Any chance of words in the form of answers? Please confirm what you meant by "it's happened". Has SISU dropped the JR and affirmed willingness to negotiate a way out of this impasse? Yes or no.
Those are indeed words. With question marks.
Still haven't noticed a response to back up the accusation that ACL or CCC are trying to distress SISU, so just thought i'd bump this, in case you had forgotten :thinking about:
End the blame game, start the solution game.
Read the Higgs v Sisu legal docs. There's been enough background on CT site and even here if you go back through Summer 2012 to Autumn 3013 too.
Sisu want to break ACL to get a lease, ACL want to break Sisu to get a more preferable owner. Fans suffer.
End the blame game, start the solution game.
No interest in buying the club without an asset. A lease would be an asset.
They're a hedge fund. Now we don't know if there is something hedged against CCFC or CCFC is a hedge itself. Or something else.
Make the assumption that they would reduce their losses rather than take the further risk of trying to make all of the money back over a long period of time.
Also, a deal could be done whereby a future owner comes in before the leasehold deal is made.
There are lots of options. The bottom line is, as things stand, Sisu only have the golden share so their only option is build a new place to use it.
This is what Joy intends to do. I want to fight that by getting us back to the Ricoh.
For all the 'you're just a Sisu puppet' banter, I'm actually fighting against them too.
Read the Higgs v Sisu legal docs. There's been enough background on CT site and even here if you go back through Summer 2012 to Autumn 3013 too.
Sisu want to break ACL to get a lease, ACL want to break Sisu to get a more preferable owner. Fans suffer.
End the blame game, start the solution game.
Conversely, have CCC given any indication that they would deal with Sisu?
Sustainable:
Negotiate, say, 125 year lease for CCFC etc.
Sisu offer club + lease (full exit) for, say, £35m
New owners, club debt-free, playing at Ricoh. CCC have valuable asset and an extra £14m in the bank. Possible fan ownership/director options.
Any problem?
Conversely, have CCC given any indication that they would deal with Sisu?
Yes it doesn't work
Ownership of a company depends on owning the shares not the loans. Take your pick but Otium owe at least £13m to Arvo plus accumulated interest and SBS&L owe 28.5m plus accumulated interest. Someone comes in as new owners then unless those loans (Plus interest) are written off then the loans still stand. So how does that make it debt free? Can you see SISU or ARVO writing it all off? Even if they do that just takes the net Balance sheet back to £nil with the likelihood of future losses to be funded.
Negotiate a 125 year lease - well to do that you would either have to pay the costs of dismantling ACL or expect CCC/Charity to write off their investment after settling the compensation for breaking leases and contracts. There is of course a cost of acquiring 125 year lease that would be payable to CCC so Charity is not going to be exactly happy. Can the CCC wind up ACL without a Charity veto? Would or do either stakeholder want or envisage winding ACL up at extra cost to themselves?
To acquire the lease will cost money that the club has not got so that if deal even possible would mean borrowing more from ARVO/SISU. Or CCC grant ACL 150 year lease (at a cost) and then grant CCFC 125 year lease..... of course that leaves ACL in place (not what SISU want)and CCFC paying a potential lease premium to ACL
CCC only get the £14m back if the loan is settled by ACL and ACL only clear of ccc loan if they get paid or a loan to clear it. If they could presently clear the loan of £14m from cashflow then the current value of ACL is substantial and the loan would not exist in the first place. If say SISU paid out £14m to CCC then ACL would owe SISU - cant see that happening can you.
You need to explain how ACL is removed from the picture at minimal cost to CCC or Charity before you can even start to talk about 125 year leases for CCFC
As for a new owner offering £35m for the new set up......... that still leaves multi million losses on investment for ARVO and SISU investors.
Also how much worth do you think an under performing under financed L1 team brings to the party? An investor would be better off buying the Arena, then the club for £1 and raising working capital for the club by a share issue to fans
Nice idea but I do not see how it works
Read the Higgs v Sisu legal docs. There's been enough background on CT site and even here if you go back through Summer 2012 to Autumn 3013 too.
Sisu want to break ACL to get a lease, ACL want to break Sisu to get a more preferable owner. Fans suffer.
End the blame game, start the solution game.
The last statement made by Ann Lucas, the 'we're moving on' one, included "I continue to be available on behalf of the Council to discuss with the owners of football club a reuniting of the Sky Blues with the Ricoh Arena". She has also stated repeatedly that any serious offer from anyone, including SISU, would be considered so to answer your question I would say yes.
Again we are in a situation where SISU can easily call her bluff. All they need to do is publically state there is no new ground and they want the Ricoh lease, put a bid on the table and wait for a response from the council. If the council reject it then they would need to state why. If they refuse to state why or don't give a 'valid' reason then pressure would swing towards the council.
At the moment we have the council saying they will listen to any offer yet no offer has been submitted and SISU are saying they aren't interested in the Ricoh and are building a new ground!
if an offer was rejected and ccc wasn't forthcoming with a reason why, would an FOI request for this reasoning mean that the council couldn't dodge the question?
surely making an offer would call everyone's bluff if that is the case?
Read the Higgs v Sisu legal docs. There's been enough background on CT site and even here if you go back through Summer 2012 to Autumn 3013 too.
Sisu want to break ACL to get a lease, ACL want to break Sisu to get a more preferable owner. Fans suffer.
End the blame game, start the solution game.
