Sky Blues owners to bid for Higgs' shares in ACL (1 Viewer)

[Deleted member 5849]

If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?

The one that benefited the social wellbeing of the city of Coventry.

 

---

[Grendel]

If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?

The one Alan Edward Higgs would want to sell to.

 

[Warwickhunt]

I still don't believe this is as straight forward as just paying out a couple of million.
Be nice if it was.

IMHO I would say that if CCFC Ltd are to bid then SISU need to put money into CCFC Ltd.
If they do that then the people owed money by Ltd surely get first pick of that money before they can use it to buy the share.
In addition I would also say that who ever owns that share also takes on half the ACL debt.

It would be nice to understand why Sisu are not snapping Higgs hand off if it's clear cut.
It would also be nice to know whether Wasps would like to split ACL with Sisu.

Majority of the money is owed to SISU as ACL has had a payout + escrow account of 1.1 million anyway

 

[fernandopartridge]

Once bitten, twice shy?

If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?

You accept both and continue to negotiate in good faith like grown up business people.

 

[fernandopartridge]

In fairness Noggin the court found that SISU owed nothing and the agreement was void.

 

[stupot07]

If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?

When have wasps bought from Alan Higgs charity before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[oldfiver]

If he puts in one that AEHC finds acceptable then he has the right to a great deal of information subject to NDA's etc.

He has the right anyway as Liquidator of CCFC - but he is then bound by the NDA's

 

[skybluetony176]

You accept both and continue to negotiate in good faith like grown up business people.

Thats the problem though isn't it FP. SISU have eroded all the good faith away with Higgs and left Higgs with the easy excuse to accept a equivilent like for like offer from Wasps. Lets hope that either Higgs have short memories or are more grown up than SISU.

 

[dongonzalos]

Really believe that they should bid for more than wasps and make it public.
How can the council or the charity turn down offer that leads to the charity getting more money.
However it needs to be a straight payment up front deal and a drop the pointless JR deal.
They would have the whole city backing them and probably most the councillors.

Have feeling they will underbid and try a court appeal and cock it all up again though.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Lets hope that either Higgs have short memories or are more grown up than SISU.

(balloons)

 

[skybluetony176]

(balloons)

(sense of humour)

 

[oldskyblue58]

If he puts in one that AEHC finds acceptable then he has the right to a great deal of information subject to NDA's etc.

He has the right anyway as Liquidator of CCFC - but he is then bound by the NDA's

he has the right to information about CCFC Ltd certainly, he should for instance have the full details of the option in his possession and should know for certain who actually owns the option (physically or beneficially) so there should be no argument about that.

He does not have the right to information about commercial arrangements between the stakeholders of a third party (ACL) unless he has a bid accepted by one of those stakeholders for the sale of their interest to CCFC Ltd. At the moment he doesn't have that acceptance indeed he hasn't even put a bid in. So where in law exactly does he have this right to information on the JV - CCFC Ltd have no part right or interest in the JV, ACL, Wasps, AEHC

 

[covcity4life]

(sense of humour)

(desperate excuses)

 

[skybluetony176]

Really believe that they should bid for more than wasps and make it public.
How can the council or the charity turn down offer that leads to the charity getting more money.
However it needs to be a straight payment up front deal and a drop the pointless JR deal.
They would have the whole city backing them and probably most the councillors.

Have feeling they will underbid and try a court appeal and cock it all up again though.

Nothing to do with the council anymore.

 

[skybluetony176]

(desperate excuses)

(not really. it didn't happen in the board room it happened after a football match and is in no way responsible for the breakdown of any deal (past or present) for higgs share of ACL)

 

[Hobo]

The trouble is Joy is used to bidding in distressed msrkets not bouyant ones.

SISU need to be successful in buying this 50% or we are stuffed for years to come. They really are playing catch up afyrr trying to be greedy.

 

[covcity4life]

(too big a sentence for brackets pal)

 

[skybluetony176]

(too big a sentence for brackets pal)

(sorry)

 

[dongonzalos]

Nothing to do with the council anymore.

I agree but some have suggested the council may exert pressure due to the wasps deal.
However there is nothing reported in the wasps deal that says the whole deal is dependant on the charity selling their share as well

 

[oldfiver]

he has the right to information about CCFC Ltd certainly, he should for instance have the full details of the option in his possession and should know for certain who actually owns the option (physically or beneficially) so there should be no argument about that.

He does not have the right to information about commercial arrangements between the stakeholders of a third party (ACL) unless he has a bid accepted by one of those stakeholders for the sale of their interest to CCFC Ltd. At the moment he doesn't have that acceptance indeed he hasn't even put a bid in. So where in law exactly does he have this right to information on the JV - CCFC Ltd have no part right or interest in the JV, ACL, Wasps, AEHC

As Liquidator he has a right to know anything about the assets of CCFC within his remit.

