dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Remember that stuff by SISU about Mr Mutton begging Anne Lucas to do a deal.
Nothing in those emails that justifies that IMO.
Nothing in those emails that justifies that IMO.
No way am I going through all that now. I'll do it at work tomorrow when I'm getting paid.
Wonder if sisu have seen other emails involving certain trust board members, would explain why they have the hump with the trust.
Could be wide of the mark though.
So SISU were to buy out the loan for 8m. Not sure if there was an agreement to this. CCC tried to but it out for less than they did but more than 8m. They got turned down. Why did talks end up getting nowhere? SISU wanted to pay Higgs over 10 years. Higgs wanted the money in one go. SISU offered 2m. Not a penny more on offer. So of course Higgs were not happy. There was more correspondence between the 3. But nothing was done. Looks like SISU knew that ACL then had plans to do something else.
What e mails are them then? Care to share?
In the bit where the council suggest 50% of ACL is not worth the agreed HoT
Is the council saying that the price of 5.5 is too much for ACL because SISU are refusing to honour the existing contract and refusing the agree the improved rent offer.
If that is the case then seen in that context should SISU get the Higgs share at the lower value when the lower value is there due to the actions of SISU.
Also should SISU be able to buy the YB loan out for less than it is worth. When it is less than it is worth because ACL were going to struggle to pay it because SUSU were refusing to pay their bills.
It also questions whether SISU would be able to get the YB at a cheaper rate anyway.
He may be wide of the mark there?
It was Higgs who asked sisu for a deal outside the overall plan. They had been offered $5.5m and had accepted that amount within the overall plan.
Sisu offered £2m for a deal outside the overall plan as the risks were higher.
Like I say, could be wide of the mark. I never said they exist either. If that didn't come across in my post I apologise.Wide of the mark that SISU have seen the e mails that he says exist?
Have you read everything? The 5.5m offer was part of the overall plan. But SISU had more plans. Like withholding the rent. This is why they saw the Higgs part was worth less. It was worth less because of their actions so tried to get it for less.
As I said - the rent strike was agreed by all parties:
On 6 March 2012 a meeting took place between Mr Fisher (on behalf of
the Club), Ms Deering (on behalf of SCL), Mr West and Ms Commane
(on behalf of the Council) and Messrs Harris and Knatchbull-Hugessen
(on behalf of AEHC). A note of the meeting is at [TB/F/2]. This
meeting followed on from the meetings held in the week of 27 February
2012. A further road map was advanced, which envisaged the parties
negotiating together vis-à-vis the Bank for a “large discount” off the YB
Loan. The parties also discussed the importance of a ‘rent holiday’ for
the Club and the use of the funds in an escrow account as a means of
paying rent due to ACL from the Club. No objections were raised by the
Council or Charity to this course of action; indeed, the parties
understood the rationale for this approach.
I'm now at work and I've decided I'm not going to read it. Can't be arsed.
It doesn't take too long the Astute way, you don't have to try to comprehend or anything silly.
So it was agreed that the Higgs share was only going to be worth 2m then?
So it was agreed that the Higgs share was only going to be worth 2m then?
Woah guys, no need to hunt in a pack.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
No. They said they would offer Higgs 5.5m as part of the plan. When it came to it they did offer Higgs 5.5m but wanted to spread the payments over 10 years. This was 1.5m cash and the rest payable over the 10 years. This wasn't seen as acceptable by Higgs. They wanted a cash payment. So the offer then was 2m cash as final settlement. 3.5m lower than was agreed as part of the plan. Which to me was a main reason why talks broke down.
They were offered £5.5 million. I assume you will now forget the rent strike bit as it seems that was an accepted and agreed strategy by everyone.
Should change your user name to obtuse if I were you.
I am aware of some if this and it is explosive.
Obviously wasn't as it was a black and white term in the agreement that if sisu took the piss but the judge decided they didn't need to pay?
You've said this before. Did you actually post anything to show it was true?
So even from what you see now in the e mail correspondence doesn't make you stop and think just for a minute? No probably not.
Not my fault that I read it all and now understand what went on. As it goes it is my fault for reading it.
As I said I am not laying blame on CCC or SISU until the JR. But is anyone saying that SISU didn't try to get the Higgs share for 2m cash as they didn't find a 10 year payment agreement as acceptable? Is anyone trying to say that SISU didn't say that the Higgs share was valueless as they were not paying the rent? Is anyone trying to say that they hadn't agreed to pay Higgs 5.5m for their share as part of the plan?
If not what have I said that is wrong?
I think he's asking for you to show proof that you are 'in the know'. Asking him another question isn't going to do that.
Always happy to help.
I think he's asking for you to show proof that you are 'in the know'. Asking him another question isn't going to do that.
Always happy to help.
They two figures of £5.5m and £2m are from two completely different situations.
The first is part of bigger plan with more elements that would increase the value of ACL and therefor justify a higher price to be paid for Higgs shares.
The second is when Higgs ask for an offer outside the plan and with no guarantee the other elements will be executed.
You are suggesting that sisu tried to screw the helpless charity.
I think that is not the case.
The helpless charity was playing an active part in constructing the plan and agreed to the roadmap - including the rent strike.
For some reason - maybe because the charity sensed the third party in the plan was having a change of heart - they wanted a quick settlement so they at least got out quick with some money in hand.
They were offered £5.5 million. I assume you will now forget the rent strike bit as it seems that was an accepted and agreed strategy by everyone.
Should change your user name to obtuse if I were you.
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?