SCG minutes... (15 Viewers)

sky blue john · Jan 23, 2014

Allegedly could it not be seen as Sisu Otium arvo conspiring to withhold rent to damage a third party ?
Allegedly could it not be seen as Sisu and Acl conspiring to distress to buy the banks loan cheap ?
Allegedly could it be not seen as Sisu Arvo conspiring to increase debt in interest and fees and therefore crippling ccfc ?

Astute · Jan 23, 2014

smileycov said:
I was impressed and that surprised me. I do not think ccc or ACL are helping our cause. SISU have done wrong but so have they. I want acl to go, ccc to sell the ricoh or whatever to sisu and we come back home to coventry. if sisu remain in charge i think the future will be better than the way we were treated by them in the past. lessons learned maybe.

And this is whilst they are charging our club 2.5m in management fees a year and 1.2m in interest. And as they have admitted our club won't own the arena so how much rent would they charge on top of this 3.7m a year?

Noggin · Jan 23, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I partly agree OSB however at least using your example Sisu can then decide whether the valuation prie established is what they're willing to pay.. £20M for the Ricoh (your example) or £25M for a stadium with 1/4 of the potential..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but like I said sisu can't buy the stadium from the council.

There are 2 options,

1) buy the freehold from the council - This does nothing for the football club, it will not allow them to play a team there, it will not bring them match day revenue.

2) buy acl, which is the best option for the football club, does allow them to play a team there, does give them matchday revenue, but sisu have said this isn't what they want, so which of the two are you suggesting they get a valuation for? If sisu were willing to pay market rate though they'd have brought the higgs share when they had agreed a deal for it, instead of allegedly using the information they gained from the due diligence while distressing acl.

RoboCCFC90 · Jan 23, 2014

Noggin said:
but like I said sisu can't buy the stadium from the council.

There are 2 options,

1) buy the freehold from the council - This does nothing for the football club, it will not allow them to play a team there, it will not bring them match day revenue.

2) buy acl, which is the best option for the football club, does allow them to play a team there, does give them matchday revenue, but sisu have said this isn't what they want, so which of the two are you suggesting they get a valuation for? If sisu were willing to pay market rate though they'd have brought the higgs share when they had agreed a deal for it, instead of allegedly using the information they gained from the due diligence while distressing acl.

I am sure Sisu want the freehold, I have a suspicion that they want the land surrounding the Arena, I am not sure if the Freehold would get them closer to this as well as the Stadium, I also think they want ACL gone but not sure how getting the Freehold would achieve this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Big_Ben · Jan 23, 2014

Astute said:
Who has concerns? Lobotomy even said in his own opinion. No proof at all. Just trying to divide the fans as usual.

I don't get this changing people's names.What's it all about Arsetute?

Astute · Jan 23, 2014

Big_Ben said:
I don't get this changing people's names.What's it all about Arsetute?

What are you trying to say Beg Bin?

oldskyblue58 · Jan 23, 2014

Now I am not saying this is the case I just do not know but............

Say the Council were to get it valued - say it was £20m (just an example). That establishes a value to the council that has been achieved by an independent valuer.

now say they win the JR and are able to claim damages against council etc ........ any bets as to how big the claim would be :thinking about: somewhere north of the valuation I would expect. Of course they may also decide to go after other parties involved, certainly claim their legal fees etc....... we know that their preference is to go to court don't we. Effectively getting the stadium for pretty much nothing and maybe getting some jam & icing on that cake. Even if they lose might they persist in legal actions against various parties involved hoping to get some sort of settlement?

Is this why they want valuations done by the council rather than putting their own offer in?

just a scenario nothing more

Big_Ben · Jan 23, 2014

Astute said:
What are you trying to say Beg Bin?

Only that it's incredibly childish behaviour, and doesn't add a single thing to the discussion. It's not even funny.

Monners · Jan 23, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Now I am not saying this is the case I just do not know but............

