Higgs have legal clauses inserted to block CCFC and back Wasps only (2 Viewers)

[covcity4life]

Yeah i believe so, as why else have all other bases been covered, why are they pushing sisu down the only Road that's left, it's as you say Build, dissolve or to sell, that is my point where else do Sisu go. Carry on investing while losing money, losing in court as well as potentially losing 600,000 in grants and an academy, why would they do that.

They are splitting Sisu away from the club and will pick up whats left and take it from there, sisu are well and truly in a corner and they have only 3 doors open to them to pick. End game and that is why we are finding certain information at certain times, if people think this has been done overnight and no other plan is in place, then anger, frustration and ridicule will be placed on those who see it coming.

But the likely end gsme is no more ccfc. Sisu won't let council have last laugh

 

---

[vow]

The last straw I'm clinging to is all the clauses put in place to screw Sisu over magically leave if new owners are in town.
Or, at the very least the Butts deal goes through so I can have a pint in Earlsdon before the game.

....and after! :cigar:

 

[chiefdave]

Based on what? Hostile takeovers are (dare I say it) standard business practice. I don't think you can take someone to court because they don't like you and won't deal with you meaning that you have no choice but to sell your business. That's life. It happens every day. People deal with people and by the same token chose not to deal with certain people. We live in a free market economy and the AEHC are under no requirement in law to deal with CCFC past the end of the current contract.

I'm not saying they've got a valid case or any chance of victory. What I'm saying is anyone can take legal action on anything they want. CCC suddenly seem very keen for the legal action to stop. If SISU are no longer connected to the club in any way what would be stopping them continuing legal action and launching more. What bargaining chip would CCC then have to try and entice them to stop?

 

[skybluetony176]

Where was I pinning my hopes on anything? I was saying that SISU would try for court action over any little thing they could possibly find.
Higgs didn't win that because the signed contract didn't have anything about the situation that happened didn't they?

Exactly. The contract was a legally binding document and the vehicle that enabled Higgs to take it to court. They lost on a technicality but without the contract it wouldn't have gone to court in the first place as they'd be no grounds to.

You can't take someone to court on a verbal promise. Like the old saying goes. A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. If you can take an organization to court on broken promises imagine all the things we could take SISU to court over.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not saying they've got a valid case or any chance of victory. What I'm saying is anyone can take legal action on anything they want. CCC suddenly seem very keen for the legal action to stop. If SISU are no longer connected to the club in any way what would be stopping them continuing legal action and launching more. What bargaining chip would CCC then have to try and entice them to stop?

The keenness from all parties for SISU to stop legal action to me looks more and more of the process of out SISUing SISU. I'm becoming more and more convinced about this third party litigation as recent events have happened. It's seems IMO to be all about painting SISU into a corner by asking for things that they know SISU can't offer and cutting them off at the pass on what they're asking for.

I would think that there's nothing to stop SISU ATTEMPTING to launch new litigation even after they sold the club I just don't think that the council have anything to worry about. I would have thought that it had dawned on everyone by now that the council (at least in the eyes of the law) haven't done anything wrong. I suspect that if SISU are forced out JR1 will run it's course, there's a small chance JR2 will be applied for but not even see the inside of a court room and that will only be because of the third party litigation thing. Aside from that I don't think we'll hear or see anything of SISU ever again. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Malaka]

Absolutely - but not convinced that renting the Ricoh at a 'reasonable' rate is a problem.

Nothing to stop the club buying land for a new training ground, academy and community use at a site away from the Higgs. If they're clever they could even build conference and office facilities for all year round income.

New owners could deal with local stakeholders with a clean slate. We need to be both forward thinking and practical. No quick fixes but with long term sustainability at its core.

No point, if they are forced to move away from Coventry, there is no point in having an academy here

 

[Malaka]

It makes perfect sense for WASPS to do an aggressive takeover. They have a stadium with potentially two sporting incomes and the facilities for an academy which will substantially reduce costs.
This model is a good one, it works abroad with football clubs being affiliated to other sports. I'm all for it. Cheaper costs, more to invest in the team

 

[oldfiver]

I don't think a promise can be classed as a legally binding contract. I wouldn't pin my hopes in them finding anything if I was you. They haven't found anything that sticks in court as yet and this seems the flimsiest of all of the flimsy arguments. The nearest they've came to court success is with Higgs when the judge concluded that despite having a contract neither party had an interest in moving forward so basically the contract had been voided meaning Higgs couldn't get costs back as per the contract.

