Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

[skybluetony176]

As usual you are so stupid you fail to a knowledge the meaning of two things;

"Hell will freeze over"

"Veto"

A veto that was never tested. Try remembering that to. Then ask why. The answer of course was because the true value was not a figure on a balance sheet. Which brings me back to my original point. The one you missed and demonstrated why perfectly by spouting nonsense and bile.

 

---

[Grendel]

Still waiting for your reply to this Grendel.....

They never offered it to sisu. Hell would freeze over.

Memory issues?

 

[Grendel]

A veto that was never tested. Try remembering that to. Then ask why. The answer of course was because the true value was not a figure on a balance sheet. Which brings me back to my original point. The one you missed and demonstrated why perfectly by spouting nonsense and bile.

What do you mean by "more than figures on a balance sheet"?

Is that what Moonstone did when preparing their bid?

It is amusing how the usually suspects frantically try and defend the council.

It's a lot less than 6 now though (unless you include the pathetic Cloughie and the man with a car park)

 

[skybluetony176]

What do you mean by "more than figures on a balance sheet"?

Is that what Moonstone did when preparing their bid?

It is amusing how the usually suspects frantically try and defend the council.

It's a lot less than 6 now though (unless you include the pathetic Cloughie and the man with a car park)

I explained what I meant when by being worth more than a value on a balance sheet a few posts ago. Are you really that stupid you missed it? Or just so ignorant that you just can't see it?

And then true to form you start deflecting to Wasps and CCC when someone points out an obvious failing of SISU. Namely, not recognising the true value of the Higgs share because it wasn't a figure on a balance sheet.

Funny thing is when you look at where SISU have been successful in what they do it's always been where they've done it from the inside. This is actually a lesson you'd have thought that they'd have learnt from past personal experience. Strange that they tried to do it all from the sidelines this time and ultimately failed.

 

[Grendel]

I explained what I meant when by being worth more than a value on a balance sheet a few posts ago. Are you really that stupid you missed it? Or just so ignorant that you just can't see it?

And then true to form you start deflecting to Wasps and CCC when someone points out an obvious failing of SISU. Namely, not recognising the true value of the Higgs share because it wasn't a figure on a balance sheet.

Funny thing is when you look at where SISU have been successful in what they do it's always been where they've done it from the inside. This is actually a lesson you'd have thought that they'd have learnt from past personal experience. Strange that they tried to do it all from the sidelines this time and ultimately failed.

So when you say "worth more than a balance sheet" you really mean a Mayfair hedge fund owning a local club should have paid more than a Maltese hedge fund owning a London club to a council interested in the community around Coventry.

As many say to me in private - why do I bother?

 

[skybluetony176]

So when you say "worth more than a balance sheet" you really mean a Mayfair hedge fund owning a local club should have paid more than a Maltese hedge fund owning a London club to a council interested in the community around Coventry.

As many say to me in private - why do I bother?

Yeah, you're stupid. Probably why people are saying "why do I bother" to you when talking to you.

 

[dadgad]

As usual you are so stupid you fail to a knowledge the meaning of two things;

"Hell will freeze over"

"Veto"

Anyone care to guess which meds
this guy hasn't taken recently?

 

[Moff]

Anyone care to guess which meds
this guy hasn't taken recently?

Thats a really pathetic thing to say, so are you taking the piss out of anyone who needs to take meds in life you areshole?

 

[torchomatic]

Thats a really pathetic thing to say, so are you taking the piss out of anyone who needs to take meds in life you areshole?

He's good at saying pathetic things. He wanted the club to go out of business not so long ago.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[dadgad]

Thats a really pathetic thing to say, so are you taking the piss out of anyone who needs to take meds in life you areshole?

No, sorry.

 

[Moff]

No, sorry.

Fair enough.

 

[dadgad]

Mental health is something I care about. Nevertheless, it might account for some of the irrational
posts about a court case which, to perfectly blunt, is driving us all a bit nuts.
Recently we have been able to get back to football and now this.
If only we had owners who were rich enough to get proper legal advice.