Say the Council were to get it valued - say it was £20m (just an example). That establishes a value to the council that has been achieved by an independent valuer.

now say they win the JR and are able to claim damages against council etc ........ any bets as to how big the claim would be :thinking about: somewhere north of the valuation I would expect. Of course they may also decide to go after other parties involved, certainly claim their legal fees etc....... we know that their preference is to go to court don't we. Effectively getting the stadium for pretty much nothing and maybe getting some jam & icing on that cake. Even if they lose might they persist in legal actions against various parties involved hoping to get some sort of settlement?

Is this why they want valuations done by the council rather than putting their own offer in?

just a scenario nothing more

A CCC valuation did seem to be at the core of many of the points that were made, so this does sound plausible.

shmmeee · Jan 23, 2014

mark82 said:
It took 2 minutes for someone to start defending ACL.

and 1 minute for someone to attack them.

shmmeee · Jan 23, 2014

Big_Ben said:
I don't get this changing people's names.What's it all about Arsetute?

People without power gain it back through insults and slang. Happens all the time. We have no power, what the fuck does it matter if we make fun of a millionaire's name. And more to the point, why are you so offended by it?

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
If I was in charge at SISU I would go back to Higgs and complete that deal to purchase 50% of ACL at what is believed to be around £5m. I would then go to the council and make an offer of around £14m (essentially clearing the loan) for their 50% as a starting point and go from there, I think that would be a bid that would make the council think I was serious. That deal would be conditional on the lease being converted to a rolling lease with peppercorn rent. If I then wanted any other business out of the Ricoh I would negotiate with them individually.

They can't do this imho. If they buy Higgs then they are buying into 50% liability of the 14m mortgage. At which point CCC could just call in the mortgage... it would get messy but CCC would have a no lose gamble because even if ACL went caput they still own the freehold.

This is why CCFC most likely want CCC to deal with Higgs/ACL situation first.

My 2cs

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
If they buy Higgs then they are buying into 50% liability of the 14m mortgage. At which point CCC could just call in the mortgage... it would get messy but CCC would have a no lose gamble because even if ACL went caput they still own the freehold.

Surely repayment terms would already be laid out? Would be a very odd choice if the council did that as they would run the risk of not being paid and of course a PR disaster which may well cost them votes. They may own the freehold but they would then have to resell the lease, seems a lot of hassle with no benefit. What makes you think they would go down this route?

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
Surely repayment terms would already be laid out? Would be a very odd choice if the council did that as they would run the risk of not being paid and of course a PR disaster which may well cost them votes. They may own the freehold but they would then have to resell the lease, seems a lot of hassle with no benefit. What makes you think they would go down this route?

Same reason they rejected the CVA They would still own the freehold so could just sell another lease... 100 year lease whatever, or invite bids from AEG etc to run it.

Bottom line neither side trust each other so I can't see any sort of partnership/joint ownership ever again.

Astute · Jan 23, 2014

Big_Ben said:
Only that it's incredibly childish behaviour, and doesn't add a single thing to the discussion. It's not even funny.

And you were acting grown up when calling me that funny name Arsetute when I hadn't even said anything to you?

So you named yourself after a clock. I have a feeling that you sneaked an L in there somewhere.

letsallsingtogether · Jan 23, 2014

Same old same old Sisu bare the only ones that have money a bottomless pit apparently as some would make you believe. We will be over 100 million in debt by the time they build there shed.

Really good business ethics yet they slag others off.

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
Same reason they rejected the CVA They would still own the freehold so could just sell another lease... 100 year lease whatever, or invite bids from AEG etc to run it.

The council didn't reject the CVA did they, did they even have a vote?

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
The council didn't reject the CVA did they, did they even have a vote?

Okay point taken... directors of ACL rejected but they are also on the council...

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
Okay point taken... directors of ACL rejected but they are also on the council...

Don't see that happening tbh. If CCC don't want SISU owning 50% of ACL the simple route is to use their veto. At that point they would need to explain to the people of Coventry why they had used the veto as it would be seen as blocking the return of the club to the city.

AJB1983 · Jan 23, 2014

Surprised labovitch/sisu are sticking to the line that refinancing a mortgage was an attempt to force sisu out.
If anything it was to stop sisu forcing themselves in....

