Search results

Well written as ever, but just to pick you up on a couple of things here. A successful club may once have been SISU's aim, but now it seems to have become secondary to getting their hands on the Ricoh for as little as possible (regardless of who gets screwed over). Even if they achieve that...

Well if you believe Harris and PWKH, it doesn't sound as though AEHC and CCC could agree on much, so it rather knocks down the consipiracy theory that Labovitch in particular has been spouting.

I'm trying to think what SISU have got so far that helps them in the JR. A council officer may or may not have misled someone from Higgs, but what difference does that make to SISU's case? We know that SISU threatened to pull out of CCFC in April 2012, and stopped paying the rent at the same...

Chief - you're good at this. Get your boots on mate... "Ref, sub!". ;)

I'm pretty certain a judge said that the escrow fund needed to be topped up during the whole third-party debt order process. The escrow fund was there before SISU arrived, but I don't know it's source. Escrow really means that the money doesn't belong to anyone unless certain contract terms...

Do you think SISU not paying the rent, and not following through with the HoT around five months beforehand might have soured the deal? You can't really negotiate from a position of trust at that point.

A better test would be to go and tell your bank that you've just lost one of your main sources of income - then let me know what happens to your overdraft limit and your credit card rates.

In fairness mate, I'm not sure they were panicking - but we know there were discussions between the bank and ACL which I assume were started because of the non-payment of rent and concerns regarding the security of the business. And it seems that one of the points of the rent strike was to do...

Surely evidence suggests that SISU weren't trying to take over the loan to support ACL. In fairness, if the 'bailout' is repaid at commercial rates then the Council actually makes a few quid. This will be a key part of the JR, I suspect, the council acting to protect their investment.

Absolutely. Why worry. They're only holding a mortgage for £15m on a property in which the primary tenant is withholding rent. It's why banks don't stress if you miss a couple of payments on your loans, cards or mortgages. Or reprice/reduce your lending based on amended risk profiles even if...

Good work Rob, many thanks. You may need to hand SISU's QC a share of your pie money, or you'll be up before the beak too. ;)

They'd already stopped paying the rent for four/five months and walked away from the HoT by then. (And seemingly, moved assets out of CCFC Ltd).

I think you're right - though of course this comes six months after SISU have walked away from the HoT and have stopped paying rent to ACL, half owned by AEHC. It would hardly be a surprise that people from AEHC had stopped trusting/liking SISU by then.

Think that's always been the case, imho - hence the option for CCFC Ltd to buy back the AEHC share in ACL at an agreed formula. The email referred to is some 5/6 months after SISU signed HoT (and stopped paying rent) I think. I'm guessing by this point that AEHC considered that the deal with...

ooooh... Says torch, getting all defensive. Better to have your knickers in a twist than your knackers in a mangle, which is where you seem to be today. Anyway, back to the matter in hand...

I think he apologised at the time. I'm sure you've never done anything daft you regret though, have you? Besides, in the scale of crimes, moving the club to Northampton and running CCFC Ltd into oblivion seems somewhat larger to me. Where's the apology for that?

Maybe being straight is the best way to play it - I'm surprised that AEHC's QC is letting them ask questions about stuff that's so long after the HoT, but perhaps that means that it opens the door to asking Fisher about other stuff too. (Asset transfers, I hope!). Either way, good to get as...

P.S. Sincere thanks to Rob and Simon for the updates yesterday, look forwards to more today. :)

There's a really good point in there, OSB - with regard to the specifics of this case, it seems the judge has already said that it's only the six weeks after signing the HoT that's relevant. Why would he need to hear about stuff that's gone on months after that deadline. Saying that I'd like...

Ah, unless they want more than 7,000 there'll be plenty of room for them at Sixfields. Timmy was probably only there today to hand out a few free tickets. ;)