Grendel
Well-Known Member
They did take over ACL without the debt.
They didn't pay the loan off.
I'm not understanding your point.
So they took over ACL but not the debt? If what you are saying is true why did they pay the loan off?
I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?
Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?
You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.
You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.
I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?
Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?
You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.
You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.
Damn straight they were better negotiator's.
No
The bollocks is the suggestion that it should have happened. Wasps and CCC had a confidentiality agreement. It was never going to happen.
If SISU had have entered into negotiations with CCC they to would have had such an agreement to protect their negotiations from being pimped out to one and all. They'd have been stupid not to same as wasp's would have been.
How the fuck could wasps have been offered a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart? CCFC never negotiated a deal with CCC at any point ever. Are you making this up as you go along?
Damn straight they were better negotiator's. They negotiated for starters so that's a one horse race straight away. Any concessions they got that the club didn't they got for one simple reason. THEY ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CLUB (SISU) DIDN'T, THAT'S WHAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE FOR.
We didn't even fall at the first hurdle. You have to get out the starting trap to do that.
They did take over ACL without the debt.
They didn't pay the loan off.
I'm not understanding your point.
It didn't happen at the point of purchase is my point.I clearly don't understand your point when you say they didn'y pay the loan off, what was the £14m transaction that WASPS secured a bond to finance, isn't that taking on the liability of the loan, and refinancing it themselves. Thats my understanding
And the importance of that is that they were able to secure a cracking deal without having to take on the liability of the loan. But what would have happened to the loan if they hadn't taken it on who would the loan have rested with - CCC ?It didn't happen at the point of purchase is my point.
Well at the time the council claimed the deal would make a profit due to the charges made being higher than the fee for the loan. So it costs the taxpayers money by selling the loan. So actually I'm surprised people who have the taxpayers interests at heart support this.And the importance of that is that they were able to secure a cracking deal without having to take on the liability of the loan. But what would have happened to the loan if they hadn't taken it on who would the loan have rested with - CCC ?
Well at the time the council claimed the deal would make a profit due to the charges made being higher than the fee for the loan. So it costs the taxpayers money by selling the loan. So actually I'm surprised people who have the taxpayers interests at heart support this.
Fisher does claim Wasps paid too much.
He might yet be proved right, of course...
Trying to twist the truth again I see.They did take over ACL without the debt.
They didn't pay the loan off.
I'm not understanding your point.
The only ones suggesting that Wasps paid too much are those that had said in the past that the right value for SISU to pay for it was even less and won't admit that they are wrong.That will be a bad day in court for SISU if JR2 proves that they paid to much for it
The only ones suggesting that Wasps paid too much are those that had said in the past that the right value for SISU to pay for it was even less and won't admit that they are wrong.
Trying to twist the truth again I see.
They took over ACL with the debt still owed. As I said earlier for what this quoted reply was from if they never took on the ACL debt owed to CCC why did they pay it off?
Neither side has been truthful. And neither have you. You are now trying to say that Wasps never took the ACL debt on.I'm still confused as surrendering the debt cost the tax payer money according to the council press statement at the time.
So are you accusing the council of twisting the truth?
A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.So it wasn't a purchase bid then it was a charitable donation?
Grendel says it was a throwaway comment given whilst giving evidence in court. Maybe the throwaway comment was caught by the white elephant.A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.
Grendel says it was a throwaway comment given whilst giving evidence in court. Maybe the throwaway comment was caught by the white elephant.
Neither side has been truthful. And neither have you. You are now trying to say that Wasps never took the ACL debt on.
It isn't even a technicality. They paid for both shares so took on all the debt. Then they raised money to pay the debt off by putting the arena up as security.Wasps bought ACL
ACL have the loan.
So technically ACL have the debt.
However it's owned by the same owner as Wasps so for me I don't care how people spin it. They took on the loan. Which SISU said no business would ever do.
Why is it that the formula frequently mentioned was never the amount asked for but spoken about as though it was?The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.
As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.
Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.
The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.
As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.
Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.
That's not quite right, it was the £5.5m that was being offered as they recognised it was a charity, according to Deering in court.A purchase bid that would have been zero as the buyer said it was worth nothing. However they bid 2 million for something worth nothing because the seller was a charity. According to the buyer.
That's not quite right, it was the £5.5m that was being offered as they recognised it was a charity, according to Deering in court.
Yes, and after the nasty Wasps had snapped up the white elephant, TF confirmed that Otium would not have accepted the Wasps deal because of the outstanding 14m. So why mess around with JR2 when your company thinks Wasps made a deal that wouldn't work?Pretty sure TF shook hands on £5.5M, they then pulled out stating that it was worthless and offered £2M instead. When questioned in court why would they offer £2M for something that was worthless LD said it was because JS recognized that Higgs were a charity. Or words to that effect.
The suggestion was the more generous £5.5m Tony.Pretty sure TF shook hands on £5.5M, they then pulled out stating that it was worthless and offered £2M instead. When questioned in court why would they offer £2M for something that was worthless LD said it was because JS recognized that Higgs were a charity. Or words to that effect.
I think when SISU were originally enquiring about buying the product.
It had a anchor tenant. Who was a good tenant paying its tent in time.
Then when Wasps agreed their price it had no anchor tenant.
It had also stopped doing concerts for some reason.
I get the feeling its value dropped. It's marketability seemed to drop as well.
Wasps seemed to Jump on it just at the right moment.
Stick themselves in as an anchor tenant.
Being premiership rugby to the ground.
Bring the concerts back.
Got it back in the spotlight.
Gave the business an air of certainty and hey presto it goes up in value.
The suggestion was the more generous £5.5m Tony.
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought
9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay
10 5.5 million for it?
11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.
How long was the lease at the time of the 5,5m?Try reading everything that was said if you want a clearer picture. You seem to be selecting what you're reading putting £0 and £2M together and coming up with £5.5M. The "charitable donation" was £2M instead of the £5.5M previously agreed and reneged on. Hence she was willing to pay UPTO £5.5M at one point for something worthless and offer £2M when deciding it was worthless as she recognised they were a charity. Link below.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6914945
Why is it that the formula frequently mentioned was never the amount asked for but spoken about as though it was?
How long was the lease at the time of the 5,5m?
CCC Report said:The Council's freehold interest in the Arena, i.e. the market value that could be obtained from the sale of the freehold with the existing ACL lease in place, has been independently valued by Lambert Smith Hampton. The market valuation of the interest as at 31 March 2006 is £0.6m. The valuation report states that the value of the Council's freehold interest in 48 years time, at the expiration of the ACL lease, will be "substantial".
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?