 

[Astute]

They never offered it to sisu. Hell would freeze over.

Memory issues?

Yes you do have memory issues. You have said countless times that it wasn't worth the money that Higgs had paid. You called it a worthless white elephant. But when mentioning Wasps you say that they paid only about 10% of its value. Then you wonder why people say you are full of shit.

 

[cloughie]

Drivel. All his publicity was of the negative variety, hardly courting the public. Not like the Weber Shandwick influenced publicity of Messrs Lucas and PWKH.
Why doesn't PWKH post on here anymore and why did he in the first place? It's clear as day.

Clear as day for you looking through 'sisu PR glasses'

Drivel ? pot and kettle spring to mind

 

[Calista]

The Higgs share alone was worthless that's why no one wanted it in isolation.

If the club had got the 50% Higgs share wouldn’t it have effectively halved the rent, and therefore been worth about £600K a year, as well as giving us a seat at the table?

And if that is the case, can anyone somehow explain why it wasn’t absolutely at the top of SISU’s agenda when they took over the club, rather than being put on the back burner? Surely all the terms (level of rent, formula price for the half share) were well known to SISU before they took the plunge. If they didn’t have the means to buy back our half of the stadium, they shouldn’t have bought CCFC. This has been my biggest frustration with them from day one.

I wish they’d let us go bust instead, and eventually we might have found owners with more clout and more sense.

 

[cloughie]

He's not got a double barrelled name and he's not my beloved.

A typically absurd response and is why the odious Lucas remains unchallenged.

Get a backbone and grow up.

I Grow up ? hilarious from the teenage minded idiot who despite previous people pointing out fact that you always ignore and can never answer. Your silence is golden at times

You are so tedious and one of the reasons I don't bother here very much

 

[chiefdave]

If the club had got the 50% Higgs share wouldn’t it have effectively halved the rent, and therefore been worth about £600K a year, as well as giving us a seat at the table?

In a word no.

Buying the Higgs share would have made no difference to the lease the club had with ACL. We'd still have to pay £1.2m a year and the way ACL was originally setup no dividend could be taken before the loan had been repaid.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Clearly not. The argument deployed by the council and the absurd PWKH was that the club represented a fraction of the turnover - 17% from memory.

We had several interviews by Lucas in the local media since the clubs departure saying that the future of the Ricoh was safe - it was in profit.

Lucas was being disingenuous at best. The turnover statement was correct but of course failed to acknowledge the fact that all the revenue from the bloated rent arrangement was 100% return so was the profit.

Sisu I would guess would have looked how local councils behave when community sport clubs are in crises. They would have seen support from the councils of Swansea, Nottingham, Ipswich and Hull all of whom ultimately bent over backwards to support the football club. What they failed to acknowledge was that they had a unique council who had no value at all regarding the football clubs importance to the community. It had no more moral spine than a hedge fund.

The truth if course is they knew the Ricoh was a basket case and worthless without a primary tenant. Rather than do the decent thing and hand it to the local community team it decided petty battles and one upmanship meant more.

So Hell froze over.

The council deemed it more suitable to award it's failing crumbling loss making white elephant to a hedge fund from Malta and make coventry the city of franchise sport.

Sisu assumed that a local council would value a community.

They misjudged the odious Lucas and the publicity seeking buffoon with the double barrelled name. Those two should teach Seppella a thing or two. They proved far more ruthless uncaring and cold hearted.

Just a question Grendel and this is a serious one if SISU win what are the implications for the other councils you have mentioned?

 

[Calista]

In a word no.

Buying the Higgs share would have made no difference to the lease the club had with ACL. We'd still have to pay £1.2m a year and the way ACL was originally setup no dividend could be taken before the loan had been repaid.

I'm not sure I phrased the question very well. I realise that the rent would still have been £1.2M, but our owners would have had a 50% stake in the company it was being paid to i.e. half the rent would in effect be being paid to ourselves (if you equate the club with the owners)? Obviously part ownership of ACL would have brought lots of other things too, in terms of both income and outgoings.