 

[oldskyblue58]

and the assets of CCFC ltd that he has power over are what exactly?

1) a option formula that can not be exercised
2) the right to be informed of a bid received by AEHC for the shares they own in ACL
3) the right to make a bid for said shares

 

[dongonzalos]

It has been completed and is not reliant on anything else - confirmed by the council.

That's good someone here was telling us it is dependant so they have their 'facts' wrong once again.
No excuse them for SISU putting in a higher bid than wasps. I think (not fact) that a charity maybe legally obliged to do what is best for the charity how can they turn down a higher offer if it is payment straight away?

Unless their is some truth in wasps having a power to veto?

 

[oldfiver]

and the assets of CCFC ltd that he has power over are what exactly?

The option

 

[Godiva]

Unless they match or better the deal with Wasps then it is going to be rejected. There is the problem for SISU. They do not actually know the finer details of the Wasps offer to AEHC. Which means they could easily undercook the offer and that's it gone. This is not a bidding war or an auction. The option allows one crack at it get that wrong and that's it gone.

The original JV deal SISU should already have details of from the previous due diligence, if they haven't what the hell were they doing at that time? They could make an offer that matches or betters Wasps subject to disclosure of the revised JV details (if it has been revised at all). Do the ACL stakeholders have to disclose the details of anything at the moment - would have thought they are within their rights not to release anything detailed at the moment. Make an offer subject to disclosure that is of interest and that's different. Is that possible though considering AEHC probably want nothing to do with SISU - so it would have to be a better offer to make them have to consider it

I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.

As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.

 

[dongonzalos]

Has the veto question been bottomed out?

If it is genuine and wasps have the power to veto then this is a waste of time.

If the council have a power to veto or there us no power to veto. Then it really comes down to SISU bidding 3 million plus with a promise of payment immediately.

3 million for half of ACL of 30 million for a 18k stadium?

Come in SISU show you can do the right thing for once do not try and manoeuvre on this one show us you have learnt from your mistakes.

 

[dongonzalos]

I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.

As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.

If it is a payment up front for more than the existing bid are they not bound by the charities commission to do what is best for the charity?

 

[oldfiver]

Has the veto question been bottomed out?

If it is genuine and wasps have the power to veto then this is a waste of time.

If the council have a power to veto or there us no power to veto. Then it really comes down to SISU bidding 3 million plus with a promise of payment immediately.

3 million for half of ACL of 30 million for a 18k stadium?

Come in SISU show you can do the right thing for once do not try and manoeuvre on this one show us you have learnt from your mistakes.

Where does £30M come from?

You also forget that ACL has debts of £15m approx that is has to service and repay.

We do not know whch arm of WASPS has bought the shares but if that was to fold all the debt would effectively fall on the remaining shareholder

 

[oldfiver]

If it is a payment up front for more than the existing bid are they not bound by the charities commission to do what is best for the charity?

It does not always come down to money - I understood the HIGGS investment was to help provide the community with a local sports facility and for its local football team.

( I do not know ) but if helps fulfill those aims it could argue it has met its obligations and aims?

Just thinking aloud

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

I have said before and will repeat - until we have actually seen what CCC have "sold" to WASPS you do not know what they have "bought". WASPS may have been tempted by added incentives above those available to SISU - this might be the reason they are refusing to give out details

It could also be that Wasps have given incentives so that CCC sell,ie why have compusory purchase orders been instigated on certain businesses in the Ricoh area:thinking about:

 

[wingy]

I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.

As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.

Got a reference for that God.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

It does not always come down to money - I understood the HIGGS investment was to help provide the community with a local sports facility and for its local football team.

( I do not know ) but if helps fulfill those aims it could argue it has met its obligations and aims?

Just thinking aloud

The Higgs investment was to bail CCFC out when it needed some money.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

It could also be that Wasps have given incentives so that CCC sell,ie why have compusory purchase orders been instigated on certain businesses in the Ricoh area:thinking about:

Thats interesting, which businesses?

 

[SkyBlueCharlie]

I just don't understand why they (Sisu) are going through all of this hassle.

(I) They've moved on and are building a new stadium, details of which will be announced as soon as they are available so why would they want half a share in a stadium they they don't want?

(2) If they only own 50% of ACL they they won't have ALL of the revenues etc for 365 days of the year which I thought that was a pre-requisite for the new stadium.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

That Sky Blue PM seems like a fun guy.



Where are these people found?

Think thats our old friend do miss him

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It could also be that Wasps have given incentives so that CCC sell,ie why have compusory purchase orders been instigated on certain businesses in the Ricoh area:thinking about:

Would be logical I suppose. The second 'test' set out by Cllr Taylor way back when was any owner would have to promise to use the Ricoh Arena to regenerate the north of Coventry.