Higgs couldn't win that even with a signed contract in place. A promise is worth even less in a court of law. It's a non starter.

If the conditions of sale can be shown to be embedded in correspondence or elsewhere then the Court can refer back and establish the intentions outside of teh contract.
There is no doubt the Minutes refer to WASPS not harming CCFC & CRFC businesses and refer to previous documents. There is no mention of SISU but CCFC so despite CCC being in disputes with the former they agreed to safeguard the latter.
I would also expect the Charity Commissioner to look at Higgs and the loss they incurred on the transaction and CCC's potential influence

This will run on!

 

[skybluetony176]

If the conditions of sale can be shown to be embedded in correspondence or elsewhere then the Court can refer back and establish the intentions outside of teh contract.
There is no doubt the Minutes refer to WASPS not harming CCFC & CRFC businesses and refer to previous documents. There is no mention of SISU but CCFC so despite CCC being in disputes with the former they agreed to safeguard the latter.
I would also expect the Charity Commissioner to look at Higgs and the loss they incurred on the transaction and CCC's potential influence

This will run on!

Oh good. Something to look forward to then. Every cloud and all that.

Surely if the charities commission were going to look at the Higgs sale it would have happened already? Plus if they do look at CCC's involvement what jurisdiction do they have over CCC? None I would have thought so surely if this does run on it will run on to nothing? Again!

(edit) On what basis would the charities commission be interested in the first place?

 

[oldskyblue58]

I have always been a passionate supporter of our CCFC Academy, highlighted threats to it on here, gone and watched the U18's at the Higgs centre. Trying to step back from the emotional aspect attached to the latest shenanigans. So what follows is aimed at being a cold assessment.

Firstly what was the arrangement for CCFC at the AHC. From what I understand it was not a formal lease or licence. It was a 4 year agreement that gave CCFC first choice of the facilities so long as the club (Otium) booked the usage 3 months in advance and paid for it in advance. The rolling element was the fact it went from one quarter to the next. It always had a fixed term to 30 June 2017. Who insisted on the 4 years I am not sure but both sides agreed it. The Otium arrangement was with the AHCT not AEHC or CSF. In essence then the agreement was not a lot different to a junior kids team booking facilities at say Blue Coats for a season. There may of course have been a notice period usually 12 months which would be the end of June 2016 if so. The important thing though is that an Academy could satisfy rules even by not having any ownership or lease.

When a lease is transferred then the related agreements need to be resigned so that the new entity CAWAT attains the rights that AHCT had. That means Otium (CA) had to sign the agreement about bookings. Did he see the charge and covenant he says not, but given the nature of relationships wouldn't you check things out, ask how this affects the future?

The clause, to my mind inflammatory, should be un-necessary but understandable if you were in the Charity shoes - does not stop CCFC as owned by SISU operating there if the previous details are correct. It does stop any long term ownership - but that has until this week never been put forward in any case. It would stop a lease but again it shouldn't affect the Academy being able to be there (ignore the arguments about what is available for now), the Academy has been there for 3 years satisfied any related conditions for Cat 2 during that time yet had only a 4 year agreement for first choice.

The charge and Covenant. I am sorry but the club only heard of it yesterday? That's either a mistake in the statement or incompetence. The document was registered on 18th March 2016 at Companies House, it contained not only the clause but also details of what was planned, what was to be paid, the conditions for community usage, it even had diagrams. Not sure I can believe that the normally litigious owners didn't check out COWAT at Companies House, especially when you can set up alerts for changes, or that the owners monitor any "associated/entities" companies closely. But then again the clause doesn't actually change what they had been doing for the last three years does it.

Strangely the clause was raised on this forum at the end of May I believe and we were not even looking for it or monitoring the "opposition"

Exchange of emails. So emails were leaked dated 28th April and 6th June, what were the emails that prompted those responses. Why if the arrangement was with AHCT then with CAWAT are any emails going to CSF? Yes they operate the facility but they do not hold the agreement. When was the first email or formal contact to AHCT, CAWAT or CSF asking for a long term deal? That really is important to know isn't it

Why are CCFC even thinking of moving the whole of training to AHC. That never was on offer, from what I can make out never discussed - yet it is a key to the way forward for CCFC?

Could the Academy stay there at the AHC. Well it is possible but not in the same format. The key is to know how much indoor usage is required and whether it can be timetabled in to keep everyone happy. Yes they need pitches but there is nothing in the documents on EPPP I have seen that says they have to be all at the same site, only of a certain standard. There are of course pitches at Ryton available on Saturdays, there are pitches at other sites in the city that could be used. But what about the offices - well use at the AHC might be restricted but is there space at Ryton for example?

Why are the club prepared to leave an asset they own (even if it is charged to ARVO) to go to a place they would need to pay rent? Why if Ryton is not being used as much as it could be why do they not utilise it for the Academy and save some cost?

There is a PR game/competition going on here - from ALL sides. For the sake of our Academy it is time to focus on solutions not the problem. No, any solution is not going to be the current set up but there are solutions available if we really want to keep our Academy. Will that mean working with and forming a relationship with CSF and Wasps, sorry but is there another choice that safe guards Cat 2 that doesn't involve building our own site or is available now? Failing that we let it go. But what ever happens do not go back to battles of egos the Academy is too important to the fans to go down that path

Final questions. Does the fact that there is no long term agreement of any kind stop us signing up kids to our Academy now. Do the rules require continuity and a long term arrangement to be in place to keep signing players. Are we up against it in that respect now not 2017

 

[albatross]

I have always been a passionate supporter of our CCFC Academy, highlighted threats to it on here, gone and watched the U18's at the Higgs centre. Trying to step back from the emotional aspect attached to the latest shenanigans. So what follows is aimed at being a cold assessment.

Firstly what was the arrangement for CCFC at the AHC. From what I understand it was not a formal lease or licence. It was a 4 year agreement that gave CCFC first choice of the facilities so long as the club (Otium) booked the usage 3 months in advance and paid for it in advance. The rolling element was the fact it went from one quarter to the next. It always had a fixed term to 30 June 2017. Who insisted on the 4 years I am not sure but both sides agreed it. The Otium arrangement was with the AHCT not AEHC or CSF. In essence then the agreement was not a lot different to a junior kids team booking facilities at say Blue Coats for a season. There may of course have been a notice period usually 12 months which would be the end of June 2016 if so. The important thing though is that an Academy could satisfy rules even by not having any ownership or lease.

When a lease is transferred then the related agreements need to be resigned so that the new entity CAWAT attains the rights that AHCT had. That means Otium (CA) had to sign the agreement about bookings. Did he see the charge and covenant he says not, but given the nature of relationships wouldn't you check things out, ask how this affects the future?

The clause, to my mind inflammatory, should be un-necessary but understandable if you were in the Charity shoes - does not stop CCFC as owned by SISU operating there if the previous details are correct. It does stop any long term ownership - but that has until this week never been put forward in any case. It would stop a lease but again it shouldn't affect the Academy being able to be there (ignore the arguments about what is available for now), the Academy has been there for 3 years satisfied any related conditions for Cat 2 during that time yet had only a 4 year agreement for first choice.

The charge and Covenant. I am sorry but the club only heard of it yesterday? That's either a mistake in the statement or incompetence. The document was registered on 18th March 2016 at Companies House, it contained not only the clause but also details of what was planned, what was to be paid, the conditions for community usage, it even had diagrams. Not sure I can believe that the normally litigious owners didn't check out COWAT at Companies House, especially when you can set up alerts for changes, or that the owners monitor any "associated/entities" companies closely. But then again the clause doesn't actually change what they had been doing for the last three years does it.

