Search results

They'll offer the QC a third of the bill and when he doesn't take it, walk away. ;)

Then I don't think you've understood the law. Councils are allowed to invest and hold shares, and are allowed to support that investment.

You're not throwing more money in, you're making sure a third-party can't undermine the value of something that you own 50% by securing it against their threat. In actuality if ACL survive and continue to pay off the mortgage at the current deal, the council make money. And they still have...

Not for me. Without the charity putting in £6.5m, the Ricoh doesn't get built. This wasn't an investment in the hope of a return, it was a bail out when the club had absolutely no other hope of survival. Unless the club buy that share back at something like that price, then basically they've...

Well, there's all the money they put in to enable the build. Initially around £30m, the £10m grant and £20m loan. (The latter became the mortgage, in effect). It's fronting up that cash that gave them the share in ACL. And then the actual value of ACL. Higgs put their half at £5m - £7m...

I'd have thought so, unless they've read it that the judge really did think that both sides were as bad as each other and they were wasting their time asking for costs. But then you're in court - what's one more question, 'We would like to seek costs'.

Their investment in ACL, which is more than a business simply holding a lease.

But Higgs did take them to court. In most cases like this I think the judge would have awarded costs to SISU, they were forced to offer at least a defence (though not a counter-claim) and that costs money. I'm surprised that SISU haven't asked for costs. Both sides must have costs running...

That is a surprise. Makes you wonder how the HoT was worded then - because it seems clear that the deal wasn't completed within the six week exclusivity period. Regardless, you've got to trust the judge to make the right decision in law, and I think he's probably right in saying that by August...

Incidentally, what is the point of posting on a thread to say "wot a borin thread"?

Hey, I had to give up my share too (or more technically, the missus's share which I'm claiming half ownership of!). I wouldn't begrudge that if it had gone to owners who at least behaved in a way approaching honorable. In fact, even 'reasonable' would've have done. Who would've guessed that...

So it seemed you honestly believe the rent strike was started without SISU's approval. Do you think it was continued without SISU's approval, up to and including the point at which it took the club into court for debt orders and Administration?

Ah - apologies OSB, and thank you for the correction. In fairness, I should have quoted Fisher... http://joinmust.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-79099.html (originally from the CET) (Fisher) said Arvo Master Fund Ltd is part of Mayfair-based Sisu, and is “Sisu’s hedge fund” investing...

I'm kind of amazed that anyone would think that SISU didn't support the idea of the rent strike. Seppala in here own words... http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912 "We didn’t want to distress ACL, but the club couldn’t afford to pay the rent"...

Are you trying kid yourself that SISU that didn't agree to the rent strike. Seriously?

Hi Godiva, this is an easy one. ARVO are a SISU company. They're described in various places as a SISU-subsiduary company based in the Caymans. (And therefore handily out of the way of banking regulations covering things like money laundering etc.)...

C'mon seriously, does anyone here think that a decision like a rent strike won't have been approved by SISU? They're trying to pretend that they're funding the club and didn't agree to the rent strike, that's laughable.

Absolutely. What an utter load of rubbish.

I think you can criticise it if at the same time as asking for an extension to complete due diligence they weren't paying the rent. This, of course, directly impacted the organisation they wanted to negotiate with. Given that SISU hadn't exactly shown themselves as trustworthy by this point...

If they needed the Higgs Share so much, why didn't they buy it then? Instead of negotiating honestly, it seems that they decided that they could get it for less via an act of utterly reckless brinkmanship that's ended up with the club in Northampton. Such is the quality of our owners.