Is this bit here not irrelevant?
Mr Thompson alleged the council was “riding two horses” by negotiating with Sisu while “behind their backs” the council was seeking a deal with the bank to buy out the mortgage itself.
Unless some sort of exclusivity agreement had been signed then I don't understand why they are bringing that up.
You've just said it yourself.
I may be missing something here. Would you mind explaining the difference and your take on the two scenarios?
I will but I will first apologise for using the house analogy as it's the best thing I can come up with.
You have a £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. That costs you £1K a month as you took it out when interest rates were high. You have a tennant that pays £1K a month rent to live there. You take out a new mortgage with Coventry Building Society, as you've made overpayments you now only need to borrow £75K and your monthly payments are now £500. You take the money you recieve from CBS and use it to clear the balance owed at YB (in practice this is probably done directly between the 2 lenders). You have just remortgaged to obtain a lower interest rate which most people would think is sensible. You are happy as your repayments are lower, YB are happy as they have been repaid and CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of.
Lets then take the same £100K mortgage with Yorkshire Bank. Your tennant has stopped paying their rent and YB know this and are worried you won't be able to keep up your montly payments. Your other half works at Coventry Building Society so they have 'inside info' in what is happening and, knowing YBs concerns, they make an offer to buy the mortgage off YB for, as an example, 50% of it's value. You are happy as you don't have hassle from YB about how you're going to make repayments and your montly payments are lower, CBS are happy as they have a new customer they will make money out of. YB may not be quite so happy as they haven't recieved the full value of the mortgage.
Of course in both those scenarios it should make absolutly no difference to your tennant as it's none of his business. In fact they should be delighted if you turn up one day and offer to cut his rent by 90% as you know he is in financial trouble.
Because it demonstrates that the council were seeking to distort the market.
But what is wrong with that? Surely it is potentially for the benefit for all and therefore good use of public funds?
Benefit for all with the exception of SISU, this is their point mate.
But that is what I don't see. A preferential rate would benefit them in negotiations.
Unless they were trying to distress ACL
That is my point moaning about unfair tactics when their illegal tactics haven't worked.
But that is what I don't see. A preferential rate would benefit them in negotiations.
Unless they were trying to distress ACL
That is my point moaning about unfair tactics when their illegal tactics haven't worked.
Well done to the council then.The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.
Well done to the council then.
The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.
The negotiations about the rent are irrelevant, their point is that they were due to buy out ACL's mortgage and effectively takeover. The council stopped this by strengthening ACL's position with a state aid.
Well done as long as the court finds in their favour. If not, it's curtains for ACL and curtains for whoever made the decision on the council.
Why is it?
If it's found to be an illegal state aid it has to be repaid in full by the recipient organisation, a £14m bill would do a lot of damage to ACL.
Does that automatically follow or is that just one of the possible outcomes if the case goes in SISUs favour? What happens if ACL then go to a regular bank and get a £14 loan to cover that, not much SISU can do about that and now ACL can no longer offer them the lower rent as their payments have gone back up.
If it's found to be an illegal state aid it has to be repaid in full by the recipient organisation, a £14m bill would do a lot of damage to ACL.
The council would be hauled over the coals by the PAC over something like that.
I personally don't believe SISU will win the case but I think it's worth talking about the implications if they did.
Does that automatically follow or is that just one of the possible outcomes if the case goes in SISUs favour? What happens if ACL then go to a regular bank and get a £14 loan to cover that, not much SISU can do about that and now ACL can no longer offer them the lower rent as their payments have gone back up.
Well bugger me!!!!!!! there was I thinking it was only anti-SISU people who were involved in the conspiracy theory........................ but look at what Mr Rhodri Thompson,SISU's QC, has come up with " this was a secret plan to drive SISU out of Coventry, probably concocted months ago".
Touchy aint they, when things don't go their way. Next he'll be wanting a JR over CCC keeping 10,000 fans away from Northampton, thereby damaging Fisher's business plan.
For God's sake SISU, just bloody go we DON'T want you here. PUSB
Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?
Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?
I'm not sure it does, this court is only deciding if a JR hearing will be allowed, not making a final decision.Well done as long as the court finds in their favour. If not, it's curtains for ACL and curtains for whoever made the decision on the council.
Would a commercial lender borrow them money in the circumstances? This is the reason why they've had to borrow from the council in the first place isn't it?
Only because of the actions of one tenant not paying their agreed rent which I think is what the Judge said in his summary of the first Appeal Application wasn't it?
So you admit that we were paying their mortgage and not receiving a penny in commercial revenues?
Doesn't that anger you? Actually stupid question forget it.
Not really. I was paying my landlord's mortgage when I rented, all I got was a place to live. Same as renting the Ricoh really.
Am I angry we sold our commercial revenues to Higgs cheaply? Yes. Would I like to see the club buy them back? Yes.
Why haven't they? You'd have to ask Joy The Wonder Businesswoman that.
So you admit that we were paying their mortgage and not receiving a penny in commercial revenues?
Doesn't that anger you? Actually stupid question forget it.
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?