Part of the case yesterday was to have the Duff & Phelps valuation/assessment of ACL and loan included in the disclosures for the JR. It was rejected by Justice Hickinbottom as not relevant to the JR and specifically he wasn't going to get involved in arguments of opinion between professionals. So it would seem on that basis it will not be discussed or produced on 10th June.
What other means can ML use to get in the public domain a report that SISU commissioned and owned by them ?. The reason he nor anyone else cant publish is because it would be a basis for a case of damages to the ACL business. The report is an opinion based on the things that SISU know or think they know it is not an investigation in to the current state of ACL
The dispute?. The only thing currently in dispute is the actions of CCC in making the loan to ACL and that is being dealt with by the JR.
- there is no dispute about rent at the Ricoh...... unfortunately CCFC have no legal right to be there any more the lease is defunct and disclaimed by the liquidator
- there is no dispute about ownership ..... it is fact that CCC own the freehold, ACL the lease and CCFC nothing at the Ricoh
- there is no CCFC interest in any contracts at the Ricoh so no dispute there
- the Ricoh freehold nor its leasehold has not been offered for sale so no dispute on price or valuation
- There is no dispute about the value or deal for the Higgs shares ..... there is no deal a judge ruled since August 2012
- there is now no dispute about conspiracy following the Higgs case .....the judge ruled the Trustees acted beyond reproach and were free after 31/07/12 to pursue other options if any
- no valuations are being disputed between the parties (except on here) because they don't have to, it just is not relevant. The owners of lease and freehold do not need to have a for sale valuation because no one is bidding for it
perhaps that might bring home how just far out on a limb our club is ........ other than a fans need there is no longer a right or dispute to be at the Ricoh
The crux of what dispute is left is whether CCC have acted properly in providing the loan to ACL - nothing else
final question if the council deal depended on SISU purchasing the Higgs shares and no such deal was possible for those shares how could there have been any deal between CCC and SISU?
So a SISU accusation is your idea of proof? :facepalm:
So basically if the council are found to have acted properly in the JR then that's likely to be the bloke tapping the last of the 6ft of dirt on top of the coffin (the last nail of which I think went in sometime ago) that contains the chance of us playing at the Ricoh under Sisu?)
Exactly, so utterly poor 'proof'Important to remember that the Sisu counterclaim was thrown out in its entirity by the judge.
So if sisu couldn't move ccfc back to the Ricoh due to legitimate bookings made by paying tenants, they might have to subsidize ccfc in Northampton for another year at least....ouch that will cost them - not much profit there.depends on whether SISU can swallow their pride really doesn't it. The only kind of deal they are going to be offered is a low rental deal on a 10 year rolling contract to meet FL rules and to be allowed to buy the match day income rights (and costs). Don't think ACL will bend further than that, the council doesn't get to make the decision.
Problem that they will have is that there are events booked in for next year at least and I assume more to follow that will interfere with the usage by CCFC. Got a feeling that CCFC will be just another tenant not even the anchor tenant if it goes on much longer.
Just my opinion nothing more
depends on whether SISU can swallow their pride really doesn't it. The only kind of deal they are going to be offered is a low rental deal on a 10 year rolling contract to meet FL rules and to be allowed to buy in to the match day income rights (and costs). Don't think ACL will bend further than that, the council doesn't get to make the decision.
Problem that they will have is that there are events booked in for next year at least and I assume more to follow that will interfere with the usage by CCFC. Got a feeling that CCFC will be just another tenant not even the anchor tenant if it goes on much longer.
Just my opinion nothing more
So if sisu couldn't move ccfc back to the Ricoh due to legitimate bookings made by paying tenants, they might have to subsidize ccfc in Northampton for another year at least....ouch that will cost them - not much profit there.
Maybe it wasn't such a great idea of Joy's/Tim's for sisu to go on a rent strike, and move the club 35 miles away to distress their landlord ?
That really isn't relevant at all.Your right. CCFC was creaming in millions during its tenancy at the Ricoh.
We both know that the club won't come back before negotiating. Both sides are trying to distress each other and both sides need each other.
Joy gets bored, gives up on a £60m black hole of debt and just gives it away? Really??? In what acid-fried reality does that happen?
The problem is they do and they have the golden share. You can be as fearful as you like as to what horrors may befall us when we're back at the Ricoh but I'd rather be in that position than the one we're in now.
And if nothing else, they are business people who want to make a profit (or avoid too big a loss). A relatively successful club with a secure home is a far more valuable and sellable asset. It doesn't make any business sense to go back to the rent only situation.
Sure, get Sisu to sell the club without a stadium. First you've got to find a buyer who will see that as an attractive prospect. Good luck with that.
Joy gets bored, gives up on a £60m black hole of debt and just gives it away? Really??? In what acid-fried reality does that happen?
I should have gone to school more. Would have been better at putting sentences together like yourself OSB
Still haven't noticed a response to back up the accusation that ACL or CCC are trying to distress SISU, so just thought i'd bump this, in case you had forgotten :thinking about:
Sorry to bother you. You said "it's happened" and I should be with you. Please clarify.
What
What about Chris West's PR campaign? The one he mentioned in his email. It's indirect financial distress through reputational damage + enforcing a ridiculous rent deal.
What
What about Chris West's PR campaign? The one he mentioned in his email. It's indirect financial distress through reputational damage + enforcing a ridiculous rent deal.
The sky blue John world isn't a rational one
Always happy to reply to a polite request
AFAIK, an approach was made or proposed and knocked back by the council. I'm back on the train again so I'll check up on further details and get back to you tomorrow if that's ok?
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?