Just sick of them peddling out the 'we've done nothing wrong here' bollocks.
Trouble is that labovitch and fisher have a captive audience at the Scg.

oldskyblue58 · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
Okay point taken... directors of ACL rejected but they are also on the council...

Legally speaking though as directors of ACL they have to act in the best interests of that company when making any decisions whether employed by council, charity or an independent director.

Just as Fisher Labovitch & waggott currently have to take decisions in the best interests of otium ........ or those that were appointed to CCFC Ltd or CCFC H for those companies....... and not take decisions in the best interests of the owners

Of course in the real world the owners have influence whether it is Council, Charity or SISU. For one side to play the conflict of interest card is a little disingenuous in my opinion. Nothing to say any have taken decisions with a conflict of interest that remains to be proven (if at all) but I would suggest such arguments are not one sided and all parties have to be careful.

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

AJB1983 said:
Surprised labovitch/sisu are sticking to the line that refinancing a mortgage was an attempt to force sisu out.
If anything it was to stop sisu forcing themselves in....

Just sick of them peddling out the 'we've done nothing wrong here' bollocks.
Trouble is that labovitch and fisher have a captive audience at the Scg.

They wanted to convert the mortgage into a 125 year lease leaving (1) ACL debt free and (2) ACL able to offer either peppercorn or very low rent and still make a profit.

Yes people are concerned that at this point Sisu could have walked away from the club and just profited on a 125 year lease with no debts to repay... however a covenant on the lease extension could have prevented this.

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Legally speaking though as directors of ACL they have to act in the best interests of that company when making any decisions whether employed by council, charity or an independent director.

Why did they reject the CVA then? How can 0.5 pence in the pound be better than 25.25 pence in the pound...

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

AJB1983 said:
Surprised labovitch/sisu are sticking to the line that refinancing a mortgage was an attempt to force sisu out.
If anything it was to stop sisu forcing themselves in....

I still don't understand what difference it makes if you're trying to purchase 50% or even 100% of ACL. Prior to the change ACL were paying Yorkshire Bank, after they were paying CCC (at a lower rate). I don't really follow SISU's arguement. If I was buying a company and during the talks (although in this instance didn't it happen later) refinancing took place putting the debt on better terms I would view it as a good thing.

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
They wanted to convert the mortgage into a 125 year lease leaving (1) ACL debt free and (2) ACL able to offer either peppercorn or very low rent and still make a profit.

So why could they only do this when the mortgage was with Yorkshire Bank?

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
Why did they reject the CVA then? How can 0.5 pence in the pound be better than 25.25 pence in the pound...

PWKH said they were prepared to accept the CVA if SISU dropped the JR and agreed to a rolling 10 years lease at (I think) the 150K rate. They aren't actually getting 0.5 pence in the pound as it was a condition of the FL when handing back the golden share that the debt to ACL was paid in full. No idea if SISU have actually paid this yet.

Big_Ben · Jan 23, 2014

Astute said:
And you were acting grown up when calling me that funny name Arsetute when I hadn't even said anything to you?

So you named yourself after a clock. I have a feeling that you sneaked an L in there somewhere.

I hold my hands up - I did your name thing as an example so you just might perhaps see it as some others might, and see how pointless it seems. I don't find it particularly offensive, just that it diminishes the effect of some of the more salient points that are being made.

AJB1983 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
I still don't understand what difference it makes if you're trying to purchase 50% or even 100% of ACL. Prior to the change ACL were paying Yorkshire Bank, after they were paying CCC (at a lower rate). I don't really follow SISU's arguement. If I was buying a company and during the talks (although in this instance didn't it happen later) refinancing took place putting the debt on better terms I would view it as a good thing.

Exactly, or looking at it from the CCFC viewpoint, not owning a stadium, but the owners of the stadium then securing its future surely would be a good thing also?
Only people who don't is sisu, as the withholding of rent was their way of trying to get hold of it by distressing acl.

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
I still don't understand what difference it makes if you're trying to purchase 50% or even 100% of ACL. Prior to the change ACL were paying Yorkshire Bank, after they were paying CCC (at a lower rate). I don't really follow SISU's arguement. If I was buying a company and during the talks (although in this instance didn't it happen later) refinancing took place putting the debt on better terms I would view it as a good thing.

