Higgs vs CCFC Court Row (1 Viewer)

[fernandopartridge]

How are you parsing that? I don't understand the "liquidate or put club on market" bit.

Are they saying the council pulled out because they thought they'd liquidate or sell? Wouldn't that mean they wanted Sisu around?

Confused.

I'm reading it as the motive for loaning the money to ACL wasn't about protecting a public asset......that said, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean it was about trying to get rid of SISU, but the fact the council themselves have recognised that it may have been one of the outcomes is a big point.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

Early???

The original attempt - i.e. they were going to file for administration before SISU beat them to it.

 

[Godiva]

How are you parsing that? I don't understand the "liquidate or put club on market" bit.

Are they saying the council pulled out because they thought they'd liquidate or sell? Wouldn't that mean they wanted Sisu around?

Confused.

More the opposite.
CCC/ACL thought sisu would leave if no deal over Ricoh was found.
CCC then buy out the mortgage which was key element in buying Higgs shares.
CCC expected that sisu would leave as a result.

 

[chiefdave]

It depends on the reason for not getting things done, doesn't it?

Of course but from what is known at the moment, and of course more will come out in court, a HOT was agreed and then nobody heard from SISU to complete. SISU have said this is because another deal went on behind their back but if that didn't happen until after SISU had walked away I would think that puts a significant dent in SISU's arguement.

Sure when we get to SISUs chap speaking we'll get a very different version of the story so it will most likley come down to who has evidence to back up their claims.

 

[dongonzalos]

It seems some are desperate for the golden nugget that will prove the JR was correct and the tax payers money was used for part if a giant conspiracy. That now if you believe the club also included the sky blue trust.

 

[sky blue john]

SISU said they thought the early attempt by ACL
to put the club into administration was ACL trying to prompt regime change

Early attempt ????
How long was it that the rent had not been paid over a year ?

 

[oldskyblue58]

the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward. Even then it is not guaranteed.

As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.

 

[dongonzalos]

Of course but from what is known at the moment, and of course more will come out in court, a HOT was agreed and then nobody heard from SISU to complete. SISU have said this is because another deal went on behind their back but if that didn't happen until after SISU had walked away I would think that puts a significant dent in SISU's arguement.

Sure when we get to SISUs chap speaking we'll get a very different version of the story so it will most likley come down to who has evidence to back up their claims.

Exactly all they have said is the finance report considered all the implications of taking such a decision. Which a good finance report will.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Early attempt ????
How long was it that the rent had not been paid over a year ?

What's your point?

 

[Godiva]

the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward.
Even then it is not guaranteed.

As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.

Yes - it's about building a narrative.
Trouble is that Higgs barrister are doing one fine job proving sisu's claim towards the JR.

 

[fernandopartridge]

the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward.
Even then it is not guaranteed.

As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.

Of course, it'll be interesting to see how the various pieces of evidence are constructed together.

 

[dongonzalos]

Yes - it's about building a narrative.
Trouble is that Higgs barrister are doing one fine job proving sisu's claim towards the JR.

Or the complete opposite depending in which bits you jump on.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I'm reading it as the motive for loaning the money to ACL wasn't about protecting a public asset......that said, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean it was about trying to get rid of SISU, but the fact the council themselves have recognised that it may have been one of the outcomes is a big point.

Its all about motives.

That statement doesn't say their motive for lending the money was to force a club sale, it just says what might be an outcome of it.

For the council to lend the money with the intention of getting rid of sisu is illegal.

For the council to lend money that might have a knock on effect to sisu isn't illegal.

For the council to have a preferred owner of the football club isn't illegal.

 

[dongonzalos]

Do you think this helps the JR Godiva?

Report suggests council thought Sisu might continue to negotiate a Ricoh deal despite council / Ricoh loan buy-out from Yorkshire Bank

 

[Godiva]

One thing to remember - CCC are not in court today, it's Higgs against sisu.
Are Higgs putting distance between themselves and CCC?

 

[dongonzalos]

Its all about motives.

That statement doesn't say their motive for lending the money was to force a club sale, it just says what might be an outcome of it.

For the council to lend the money with the intention of getting rid of sisu is illegal.

For the council to lend money that might have a knock on effect to sisu isn't illegal.

For the council to have a preferred owner of the football club isn't illegal.

They have just considered all the outcome SISU selling was a possibility
SISU staying and negotiating was a possibility

 

[oldskyblue58]

Yes - it's about building a narrative.
Trouble is that Higgs barrister are doing one fine job proving sisu's claim towards the JR.

really? .......... on the basis of twitter messages of 140 characters max ....... think right now that is a bit too big a leap to make

 

[sky blue john]

What's your point?

My point is it can not be claimed an early attempt.

 

[Jack Griffin]

I'm reading it as the motive for loaning the money to ACL wasn't about protecting a public asset......that said, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean it was about trying to get rid of SISU, but the fact the council themselves have recognised that it may have been one of the outcomes is a big point.

Its hardly a staggeringly unlikely conclusion to think that a company losing money hand over fist might call it a day.