 

[Grendel]

I'm not sure I phrased the question very well. I realise that the rent would still have been £1.2M, but our owners would have had a 50% stake in the company it was being paid to i.e. half the rent would in effect be being paid to ourselves (if you equate the club with the owners)? Obviously part ownership of ACL would have brought lots of other things too, in terms of both income and outgoings.

Again no as the council had veto in all decisions and one decision was for no shareholder dividends to be paid.

The rent could have doubled and the half share would have not been able to prevent this if the independent directors vote went with the council - which is why a half share was worthless.

 

[dongonzalos]

Wasps got it for a bargain after SISU's work.
However SISU said they would do the deal that Wasps did

 

[Grendel]

He's good at saying pathetic things. He wanted the club to go out of business not so long ago.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Yeah that's on hold though until the wheels fully fall off the bandwagon - then the worm will turn again.

 

[Astute]

Just a question Grendel and this is a serious one if SISU win what are the implications for the other councils you have mentioned?

Hull is a totally different matter as he well knows. Have explained it to him a few times.

It belongs to the people of Hull and is looked after by their council. About 15 years ago there was a company owned by the people of Hull called Kingston Communications. BT were not in Hull. It got sold off. The people of Hull got asked where they wanted the money to go. Some of the money went on the stadium. I know what went on as I was living and working just on the other side of the Humber bridge at the time and worked with a couple of hundred people from Hull. And they also brought in their local paper to read during breaks.

 

[Astute]

Again no as the council had veto in all decisions and one decision was for no shareholder dividends to be paid.

The rent could have doubled and the half share would have not been able to prevent this if the independent directors vote went with the council - which is why a half share was worthless.

Why do you deal with 'could haves' to try and make SISU look the aggrieved side?

 

[Calista]

Again no as the council had veto in all decisions and one decision was for no shareholder dividends to be paid.

The rent could have doubled and the half share would have not been able to prevent this if the independent directors vote went with the council - which is why a half share was worthless.

Not trying to be confrontational here, just trying to understand the answers given by you and ChiefDave. I wasn't talking about dividends. Would the rent be going to a company we had a 50% stake in? And wouldn't we have had a say (as opposed to no say) in that company's policy towards the club?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Thats a really pathetic thing to say, so are you taking the piss out of anyone who needs to take meds in life you areshole?

Strange reply that Moff? You've never had a go at Grendel when hes said worse to me!

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Strange reply that Moff? You've never had a go at Grendel when hes said worse to me!

I have to take 9 tablets a day since having my Heart attack.

 

[chiefdave]

Not trying to be confrontational here, just trying to understand the answers given by you and ChiefDave. I wasn't talking about dividends. Would the rent be going to a company we had a 50% stake in? And wouldn't we have had a say (as opposed to no say) in that company's policy towards the club?

ACL was 50% owned by CCC and 50% owned by Higgs. However they weren't running it day to day, it had its own management etc.

ACL was in debt in the form of the Yorkshire Bank loan. There had been an agreement made that any profit would be used to make overpayments on the loan to get it paid off ASAP. Presumably to reduce the amount of interest paid.

If CCFC purchased 50% of ACL nothing at all would change. Yes the rent would be going to a company we owned 50% of but we would still be paying the same and getting no more back. Of course at some point down the line when the loan was paid off we would get a share of the profits but that was 15 plus years away based on previous years.

I guess you could make the arguement that they would have more influence and ultimately as shareholders they would have influence over who was on the board. The problem would be with 50/50 ownership you need cooperation or everything gets stuck in a stalemate.

What we really needed was to own 51%.

 

[rupert_bear]

So in a nut shell who is likely to come out on top then ?

 

[chiefdave]

So in a nut shell who is likely to come out on top then ?

The lawyers.

 

[olderskyblue]

Thats a really pathetic thing to say, so are you taking the piss out of anyone who needs to take meds in life you areshole?