According to the minutes they was two parts to the deal.

1) Buy Higgs
2) Buy the YB debt at less than book value

They claim that (1) was dependent on (2). CCC actions did not put the debt on better terms since they were trying to buy it for considerably less than 14m.

Even though the debt is on better terms, it is still an interest charging debt that will repay far in excess of 14m over the life of the loan...

ML – Ok, at the beginning when agreed a deal with CCC, there were a number of components of that deal. SISU would buy the Higgs stake in ACL and SISU would pay off ACLs mortgage. Tobuy the Higgs stake, SISU needed to do normal due diligence. Higgs said they needed accountants and lawyers so if Joy walks away from the deal it was agreed that SISU would pay those costs. SISU didn’t walk away, it was prevented from fulfilling its part of the deal and paying off ACL’s mortgage because CCC used tax payer’s money to pay the mortgage off.

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
PWKH said they were prepared to accept the CVA if SISU dropped the JR and agreed to a rolling 10 years lease at (I think) the 150K rate. They aren't actually getting 0.5 pence in the pound as it was a condition of the FL when handing back the golden share that the debt to ACL was paid in full. No idea if SISU have actually paid this yet.

I wasn't actually aware of this. Are you saying the FL told Sisu they had to pay the full 1.7m outstanding (including the 1y break clause) or just what they were offered in the CVA. I guess it makes a little more sense, but at the time of rejecting the CVA they couldn't have known that the FL would have made them pay?

oldskyblue58 · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
Why did they reject the CVA then? How can 0.5 pence in the pound be better than 25.25 pence in the pound...

my understanding is that they rejected on the basis that in their opinion the administration process was flawed.. I would assume they were trying to force a settlement on renting and JR but you would have to ask them. Were they aware prior to the vote of the FL conditions? did they know they would get the money anyway?

Astute · Jan 23, 2014

chiefdave said:
I still don't understand what difference it makes if you're trying to purchase 50% or even 100% of ACL. Prior to the change ACL were paying Yorkshire Bank, after they were paying CCC (at a lower rate). I don't really follow SISU's arguement. If I was buying a company and during the talks (although in this instance didn't it happen later) refinancing took place putting the debt on better terms I would view it as a good thing.

IIRC someone recently put up a time frame of them having talks with Higgs and when they tried to muscle in on the mortgage and the talks with Higgs happened before the mortgage was refinanced. ...which to me shows why they didn't buy the Higgs share.

Specs WT-R75 · Jan 23, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
my understanding is that they rejected on the basis that in their opinion the administration process was flawed.. I would assume they were trying to force a settlement on renting and JR but you would have to ask them. Were they aware prior to the vote of the FL conditions? did they know they would get the money anyway?

they seemed pretty unhappy when Otium got the share, so you would have to suspect they did not know for sure... #doublebluff?

Deleted member 5849 · Jan 23, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
Were they aware prior to the vote of the FL conditions? did they know they would get the money anyway?

Yeah that's kind of key, to me.

Although it'd be a bizarre set of affairs if that wre decided first (I might go and check the publicly available timeline if I can be bothered - supposed to be on holiday and I'm on a CCFC website?!? ) because why on earth would you do anything *other* than reject the CVA if you were getting the cash regardless!

And what kind of process is *that*?!?

chiefdave · Jan 23, 2014

Specs WT-R75 said:
2) Buy the YB debt at less than book value

They claim that (1) was dependent on (2). CCC actions did not put the debt on better terms since they were trying to buy it for considerably less than 14m.

So this centres then on SISU stating they were deliberately trying to deceive Yorkshire Bank by colluding with the council to create a false impression that ACL were distressed. Not sure I'd be wanting to stand up in court and state that. What was Labovich's quote from the last meeting? "It’s against the law for 2 or more people to conspire to cause damage to the business of a third party".

And of course, we have yet to see any actual evidence from SISU or Yorkshire Bank of that being true.

SCG minutes... (15 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency