oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
In which case it is no wonder they cant get the figures in the budget to balance ! :laugh:
I might be wrong but I think it's from a higgs memo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Erm... at what point did the council veto the deal?
What I took from the Higgs case transcripts is that the deal fell apart because SISU offered £5m on buy-now, pay-later terms without any security that Higgs could accept. I didn't see any evidence of the Council shooting down the deal, in fact there can't be any because no agreement between Higgs and SISU was ever struck - in essence then, no deal to veto.
I might be wrong but I think it's from a council memo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
"Judge says 1 of main reasons ACL was in financial mess was because club failed to meet legal rent obligations. ACL was sustainable with rent"
I am loving this judge.
Judge: “There were two commercial courses being pursued and it may have been necessary to keep one confidential from the other. Are you saying there was anything wrong in that?”
They have the dad out of inbetweeners representing them?
(Higgs v Sisu transcript day 3 p155)
But presented by Sisu QC no?
So would the point be that the council thought rent was a tiny percentage and the club shouldn't be complaining? Surely a look at an OSB thread on here could've set them straight. Of all companies football clubs finances are fairly well analysed.
Not sure what the point being made is. But as I said I have real trouble following this format. The Higgs case looked entirely different while it was going on to what we read afterwards from people who had been there.
That will be ACL director & council finance director Chris West.
That will be ACL director & council finance director Chris West.
(Higgs v Sisu transcript day 3 p155)
'Those irreconcilable differences, as I see it, were
4 that SISU no longer wished to offer a price of the kind
5 set out in the indicative term sheet, the trustees for
6 their part did not wish to go ahead without guarantees
7 of security for the deferred consideration, which SISU
8 was not prepared to offer, nor, from late August
9 onwards, were the trustees seriously interested in
10 pursuing the offer in the term sheet at all because they
11 knew that the council were not prepared to consent to
12 it.'
Ultimately all three parties should share the 'blame'. Higgs wanted their investment money back, Sisu didn't want to shell out full price (according to them, having performed due dil and finding cash-flow & contract liability issues) and the council didn't want Sisu to have an investment.
This is the crux of this whole issue. We can point fingers at any one side but all sides are responsible.
As part of the only fans campaign who has actually called for negotiations based on all stadium occupation scenarios (rent, leasehold, freehold) I have no problem pointing the finger at Sisu as well as everyone else.
Be aware OSB , your point isn't acceptable to some because you might be in the labour party
(Higgs v Sisu transcript day 3 p155)
'Those irreconcilable differences, as I see it, were
4 that SISU no longer wished to offer a price of the kind
5 set out in the indicative term sheet, the trustees for
6 their part did not wish to go ahead without guarantees
7 of security for the deferred consideration, which SISU
8 was not prepared to offer, nor, from late August
9 onwards, were the trustees seriously interested in
10 pursuing the offer in the term sheet at all because they
11 knew that the council were not prepared to consent to
12 it.'
Ultimately all three parties should share the 'blame'. Higgs wanted their investment money back, Sisu didn't want to shell out full price (according to them, having performed due dil and finding cash-flow & contract liability issues) and the council didn't want Sisu to have an investment.
This is the crux of this whole issue. We can point fingers at any one side but all sides are responsible.
As part of the only fans campaign who has actually called for negotiations based on all stadium occupation scenarios (rent, leasehold, freehold) I have no problem pointing the finger at Sisu as well as everyone else.
What the Judge said on the Higgs case
“On the facts, as I perceive them, by the time the trustees entered into an agreement to vary the joint venture agreement on 14 January 2013, the transaction contemplated by the term sheet had already fallen apart or fallen away, to use Miss Deering's expressions this morning, long before that. It follows that the criticisms made of the trustees by SISU as to the propriety of their conduct in December or January and the arguments made about them undermining the bargain by their actions at that time seem to me to be misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings. 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, that is not a circumstance in which the trustees are entitled to recover their wasted costs.” MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
Simon Gilbert @TheSimonGilbert · 6m
Court hears CBRE valuation of ACL was £19.5m with £1.2m rent per annum and £6.4m with no rent.
Replied to 0 times
@TheSimonGilbert: Court hears CBRE valuation of ACL was £19.5m with £1.2m rent per annum and £6.4m with no rent.
Just because the Judge appears to be being harsh to the SISU QC, I wouldn't take bets on the outcome of the case yet. It's just as likely he'll tear apart any flaws he sees in the Council QC's argument. I sense it's just what Judges like to do.
Surely sisu have something 'new' and 'exclusive' that 'will shock'...??
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?