As I said, it's all in the narrative. To placade a lurking PWKH whenever he passes by, I'll happily point out when Derek Higgs died, his obituaries were big on his integrity within business which would suggest your narrative here is closer to the accurate one.
But it often seems a little lazy to say 'ripping off a poor charity' to me. As you say, if they haven't done well out of any deals, they were arguably ripped off by those you mention when they got involved... and thus SISU offering values that don't get their money back isn't SISU doing the ripping off, but those who were there before... while SISU coldly offer market value!
I'm not a fan of that phrase, it's worth what the seller will accept, there are a whole host of situations where the something is worth more to the seller than the buyer (Callum Wilson will probably be one by the looks of it). I'm also not sure I accept how you put a "market value" on a council backed project, as by definition they tend to invest in things the market won't. But that's for the analysts and advisors to argue over, though maybe I'm simple, I just can't see how something the size and location of the Ricoh, that cost that much to build is worth less than a couple of particularly nice houses on Kenilworth Road.
Besides, the only time I've argued anyone is ripping off a charity was the unpaid legal costs, and I still think that. Anyone is entitled to offer what they want for the charity's assets, and the charity is entitled to hold on for whatever reason they like. I assume PWKH and the rest are competent enough to not get ripped off should they accept the deal later on, however I suspect that the long term future of the club, and not money, if at the heart of their reluctance at the moment. And maybe Sisu should meditate on that for a bit and consider how they can change their approach to assuage these feelings. They don't act in a vacuum.