James Smith
Well-Known Member
HOT aren't binding but I agree it would be interesting to see it.
It's always been apparent that the HOT that was signed in 2012 has never really been published into the public domain. If the Club have this document I would insist they publish it publicly.
That way we can see the agreement and ask the question of Why the deal was never enforced through?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I agree gosford green 90% of CCFC fans have seen through the smoke screen and all the carefully contrived spin sisu put out, it's almost like propaganda to make us believe them.
This cannot carry on either they are just plain dumb or their stratedgy of financially crippling ACL has back fired.
Take the medicine sisu and give us our club back...
If Joy had a time machine I wonder if she'd still sanction the bargain basement Dann, Fox, Turner moves and also not buying Henderson and Carroll (as Ranson alleged)
HOT aren't binding but I agree it would be interesting to see it.
Of course there not but it would be interesting to see what the new arrangement was and why it wasn't taken upon by all parties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course there not but it would be interesting to see what the new arrangement was and why it wasn't taken upon by all parties.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought it never went through because SISU wouldn't pay what was agreed. The only thing that they seem to have paid in the last couple of years is the players wages, rent to Northampton, large legal fees and interest plus management fees to themselves.
The entire thing comes across better than the excerpt in the telegraph (no offence Simon). The trouble is it's a bit late in the day for this.
No offence taken. We printed the full excerpt we were given. If the club had provided the full interview, we would have happily put it all up at the same time.
I can understand that the club wanted to try and shift a few programmes first though. I did used to work for the programme team after all!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the end they couldn't agree the positioning of the Tim and Joy statues, some of the designs were deemed too graphic.
A quick question. When you worked on the program team was there someone present who knew how to spell Coventry ;-)
When I worked on the programme, we were voted the best programme in the league
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offence taken. We printed the full excerpt we were given. If the club had provided the full interview, we would have happily put it all up at the same time.
I can understand that the club wanted to try and shift a few programmes first though. I did used to work for the programme team after all!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the notes it says "Which (The deal) committed funds substantially exceeding the economic value of the Stadium, we produced development plans and brought in specialists (AEG I would assume) to secure the maximum dividend from having the Club stay at the Ricoh - all to no avail."
In my opinion these questions needs answering:
What where these dividends?
Why was it rejected?
Why have these details never been disclosed?
Was the offer within market value?
What differences are there to the last deal offered by ACL?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dividends: no idea
Rejected: It wasn't rejected. According to a High Court judge, the deal fell apart due to a lack of appetite on either side to complete a deal.
Disclosure: More details may come out in the JR or Labovitch's forums. I would assume nobody is obliged to disclose anything they consider to be commercially sensitive. And some information may well be deemed confidential belt various parties.
Value: Nobody seems to agree on the true market value. There are two PWC reports into the value of ACL. We have never been able to view the full reports. Only a small selection of detail from the older report was revealed in court. Again, I suspect more detail will come out in the JR.
What we do know is that trustees valued the charity's share in ACL at £7.5million. Sisu claimed it was worthless.
Deal: The exact details of any of the deals offered between the parties have never been made public. There's been snippets, speculation, claim and counter-claim and I suspect the truth - as always - is somewhere in the middle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dividends: no idea
Rejected: It wasn't rejected. According to a High Court judge, the deal fell apart due to a lack of appetite on either side to complete a deal.
Disclosure: More details may come out in the JR or Labovitch's forums. I would assume nobody is obliged to disclose anything they consider to be commercially sensitive. And some information may well be deemed confidential by the various parties.
Value: Nobody seems to agree on the true market value. There are two PWC reports into the value of ACL. We have never been able to view the full reports. Only a small selection of detail from the older report was revealed in court. Again, I suspect more detail will come out in the JR.
What we do know is that trustees valued the charity's share in ACL at £7.5million. Sisu claimed it was worthless.
Deal: The exact details of any of the deals offered between the parties have never been made public. There's been snippets, speculation, claim and counter-claim and I suspect the truth - as always - is somewhere in the middle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What did the council value higgs' share in ACL according to the e-mails revealed in court?
So you don't know what the PWC valuations were?
Why is it that Chris West feels that 5.5 mill was way over market value but Higgs said it was 7.5 million?
They want a profit on the original purchase value obviously, it can be the only reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you don't know what the PWC valuations were?
Why is it that Chris West feels that 5.5 mill was way over market value but Higgs said it was 7.5 million?
We do not. We may find out during the JR.
Why did Sisu say it was worth £0 but offered £2.5million later on? Nobody really knows, but I'm sure all parties will have the relevant formulas to back up their valuations.
Value becomes a funny term when you're talking about business, a charity and a local authority. I'm sure they all calculate things very differently.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offence taken. We printed the full excerpt we were given. If the club had provided the full interview, we would have happily put it all up at the same time.
I can understand that the club wanted to try and shift a few programmes first though. I did used to work for the programme team after all!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ahhh but surely they were just helping the club out being supporters? They wouldn't want profit would they?
SISU weren't trying to buy a charity though were they? The valuation was for part of a private company. Whether it is owned by the Queen, a charity or Bill Gates it doesn't make a difference on the valuation does 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?