Strangely the clause was raised on this forum at the end of May I believe and we were not even looking for it or monitoring the "opposition"

Exchange of emails. So emails were leaked dated 28th April and 6th June, what were the emails that prompted those responses. Why if the arrangement was with AHCT then with CAWAT are any emails going to CSF? Yes they operate the facility but they do not hold the agreement. When was the first email or formal contact to AHCT, CAWAT or CSF asking for a long term deal? That really is important to know isn't it

Why are CCFC even thinking of moving the whole of training to AHC. That never was on offer, from what I can make out never discussed - yet it has been a key to the way forward for CCFC?

Could the Academy stay there at the AHC. Well it is possible but not in the same format. The key is to know how much indoor usage is required and whether it can be timetabled in to keep everyone happy. Yes they need pitches but there is nothing in the documents on EPPP I have seen that says they have to be all at the same site, only of a certain standard. There are of course pitches at Ryton available on Saturdays, there are pitches at other sites in the city that could be used. But what about the offices - well use at the AHC might be restricted but is there space at Ryton for example?

Why are the club prepared to leave an asset they own (even if it is charged to ARVO) to go to a place they would need to pay rent? Why if Ryton is not being used as much as it could be do they not utilise it for the Academy and save some cost?

There is a PR game/competition going on here - from ALL sides. For the sake of our Academy it is time to focus on solutions not the problem. No, any solution is not going to be the current set up but there are solutions available if we really want to keep our Academy. Will that mean working with and forming a relationship with CSF and Wasps, sorry but is there another choice that safe guards Cat 2 that doesn't involve building our own site or is available now? Failing that we let it go. But what ever happens do not go back to battles of egos the Academy is too important to the fans to go down that path

Final questions. Does the fact that there is no long term agreement of any kind stop us signing up kids to our Academy now. Do the rules require continuity and a long term arrangement to be in place to keep signing players. Are we up against it in that respect now not 2017

Good summary. I am curious as to why SISU continually "fail" to be aware of issues that fundamentally alter how they can operate unless of course it suits their purpose. I am still not convinced that SISU want to continue to fund an academy to the tune of £600k despite the current protestations. I really believe they are looking to save money. Cutting back on the academy is a very emotional subject and makes the owners appear even more short term focussed , not the 133 years of heritage they are suddenly headlining their releases with.

Consolidating onto a single site away from Ryton also would hint at saving money but is kind of a perverse reverse logic. Most business sweat the assets or sell them , what is it SISU? Interestingly all the villages within Rugby Borough Council area are having to plan for new homes, I believe Wolston has to accommodate 100 over the next 5 years and the same for Ryton. Kind of makes you wonder what they are planning for that site.

 

[mattylad]

Hell have no fury greater than a balloon wielding buffoon exposed. Went to court got a no result thought fine we will stick it to you another way. No other way to read it. Its not about SISU/CCFC/Wasps or anything else other than pure self indulging revenge for not winning the court case.

 

[Nick]

Hell have no fury greater than a balloon wielding buffoon exposed. Went to court got a no result thought fine we will stick it to you another way. No other way to read it. Its not about SISU/CCFC/Wasps or anything else other than pure self indulging revenge for not winning the court case.

Which court case do you mean?

 

[kmj5000]

Speaking of which, on the basis that SISU won't just give up and walk away isn't this kind of thing good for SISU's legal action?
Hard for Higgs or CCC to stand up in court and claim they don't have it in for SISU.

As the judge said, any animosity between the two sides is irrelevant. Doesn't affect the interpreatation and application of the law.

 

[mattylad]

Which court case do you mean?

the 29k in costs they claimed they were owed after the Ricoh arena talks broke down..the judge stated they couldn't claim costs because it was all part and parcel of entering negotiation

 

[Nick]

the 29k in costs they claimed they were owed after the Ricoh arena talks broke down..the judge stated they couldn't claim costs because it was all part and parcel of entering negotiation

Ah.

I think he had fury even before that to be honest.

 

[oldfiver]

Oh good. Something to look forward to then. Every cloud and all that.

Surely if the charities commission were going to look at the Higgs sale it would have happened already? Plus if they do look at CCC's involvement what jurisdiction do they have over CCC? None I would have thought so surely if this does run on it will run on to nothing? Again!

(edit) On what basis would the charities commission be interested in the first place?

£3.77m loss on a speculative investment deal?

 

[skybluetony176]

£3.77m loss on a speculative investment deal?

And the relevance of that to the charities commission would be? Surely it would have to be proved that they deliberately purchased the investment with the intension of selling at a loss therefore robing the charity before the charities commission would show an interest? Is there any suggestion of that?

 

[chiefdave]

understandable if you were in the Charity shoes

If the charity are no longer owners or operators of the Higgs Centre then why is it understandable they put clauses in case purely to be vindictive to the football club?

What difference would it now make to them if CCFC stay or go?

And lets not kid ourselves that Higgs are shy of taking legal action. They took action against SISU and lost, they tried to take action against Northampton and got nowhere. They have (allegedly if the scary family lawyer is watching) threatened fans with legal action when they don't like what is being said online. As part of ACL they instigated the process which put us in to administration.

At the end of the day if Alan Higgs, or indeed Derek Higgs, were still alive there is no way they would be allowing these actions to be taking place against the football club they loved and for that reason alone the likes of PWKH should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

 

[chiefdave]

And the relevance of that to the charities commission would be?

This is speculative as I haven't read their rules and regs but an argument could certainly be made that the sale process did not maximise the return to the charity.

In terms of what is currently happening at Higgs by their own admission the community offering at Higgs will be reduced if and when Wasps plans are implemented. Another potential issue for the commission?

 

[skybluetony176]

T

This is speculative as I haven't read their rules and regs but an argument could certainly be made that the sale process did not maximise the return to the charity.

In terms of what is currently happening at Higgs by their own admission the community offering at Higgs will be reduced if and when Wasps plans are implemented. Another potential issue for the commission?

The Higgs charity don't run the AEHC anymore. I can't see any changes at the site after the date that they handed the keys over being of any interest to the commission what so ever.

 

[chiefdave]

The Higgs charity don't run the AEHC anymore. I can't see any changes at the site after the date that they handed the keys over being of any interest to the commission what so ever.

Higgs are saying what can and can't be done, does that not mean they are still involved?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Does the clause in itself stop the Academy being there?

Does the clause stop an arrangement similar to what has been in place the last 3 years for a Cat 2 Academy?

Do CCFC require ownership or even a long lease of 7 years + to be there?

The AEHC have never owned/run the Alan Higgs Centre, only provided £12m in funding to have it built and the charge/covenant secures that

 

[Nick]

Does the clause in itself stop the Academy being there?

The clause its self doesn't, but I think it is quite obvious that it has been put in to try and prevent it in the future after they have gone hasn't it?

 

[skybluetony176]

Higgs are saying what can and can't be done, does that not mean they are still involved?

Not really, no. They're not in control of it so what happens there isn't a conflict of interest anymore I would think.

With regards to maximising there return didn't this come up before and OSB I think it was pointed out that the charities commission states that they only have to get best value not best return. It doesn't have to be monitory best value can come in other forms such as working with the charity moving forward? Don't they get x amount per ticket sold in the Higgs stand as well as part of the deal? In monitory terms they're still being paid from the deal and who knows what the final figure will be.

 

[Nick]

With regards to maximising there return didn't this come up before and OSB I think it was pointed out that the charities commission states that they only have to get bed value not best return. It doesn't have to be monitory best value can come in other forms such as working with the charity moving forward? Don't they get x amount per ticket sold in the Higgs stand as well as part of the deal? In monitory terms they're still being paid from the deal and who knows what the final figure will be.

The Wasps offer to Higgs doesn't matter does it? The council approved the lease extension before any of that had been done, it was always 100% wasps.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The clause its self doesn't, but I think it is quite obvious that it has been put in to try and prevent it in the future after they have gone hasn't it?

To prevent ownership or long lease yes - neither of which the Academy needs or has needed for the last 3 years - so how exactly does that prevent the Academy being there now or in the future?

