Search results

So who was telling us? You might expect the bank to have a reasonable idea particularly as they had appointed accountants to look at it and had details of day to day transactions via the bank account. So if the picture put out didn't stick with the Bank would they discount the settlement...

nothing to suggest they did........... you might have expected that to come out in the documents disclosed so far though

The essential facts didn't really change though did they? The loan was already in distress we are told because of the ACL finances and CCFC withholding rent. Only difference being who was providing the pay off...... you could argue that SISU being involved would have promised more liquidity than...

Something that I haven't seen highlighted is the bank loan settlement figures Mr Fisher and others have often said, I believe, that they could have settled the loan for around £5m...... that CCC had paid too much The court documents disclosed the following 28/09/12 offer by CCC to Yorkshire...

can't think of anything more boring :laugh::laugh: so no

I think what the Charity did was to tell it truthfully as it was. Not putting distance as a decision to do so but letting facts speak for themselves. In supporting your premise we are also ignoring the role other investors may have played had the team and stadium become available together...

Been busy at work and over weekend LS so have not been posting the last few days. :wave: Weekend involved helping run the Supporters team (my lad plays for them). They played MK Dons Supporters team and we deservedly (once we got going) won 4 :1. Just thoughts musings and conjecture...

Give it a couple of hours NW and Simon Gilbert will have done a summary of everything you need to know I think Simon has done a really good job in trying to keep us informed and just telling it how it is/was ............ makes a nice change to get balanced reporting

from the charity website http://www.higgscharity.org.uk/high-court-decision/ The Trustees are disappointed at the decision not to allow its claim for £29,000 for fees incurred. The Trustees are however pleased that the counterclaim for £290,000 was dismissed as "hopeless" and that the judge...

first off if SISU have said they wont seek costs against the Charity, as is their right too as defendant against an unsuccessful action, then you have hold your hands up and to say fair enough. Next the possible implication of what the judge has reportedly said. The deal had failed by the...

Sorry but ARVO is not a subsidiary of SISU Capital. It is not listed in the group structure disclosed in the SISU Capital accounts filed at Companies House. Think you will find there is a connection via Seppala as she signed some of the JR documents on behalf of ARVO. The nature of her exact...

From the 2013 Accounts The funds that SISU control in the 12 months to 31/05/13 (the period that covers this) increased by £312.00 in total. ARVO apparently entirely separate to SISU and its investors invested £5.4m by way of loans. Both the Funds and ARVO started accruing interest on their...

The Charity is not linked or bound to CCFC though they have to legally protect the interests of the Charity. There was a moral obligation to meet deadlines as well eg exclusivity period and that didn't happen in fact it seems it was just left dangling. If you play by hard nosed business you...

There may have been an ethical duty to but I don't believe there was a legal or contractual duty to. They had to have a plan B in case the deal proposed did not happen ...... normal business practice surely?

When did SISU notify ACL/CCC/Charity of their discussions to buy the Yorkshire Bank debt? as soon as they enquired or much later?

but when after the exclusivity period? Talks start May ..... say exclusivity ends July ...... didn't PWKH say the Charity wrote to SISU to say exclusivity was over and they were free to look around sometime in August..... SISU value shares at nil Charity value at a lot more ....... looks to me...

So she is saying that SISU would have provided the funding to pay the rent then? because without it CCFC couldn't pay the rent

if they have valued it at nil then surely due diligence (a process to define worth amongst other things) was complete because they must know that the Charity would not let them have it for nothing. Their offer was therefore an arbitrary figure based on nothing at all ....... to use their...

sorry but ....... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

no Nick they are like the directors of a company. Trustees are the Charity equivalent