tisza
Well-Known Member
no - the reason they became the preferred bidder was that ACL etc. wasn't a condition of their buying CCFC.
no - the reason they became the preferred bidder was that ACL etc. wasn't a condition of their buying CCFC.So you've just proven that they were unable to buy Higgs' share at the time of acquisition of CCFC.
Hence the all too well known "Distressing of the Club"no - the reason they became the preferred bidder was that ACL etc. wasn't a condition of their buying CCFC.
All the latest developments remind me of the school bully who when 11 was the biggest lad who picked on everyone and thought he was invincible but once the rest of the kids get bigger and by 14/15 the bully realises his days are over and cries about it.
Sisu started all this rubbish by trying to get the Ricoh on the cheap and scaremongering ACL. Since then its escalated into the farce it is now.
Wasps, CCC, CSF are playing sisu at there own game and the loser in all this is us CCFC. Such a shame but it boils down to SISU and there ridiculous antics all those years ago
It was,IIRC "Grenduffy" Estimated Formula of £10m which you so rightly say was deemed to be worth less by SISU... But that doesn't deter that SISU were offered the 50% share. Am I right or am I right?
have access to the guaranteed 1m+ rent some stupid football club were paying at the time :greedy: (poor taste i know)Anyway why the hell would you buy something that's worth nothing for £10 million?
have access to the guaranteed 1m+ rent some stupid football club were paying at the time :greedy: (poor taste i know)
But it's a point lost on some. Half share would still mean the club was paying £1.3 million rent and the company was not issuing any dividends - as I say the Higgs share was always worthless.
it's back to the point about a different time and different values.Sorry. Are you saying Wasps overpaid for it?
No the point he is making is that owning 50% of ACL was of little use to CCFC or to Wasps as they wouldn't have any authority to make any changes as neither side would own more than the other and therefore neither side would have a casting vote.Sorry. Are you saying Wasps overpaid for it?
We could go round in the same endless circles where everyone has an opinion again, if you like.
And ultimately solve nothing, and do nothing.
If you were being bullied at school you either stood up to them or you choose not to have anything to do with them.I think we are reaping what we sow Im surprised Wasps or anyone else wants to do any business with us (SUSI}
50% would have given a big say. 0% gave no say. And there is nothing to say that the other 50% wasn't available other than the usual comments on here. Just like when big numbers are used to say how much it would have cost when the largest amount asked for was 6.5m As we all know negotiating would have been better than what happened.Now if we could have purchased 100% then that's a different story, as we have seen with Wasps, but there is nothing to suggest that was ever available to the club.
You would think according to some on here sisu are faultless in this debacle which I'm surprised with.50% would have given a big say. 0% gave no say. And there is nothing to say that the other 50% wasn't available other than the usual comments on here. Just like when big numbers are used to say how much it would have cost when the largest amount asked for was 6.5m As we all know negotiating would have been better than what happened.
Then some people make out that others are pro CCC and anti CCFC for pointing out the untruths.
50% would have given a big say. 0% gave no say. And there is nothing to say that the other 50% wasn't available other than the usual comments on here. Just like when big numbers are used to say how much it would have cost when the largest amount asked for was 6.5m As we all know negotiating would have been better than what happened.
Then some people make out that others are pro CCC and anti CCFC for pointing out the untruths.
So you are saying that 50% gives you less say than 0%?Explain how 50% gives you more say? I genuinely don't understand that.
So you are saying that 50% gives you less say than 0%?
So are you saying owning 50% of something gives you no rights?You said it gives you more say. I just asked why as you made the comment.
I never said less say you just made that up.
I'd argue it gives you no more say at all. Why do you think it does?
Lets work it through. CCFC buy Higgs 50%. So ACL is now owned 50% by CCC and 50% by CCFC.So are you saying owning 50% of something gives you no rights?
Lets work it through. CCFC buy Higgs 50%. So ACL is now owned 50% by CCC and 50% by CCFC.
CCFC have a long term lease in place at £1.3m p.a.
CCFC approach ACL and say we want to renegotiate to a lower rent and more revenue access.
CCC are against this, how does CCFC owning 50% give them any power to change the lease without CCC agreeing?
So how much have Higgs received out of that 50% stake? Zero. ACL was, and still is, in debt. It was also struggling to break even. No dividends were ever paid out and there was little prospect of that changing.If ACL get all the revenues and CCFC own half of ACL then 50% effectively goes to them.
If CCFC pay £1.3M and CCFC own half of ACL then 50% effectively goes to them, surely ?
The debts owed were getting paid down as most of us will admit to knowing. And do we have to mention yet again to why the arena got devalued or why it was running at a loss?So how much have Higgs received out of that 50% stake? Zero. ACL was, and still is, in debt. It was also struggling to break even. No dividends were ever paid out and there was little prospect of that changing.
There was still a considerable debt to pay down. The Ricoh was struggling to break even without the club paying £1.3m a year in rent, so if as is being suggested the club had purchased Higgs share leading to a reduction in rent that would weaken the Ricoh's financial position.The debts owed were getting paid down as most of us will admit to knowing. And do we have to mention yet again to why the arena got devalued or why it was running at a loss?
With our club playing there the footfall gave an income on top of the rent. When we stopped paying rent it was down to everything else. It was badly run. When we left to go to Northampton it was then in trouble.There was still a considerable debt to pay down. The Ricoh was struggling to break even without the club paying £1.3m a year in rent, so if as is being suggested the club had purchased Higgs share leading to a reduction in rent that would weaken the Ricoh's financial position.
Would you rather we had paid £24m for F&B rights back in 2009?
No I'd rather we'd have bought the Higgs Share and before any of the animosity began. Then it would have meant we had access to the books of ACL and a possibly better chance of getting the other half of ACL. Sisu could have then brought in whoever they wanted to run the place. If the (two faced Council) had refused selling, Sisu could have been as nasty as they liked in as many courts as they liked. Now I know people point to valuations of the shares as being worthless and therefore a bad buy. But one of the Judges (I think in the last case) said something about Higgs share having future value even if it wasn't worth much at the time and an investor recognising this. We would have had 50% of something rather than 100% of nothing.
Of course this is right and what should have happened. There are however two factors in this point - firstly that SISU were incompentent in getting this done, but perhaps more significantly, if SISU had been competent in doing this, would there have been a deal available for them?
I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that the other parties had the desire to get the deal done with anyone at that moment in time.
Of course this is right and what should have happened. There are however two factors in this point - firstly that SISU were incompentent in getting this done, but perhaps more significantly, if SISU had been competent in doing this, would there have been a deal available for them?
I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that the other parties had the desire to get the deal done with anyone at that moment in time.
Strange?!? You didn't say that when I first said it? Disappearing up your own a**e now eh?
Really? you were talking about 2007 and "Shapiro" IIRC. When the conversation was about SISU in 2007 on takeover of CCFCOnly strange because as usual you weren't making any sense. You were going on about some formula deal for 10m etc... which is not the same thing as suggested here.
We aren't even talking about the same time period.
Really? you were talking about 2007 and "Shapiro" IIRC. When the conversation was about SISU in 2007 on takeover of CCFC
Strange, when I was talking about 2007 and SISU, but you butted your nose in when you didn't have a clue what we were talking about..
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?