Are there other factors that might, some not mentioned yet, yes but the clause actually does not stop the Academy being there

 

[Skinnythebear]

Just a reminder to everybody on here.
SISU tried to bankrupt ACL/Alan Higgs trust then recently announced they were serving notice to leave the Alan Higgs Centre for pastures new.
Alan Higgs then line up another tenant and you're all bleating about nasty Alan Higgs doing nasty things to SISU.
I understand that in shafting SISU then they are shafting CCFC but unfortunately until things change SISU are CCFC which a lot of people forget.
Until these tossers fuck off and stop using our club as a battering ram then we are right royally fucked!!!

 

[fernandopartridge]

And the relevance of that to the charities commission would be? Surely it would have to be proved that they deliberately purchased the investment with the intension of selling at a loss therefore robing the charity before the charities commission would show an interest? Is there any suggestion of that?

Just a reminder to everybody on here.
SISU tried to bankrupt ACL/Alan Higgs trust then recently announced they were serving notice to leave the Alan Higgs Centre for pastures new.
Alan Higgs then line up another tenant and you're all bleating about nasty Alan Higgs doing nasty things to SISU.
I understand that in shafting SISU then they are shafting CCFC but unfortunately until things change SISU are CCFC which a lot of people forget.
Until these tossers fuck off and stop using our club as a battering ram then we are right royally fucked!!!

They didn't announce that they were serving notice and certainly not recently. Talk about making things up as you go along. With CCFC having 'friends' like you, who needs a PR firm.

 

[Nick]

Just a reminder to everybody on here.
SISU tried to bankrupt ACL/Alan Higgs trust then recently announced they were serving notice to leave the Alan Higgs Centre for pastures new.
Alan Higgs then line up another tenant and you're all bleating about nasty Alan Higgs doing nasty things to SISU.
I understand that in shafting SISU then they are shafting CCFC but unfortunately until things change SISU are CCFC which a lot of people forget.
Until these tossers fuck off and stop using our club as a battering ram then we are right royally fucked!!!

When was it announced notice was served? If the Higgs are saying they have received notice then it is a whole different ball game isn't it?

Aren't Wasps, Higgs and the council using our club as a battering ram at the minute?

SISU aren't CCFC, I think that is what people can't seem to figure out.

 

[Nick]

To prevent ownership or long lease yes - neither of which the Academy needs or has needed for the last 3 years - so how exactly does that prevent the Academy being there now or in the future?

Are there other factors that might, some not mentioned yet, yes but the clause actually does not stop the Academy being there

Why was it added then? If it wasn't malicious?

It is very clear PWKH has some very deep laying hatred going on. (if his family are reading this, it is my opinion)

 

[torchomatic]

Just a reminder to everybody on here.
SISU tried to bankrupt ACL/Alan Higgs trust then recently announced they were serving notice to leave the Alan Higgs Centre for pastures new.
Alan Higgs then line up another tenant and you're all bleating about nasty Alan Higgs doing nasty things to SISU.
I understand that in shafting SISU then they are shafting CCFC but unfortunately until things change SISU are CCFC which a lot of people forget.
Until these tossers fuck off and stop using our club as a battering ram then we are right royally fucked!!!

Christ with "friends" like this who needs enemies.

 

[Pete in Portugal]

To prevent ownership or long lease yes - neither of which the Academy needs or has needed for the last 3 years - so how exactly does that prevent the Academy being there now or in the future?

Are there other factors that might, some not mentioned yet, yes but the clause actually does not stop the Academy being there

Exactly. And of course there's 12 months left on the current agreement.

 

[oldfiver]

And the relevance of that to the charities commission would be? Surely it would have to be proved that they deliberately purchased the investment with the intension of selling at a loss therefore robing the charity before the charities commission would show an interest? Is there any suggestion of that?

The Trustees have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the Charities Assets - did they do that?
What was the influence of CCC on their decision making to sell
Mr McGuigan said that deal would have cost the council #4million of taxpayers' money and left the Alan Edward Higgs charity #2.5million out of pocket.
Higgs eventually lost £3.77 - CCC lost nothing? - WASPS gained £?????

 

[oldfiver]

SISU aren't CCFC, I think that is what people can't seem to figure out.[/QUOTE]

Even CCC recognised that in "the minutes"