lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
"Untangling the truth from the part truths and the outright lies would take an age."
Can you tell me how this reconciles with this?
Can you tell me how this reconciles with this?
the first is to do with the shares, the second is to do with the rent
Heads of terms is defined here.Can you tell me how this reconciles with this?
Wikipedia said:Commercial Property Transaction
In a commercial property transaction in the UK, a heads of agreement is often known as the heads of terms (HOTS). The main purpose of the heads of terms is to identify and highlight the requirements of both the seller and the purchaser of the property. There are a number of advantages of using the heads of terms. For instance, by carrying this out, both parties will fully understand what they are subject to, and reduce or abolish any misunderstandings from either party.[2] The heads of terms normally contains the following information:
- Details of the property seller
- Details of the property purchaser
- Address of the commercial property
- Details of the commercial property
- The purchase price both parties have agreed to
- The payment information
- Any special conditions
- Transaction completion date
1: If Limited is liquidated after all creditors have been paid in full, and assuming FL will give the GS to Holdings...
Can you tell me how this reconciles with this?
Quite simply: there was an HoT which was the basis for a negotiation which Sisu never proceeded with.
So a basis for negotiation, as opposed to an agreement.
Ultimately worthless from either side other than a formal statement of intent, as committed neither to anything other than an attempt to drill down the negotiations?
Yes. an agreed opening of negotiations, an agreement from which to work toward a deal.
I have read Fisher's statements in the CT. Untangling the truth from the part truths and the outright lies would take an age. What I will say is that there was no agreement for Sisu/Seppala/CCFC to buy the Higgs shares. This knocks out quite a lot of what Fisher is claiming. Everything he says about "deals" has this lie as a crucial part of the argument he is putting.
In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.
As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial.
This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings.
As is pretty well known both shareholders have a veto over the sale by the other of their shares.
As is pretty well known both shareholders have a veto over the sale by the other of their shares. Neither the Charity nor the Council have ever been asked by the other if they could sell their shares. I can say categorically that there never has been a deal done with Sisu/Seppala/Fisher/whoever for anyone to have either the Council's or the Charity's shares. It is a Fisherism to say anything to the contrary.
Would the charity be open to making an agreement with a SISU owned CCFC for the charity's share, assuming SISU owned the club as it came out of administration?
Would the council veto this deal if agreed with SISU?
The reason I ask is this was the inference I got from a radio interview you did a while back, that the charity would be open to a deal, but the council would probably veto; but so much has been said from either side since then my poor brain is confuzzled and might have mixed you up with someone completely different (entirely possible!), so while you're here clarification would be welcomed from me at least!
I cannot speak for the City Council. This possibility has not been discussed with the Council by the Charity.
No. I tell the truth. There would be no point, I am afraid. I look forward to the various Court cases that seem to be in train and for the truth to come out because it does eventually.
Respect for coming on here, into the Helmand Province of forums to state your point. Like you say, I wouldn't bother if I was bullshitting.
No. I tell the truth. There would be no point, I am afraid. I look forward to the various Court cases that seem to be in train and for the truth to come out because it does eventually.
I believe if you can show a word is in common use you can apply to get it added to the dictionary at which point it becomes an official part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
Yeah respect where it's due PWKH doesn't have to come on here and post, and I applaud him for doing so. I also can't see why he would lie about things as it would eventually come out and he'd lose credibility in the eyes of many on here. Now as I see it Uncle Tim isn't so bothered about the odd inaccuracy and just says any old thing.
I believe if you can show a word is in common use you can apply to get it added to the dictionary at which point it becomes an official part of the English language.
As there have been so many incidents now which have prompted the use of the word 'Fisherism' can I suggest we apply to get it officially recognised as part of the English language.
I think it would be most apt:
Fisherism (noun) a statement or phrase that distorts the reality of a given situation or fact - a piece of misinformation intending to confuse or obfuscate - a lie, or at best a 'half-truth'
e.g. His answers to the questions were merely Fisherisms, so were taken with the usual pinch of salt.
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?