I find your comment a bit strange too Moff. With all the sh** said on here, it wouldn't surprise me if most were on meds of some sort... especially those who actually read grendels posts... ;-)

Of the "things to get annoyed about on a message board" I don't think this should be on the list.

 

[skybluebeduff]

When do we find out the dna test by Jeremy?

 

[Nick]

When do we find out the dna test by Jeremy?

It is void because of prescription painkillers.

 

[dongonzalos]

So in a nut shell who is likely to come out on top then ?

It comes down to this the application of the 'market investor test', which looks at whether a private investor would have acted in the same way

The defence say you can't just apply that because Councils have other responsibilities. However I get the feeling these judges will still take that as the overriding factor in their decision.

Would a private firm try and stop their tenant devaluing a business they have an interest in. When they same tenant is trying to buy that business.
Would they make a risky loan to that business in order to keep it afloat.
Then sell it off to someone else before it gets anymore devalued?

Or would a private firm just try and sell it to the company causing it's value to drop. Without having to do any loan deal.

Or would a private firm do a deal with the company devaluing their business to try and drive a deal out of the bank. Which means working with this company when the relationship isn't great

Very tough really. I am thinking 60-40 in SISU's favour.

The first hearing s lot if people actions and Behavioyr came into it. It seemed to be based more in common sense. I was 70-30 thinking the council would win for the reasons the judge explained.

However this is more technical it seems to be cutting out all the surrounding curcumstances. It just looks at was that loan state aid yes or no. Without looking at all the surrounding curcumstances it looks more like it is.

In a strange way if the council did know Wasos were going to bud when they took this step. That would be better for them. A private company may do that. If they saw SUSU as hostile and knew by making the loan they could negate their influence them pave the way for a smoother sake to Wasps whilst having minimal risk in the loan because it actually would only be temporary.
I imagine a private company may have taken that option.

 

[Nick]

It comes down to this the application of the 'market investor test', which looks at whether a private investor would have acted in the same way

The defence say you can't just apply that because Councils have other responsibilities. However I get the feeling these judges will still take that as the overriding factor in their decision.

Would a private firm try and stop their tenant devaluing a business they have an interest in. When they same tenant is trying to buy that business.
Would they make a risky loan to that business in order to keep it afloat.
Then sell it off to someone else before it gets anymore devalued?

Or would a private firm just try and sell it to the company causing it's value to drop. Without having to do any loan deal.

Or would a private firm do a deal with the company devaluing their business to try and drive a deal out of the bank. Which means working with this company when the relationship isn't great

Very tough really. I am thinking 60-40 in SISU's favour.

The first hearing s lot if people actions and Behavioyr came into it. It seemed to be based more in common sense. I was 70-30 thinking the council would win for the reasons the judge explained.

However this is more technical it seems to be cutting out all the surrounding curcumstances. It just looks at was that loan state aid yes or no. Without looking at all the surrounding curcumstances it looks more like it is.

In a strange way if the council did know Wasos were going to bud when they took this step. That would be better for them. A private company may do that. If they saw SUSU as hostile and knew by making the loan they could negate their influence them pave the way for a smoother sake to Wasps whilst having minimal risk in the loan because it actually would only be temporary.
I imagine a private company may have taken that option.

I think also the point of how much money was invested in ACL comes into it. If the council had 50 million of tax payers money tied up in ACL then it would be different, as they had put £0 into ACL.

And yes if they knew Wasps were buying when they took that step it gives them a bit more security. Surely that would mean they were selling to Wasps while we were still tenants, before Northampton etc. Would be a major contradiction to a lot of things said and justifications given. Especially as it is around the same time of the £2million charity offer for Higgs share, which was classed as disgusting. It would certainly explain why it was never going to happen with SISU or CCFC if it had already been agreed with Wasps. (and maybe why SISU suddenly got interested in the stadium after a couple of years of being here).

That situation would make CCC and Wasps look quite bad.