dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes it does it was because they put in a pathetic offer. Not because they just walked away.
Surely it also puts to bed that deal fell through solely because Sisu walked a way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Which surely wouldn't have happened if the Higgs hadn't taken them to court? (I am not saying they were right or wrong to take the to court in the first place as I have no idea on what they were advised and what outcome they expected etc)
first off if SISU have said they wont seek costs against the Charity, as is their right too as defendant against an unsuccessful action, there you have to say fair enough.
Next the possible implication of what the judge has reportedly said. The deal had failed by the end of August 2012 because of both sides not having an appetite for the deal. If that is the case then harder for SISU to take that deal forward as part of a conspiracy by the stakeholders in ACL to stop them getting ownership of ACL i would have thought. Therefore they are left with the negotiations essentially between SISU and CCC and that proposed deal that the Charity were not part of (Laura Deering said it was a separate deal going on along side the Charity one I believe). The thing about that is though is that the Charity had power of veto (same as CCC) and the judge today has said the Charity had no interest in doing a deal with SISU and there was no legal right to compel the Charity to do the deal. So having got to a non contractual agreement with CCC of some sort the reality is there was actually no deal to be done.
What have we learnt for the JR. Not a lot. There is the apparent "Westgate" but did that kill or prejudice a deal, doesn't look like it from the twitter summaries of what the judge said. Perhaps that SISU are not all conquering in the court .... didn't get beat as such but certainly didn't win or batter anyone. That perhaps things are not or were not all sweetness and light between Charity and CCC so conspiracy is much harder to prove. That a big part of the bigger overall deal was actually dead by end August 2012. Those would appear to be most of the major things
Nothing to do with the Club & fans I know but where does this leave the relationship between Charity and Council at the Ricoh now?
The thing that really bothers me though is that i get the feeling that the clock has just ticked closer to midnight for CCFC
Certainly has not helped to bring the club back to Coventry that's for sure
no don't agree i don't see it as a sisu win just a draw to me
first off if SISU have said they wont seek costs against the Charity, as is their right too as defendant against an unsuccessful action, then you have hold your hands up and to say fair enough.
Next the possible implication of what the judge has reportedly said. The deal had failed by the end of August 2012 because of both sides not having an appetite for the deal. If that is the case then harder for SISU to take that deal forward as part of a conspiracy by the stakeholders in ACL to stop them getting ownership of ACL i would have thought. Therefore they are left with the negotiations essentially between SISU and CCC and that proposed deal that the Charity were not part of (Laura Deering said it was a separate deal going on along side the Charity one I believe). The thing about that is though is that the Charity had power of veto (same as CCC) and the judge today has said the Charity had no interest in doing a deal with SISU and there was no legal right to compel the Charity to do the deal. So having got to a non contractual agreement with CCC of some sort the reality is there was actually no deal to be done.
What have we learnt for the JR. Not a lot. There is the apparent "Westgate" but did that kill or prejudice a deal, doesn't look like it from the twitter summaries of what the judge said. Perhaps that SISU are not all conquering in the court .... didn't get beat as such but certainly didn't win or batter anyone. That perhaps things are not or were not all sweetness and light between Charity and CCC so conspiracy is much harder to prove. That a big part of the bigger overall deal was actually dead by end August 2012. Those would appear to be most of the major things
Nothing to do with the Club & fans I know but where does this leave the relationship between Charity and Council at the Ricoh now?
The thing that really bothers me though is that i get the feeling that the clock has just ticked closer to midnight for CCFC
Certainly has not helped to bring the club back to Coventry that's for sure
Not necessarily, there is a middle ground between significant & insignificant.
But if you incur legal costs in preparing any sale document, only to then be subject of the derisiry bid, you would feel ripped off, no?
Does this put an end to "ripping off a poor Coventry Children's charity" ?
Making an offer isn't ripping them off is it? I could offer you £1 for your house, that isn't me ripping you off is it? I am not holding a gun to your head am I?
A fact os that Higgs never wanted to be part of acl this long. They did it to help out in the early days. They have been looking for a way out for ages. Unfortunately you have to pay fair price, and sisu don't do fair price. The opportunity was there and a deal of £5.5m sounds very reasonable to get a piece.
Sisu mucked it up and so CCFC suffers.
For me this hits the nail on the head.
The judge felt that both sides drifted apart and weren't negotiating. Your can't claim to be negotiating if you're not actively at the table doing so. On balance he felt that both sides were unwilling to talk to one another.
On that basis I don't think SISU would have won costs. If they were seeking to get to the table to talk then fine. It appears both sides were as reluctant as each other.
I was thinking that also, if the Higgs have made the council out to be a bit dodgy and liars (I said IF) then how can they work with them.
I hate to sound like a broken record here Nick, but again you're happy to throw about words such as liar in association with the council; even if in a conditional context, yet you don't use such terms in association with SISU. You accuse me of being anti-SISU, but feck me, you've got a he'll of a set of blinkers on yourself
Sisu.weren't taking higgs to court though were they?
I hate to sound like a broken record here Nick, but again you're happy to throw about words such as liar in association with the council; even if in a conditional context, yet you don't use such terms in association with SISU. You accuse me of being anti-SISU, but feck me, you've got a he'll of a set of blinkers on yourself
Only if I accepted it.
Well, there's all the money they put in to enable the build. Initially around £30m, the £10m grant and £20m loan. (The latter became the mortgage, in effect). It's fronting up that cash that gave them the share in ACL.
And then the actual value of ACL. Higgs put their half at £5m - £7m didn't they. Which would seem to value it then at around £10m - £14m. You can't deny it's an investment, and you can't deny that SISU's actions threatened it.
Does this put an end to "ripping off a poor Coventry Children's charity" ?
So to protect an initial investment you throw even more money in? The original investment was in the property they retain ownership of not the company directly.
You're not throwing more money in, you're making sure a third-party can't undermine the value of something that you own 50% by securing it against their threat. In actuality if ACL survive and continue to pay off the mortgage at the current deal, the council make money. And they still have half of ACL.
Well, no. If you incurred costs thinking you were in candid discussions, and the other party offers an insult of a sum; you can turn it down but you've still lost out due to the costs you've got to pay
Well what a waste of 209 pages.
If they had lost out then wouldn't the judge seen this from the evidence and told sisu to pay up?
The council supporting a private company to pursue profit? Sounds like state aid to me.
As we saw today, no. It's not to say those costs weren't genuinely incurred though
So does this mean that when Tim said that the council had vetoed the sale of the Higgs share to them in the SCG teleconference last year he was talking balls as usual?
I don't doubt costs were incurred, I bet they werie for both sides then as shown today both sides weren't that fussed about the deal...
210 pages now.
Will I lose the will to live by page 175, or can I make it to the end?
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?