners ,given the history of our own boardroom i can only see hiatus and revolving doors ,an awful prospect for this club and City.

 

[Otis]

Can we now agree that all the "insiders", darknight, snozz, the prince, "Keys", etc., were all just talking bollocks?

Not at all.

It will all build up to a big crescendo with fanfares and drum rolls and then at the moment of the ink drying on the signature to sell part of the arena shares, Joy Seppala will jump up on the table, rip off her mask and reveal .... that she is Gary Hoffman!!

You never see the two of them in the same room together do you!!

It's true i tell thee, it's true!!!!

 

[dongonzalos]

PWKH

Thank you for the detailed response, to often the fans of Coventry have not been considered the most important people and the soul of the club we are kept in the dark about matters like this that affect us greatly.

It is good that you have taken the time to do this, and it was good that Cllr Mutton took the time the other day.

Unfortunately SISU for years failed to communicate effectively with the fans, then when they have they have repeatedly let the fans down with inconsistent information. This has culminated in a general mistrust now of the information they release.
As example of this can be seen clearly here in response to Tim Fisher's latest statement.

This is why it is so important for you and the council to keep fans informed, then we can make educated rational opinions about what is happening. Lack of such communication leads to speculation, mistrust, rumours and generally an ill feeling about the future of the club for the fans.

The Charity are one of the few people to come out of this, with their heads held very high. When people talk about saviours coming in and saving the day at the last minute. I see the charity as doing this not SISU.

I have a question I would love you to take the time to answer

1) You took on the project as you realised the importance of a football club to the people of Coventry. Do you not hold as much as a responsibility as the council the ensure that SISU meet certain criteria before selling to them. After all your hard work there is no way you would want SISU to destroy it, mess it up, feed off your solid foundations and recoup their loans without investing in the football club. I understand the Council have the power of Veto but surely you are just as responsibile maybe morally if not legally for ensuring SISU will be responsible owners and will invest in the football club. Generally people on here if the deal is to go through would like at a minimum

a) Revenue generated for the 50% share goes back into the football club only
b) The 50% share can not be mortgaged or loaned against
c) Any future sale of it has to be approved by the council.

You have said previously you want to focus on projects regenerating Coventry, but to get it written into your contract when you sell to SISU that they have to invest in the Ricoh and the football club a certain amount in a certain time frame. Will automatically lead to regeneration in Coventry and you will be creating it at someone else's cost.

 

[PWKH]

Dongonzalos: since early 2003 the Charity has worked closely with the City Council to bring about the regeneration of which the heart is the Ricoh. We are confident that they will act in the best interests of Coventry. That may sound like empty words but we have spent hours and hours locked in rooms with senior officers and members trying over the years to meet the problems that have been thrown at us and to keep to the path we set out on. We have been pretty successful and perhaps one day some of the "challenges" will become public. In the year of Titanic I can say that what you and others have seen have only been that bit of the iceberg above the water. So far we haven't hit them.
As for the future there are limits to what the Charity can or could do when selling its stake in ACL. It is up to the remaining shareholder to satisfy themselves as to the conduct that they can expect from their partner. The Charity is comfortable that Cllr Mutton has made it very clear that he is not going to allow the project to get derailed. There will be, and has been, no pressure from the Charity on the City Council to act in any way other than that with which it is comfortable. We have been too good partners to do anything else.
As I said in my original post, there is a long way to go yet, but as I write, things are still moving forwards. We expect hiccoughs on the way but nothing in life is as easy as we would wish.

 

[dongonzalos]

PWKH

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. Once again thank you for trying to keep the fans a bit more informed.

I have absolutely no doubt you are done a fantastic job dealing with everything in the past, things I am sure I will be stunned at if it ever is allowed to seep out.

However I am confused why you are not in a position to say that you support the council's view that any sale needs to include assurances that investment of a certain level will be put into the football club.

All of the epic story of the hard work you have been involved in, could be destroyed and deemed futile if SISU achieve a deal without such conditions.

The minimal I would would expect from ACL is to come out and support that whilst you do have a desire to sell your share, you support the council's view that any deal requires that there has to be assurances for future investment in the football club.

I would love ACL to also support that the council should still hold the power of veto on future sales. No mortgaging of the share. Investment in the arena. ( these are ones I would like ACL to come out and publicly support) However investment in the football club should be a given.

However I hope you dont take this as a critism but at the moment it seems press wise that SISU want to buy your share, you want to sell your share. The future of the club is finished if SISU don't get their way. The council are the bad guys delaying and possibly blocking everything.

I think if you came out and publicly supported that you also think certain criteria should be met as part of a sale. I maybe nieve but I can't see a problem with that? Unless of course ACL don't think the criteria should be met.

Anyway this maybe just my view and not that of everyone. I just think due to recent press statements that there are a quite a few fans out there frustrated with the council. When in my view it seems what they are asking for my will actually safeguard the future of the football club rather than destroy it?

Once again thank you for your comments

 

[PWKH]

It is for ACL to answer for itself. The Charity can't do the things you ask. On exiting something you cannot set the terms for the successor or those remaining, it is for them to take the thing forward as they see fit. I am however confident that the Council will not put at jeopardy the thing they have worked so hard to see succeed.

 

[mark82]

What we really need now is speedy resolution so the club can move forward one way or another.