Simon Gilbert ‏@TheSimonGilbert 16 mins

Report suggests council thought Sisu might continue to negotiate a Ricoh deal despite council / Ricoh loan buy-out from Yorkshire Bank
from Birmingham, Birmingham

Simon Gilbert ‏@TheSimonGilbert 23 mins

Higgs charity claims Ricoh / council loan restructure took place after exclusivity agreement with Sisu over Ricoh negotiations had expired.
from Birmingham, Birmingham


Simon Gilbert ‏@TheSimonGilbert 26 mins

Report suggests council thought Sisu would liquidate club after council/Ricoh loan deal or could be persuaded to put CCFC on market.

The last few tweets either contain a contradiction, or as don suggested several options that were considered, unless you read the report directly it is hard to say what the emphasis was, though it seem,s to fall on the side of liquidation being more likely. But wasn't Fisher talking about liquidation shortly before the loan deal?

 

[Nick]

SISU QC up now.

 

[Sub]

Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert2 minsHiggs' barrister has sat down after almost 2.5 hours. Sisu QC up now talking about Sisu's counter-claim.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

the trouble with this is that people will seize on individual points as they occur when the reality is that we wont have a clearer??? picture until both sides have put their case forward. Even then it is not guaranteed.

As I understand it the Higgs barrister is doing the talking at the moment so you would have to think he would not be disclosing things that damaged their case.

Don;t think we'll have a particularly clearer picture afterwards tbh.

This is just the friendly game, before the competitive matches kick off later!

 

[Sub]

Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert12sSisu seeking to add costs of Avro, Sky Blue Sport & Leisure and Otium to those of Sisu Capital as part of counter claim for £290,000

 

[chiefdave]

SISU QC up now.

Says Higgs guy spoke for 2.5 hours so there's been a lot said we don't know about!

 

[Godiva]

Says Higgs guy spoke for 2.5 hours so there's been a lot said we don't know about!

Give Simon a break - he typed as fast as he could.

 

[Jack Griffin]

A little more detail here in covmad report http://www.coventrycity-mad.co.uk/n..._ccfc_funding_court_hears_829424/index.shtml?

Court Case Latest

The court in Birmngham this morning heard that SISU boss Joy Seppala would with draw funding from Coventry City Football Club if they were not given the Ricoh Arena.

The claim was made during the court case which sees the Alan Higgs Charity suing SISU for £29k and SISU, who turned up with seven legal representatives, counter-claiming for £290k for costs incurred after talks about buying the Ricoh Arena fell through.

According to the Coventry Telegraph's Simon Gilbert, The Higgs Legal Representative John Brennan said "a strategic meeting was held between Coventry City Council, Higgs and Sisu on April 19, 2012. In that meeting Sisu boss Joy Seppala claimed that Sisu would withdraw CCFC funding unless they could agree a deal for the Ricoh Arena."

 

[oldskyblue58]

Simon Gilbert‏@TheSimonGilbert12sSisu seeking to add costs of Avro, Sky Blue Sport & Leisure and Otium to those of Sisu Capital as part of counter claim for £290,000

The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

I was thinking that as well OSB.

Don't tell me the accounts are not accurate? Lol

 

[sw88]

The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?

Hopefully the judge picks up on this

 

[Lorksalordy]

I am trying to keep up with this and realise that Simon's twitter updates are only snippets but I have not seen anything obvious on the summary of the Higgs statements actually regarding the £29k that this is meant to be about. Apologies if I have missed it.

 

[Nick]

The Otium part of that is interesting. from its incorporation in 2011 through to 31/05/13 then the only costs disclosed in the accounts is interest payable to ARVO and the write down of the loans made to CCFC H (they sourced the money from ARVO). The accounts say they have no employees. So how were there any costs during the period of negotiation with the charity in 2012?

Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?

 

[chiefdave]

I am trying to keep up with this and realise that Simon's twitter updates are only snippets but I have not seen anything obvious on the summary of the Higgs statements actually regarding the £29k that this is meant to be about. Apologies if I have missed it.

Think we'll need to wait from Simon to do a full report this evening to get more detail.

 

[chiefdave]

Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?

Sure the judge will want to check that. I can see how you could rack up £29K in legal fees etc on this sort of thing but a breakdown of the £290K could be interesting reading. What odds on a large chunk of it being one part of SISU charging another part or payment for Fishers time?

 

[duffer]

So, if I've read this right, the Higgs QC says the timeline is a bit like this.

April 2012 - Joint meeting with all parties, SISU threaten to pull out of club unless deal done for Ricoh. (Club stops paying rent).
May 2012 - HoT agreed with AEHC, presumably to move along SISU obtaining at least part of Ricoh/ACL.
(time passes, SISU go no further with AEHC deal, hence claim in court today)
Dec 2012 - CCC Finance officer's report. States SISU may see CCC taking over mortgage as hostile, may choose to sell, may choose to negotiate.

(other dates, for reference)
Jan 2013 - CCC take over mortgage.
Mar 2013 - ACL start admin proceedings against CCFC.

I'm not sure I see the officer's report as a smoking gun, isn't it really just outlining all of the possiblities if CCC take over the loan?

In itself, given the time that passed between the HoT and the report I'm not sure how it affects this specific case, but I guess we'll see.

(Edit: It's May 2012 the HoT discussion, got it from http://skybluetrust.co.uk/index.php/timeline)

 

[oldskyblue58]

Will both sides need to show their list of costs? Invoices, bills etc?

I think the process would be that the legal costs etc would be sent to be "taxed". The court will decide what is reasonable in that respect. In terms of the costs claimed by the actions then I would think they will have to be proven to the judge