sky blue john
Well-Known Member
Lol.
We all know this !!!
Which makes no difference if Sisu offered a derisory amount that would never have been excepted by the Higgs charity !!!
Any Higgs sale could not be done without consent of the council. That was in the Joint Ventures Agreement set out in 2003.
Yes. Thank you Nick. It would never be part of a potential sale of Higgs' share.
Did Higgs and SISU ever come to heads of terms agreements? If they did that would indicate some agreement on price.
fucking lawnmower still won't start.
Sisu backed out of the original deal on offer for dragging their feet on completion.
So in principle the price you've quoted was agreed?
The point is that in the end only 2million was on offer from Sisu which was a derisory amount that the higgs charity would never except. Half of what they originally paid !!
And because of this would never got as far as the council using their veto. And for what its worth with everything that went on yes I would have expected the council to use their veto.
Yes. Thank you Nick. It would never be part of a potential sale of Higgs' share.
But your clearly said that Higgs did not accept the £2m offer. But then you said an agreement was in place that SISU backed out of by not completing.
So which is it??
But your clearly said that Higgs did not accept the £2m offer. But then you said an agreement was in place that SISU backed out of by not completing.
So which is it??
So does that explain why Higgs deal was immediately vetoed?
What deal was immediately vetoed?
I meant a potential of Higgs' share to SISU.
Which was vetoed by the council if i'm not mistaken? It would appear that Higgs/SISU negotiations aren't too bad... but they hit a brick wall as soon as council become involved?
Have a word John with your buddies.... bring us home.
On a slightly different note... I wonder of Higgs would have wanted half of the £7m fee from IoC straight away? That would have been a good windfall for them and their charity to invest on their ventures.
I posted a new one today. check it out
If sky blue john has quoted it, it's a FACT. He doesn't deal in anything else.
But it's not a payment as part of the CVA as the CVA was rejected. I thought it was a condition of issuing the golden share the FL placed on Otium to make the payment which would mean the liquidation process had nothing to do with the payment being made.
The FL can put any condition they like on issuing the golden share, SISU could have taken legal action but they would have done the same as when Leeds tried to take legal action and state they won't issue the share to anyone taking legal action.
I can't find the post I made on that subject back then, but in essence I suggested the offer from Otium was calculated to make sure ACL would receive the approx. amount of rent owed.
Have you tried a Hammer?
I get that but the point I was making was that the FL made payment a condition for Otium recieving the GS, now as Otium are technically a different entity to Holdings, Ltd etc the FL couldn't instruct them to make someone else pay so they must have instructed Otium to pay it in which case what relevance is the liqudation process of the other companies?
I don't know about this. I think this question highlights the problem with the CET. They did a story that SISU still hadn't paid the £590K owed. But what they don't do is put the all the facts in the story. It's not been paid as the liquidation process hasn't finished. When it is it will then be paid. Now the only logical explanation for it not being completed is that someone has challenged the process. So why can't they a) find out why the liquidation process is incomplete b) tell the full story or not tell it at all.
It was the same with the recent court case. Big headlines of 'SISU take charity to court'. Once you get through the tabloid bollocks you find it was Higgs that launched the legal action initially. All it does is drive the two sides further apart and hamper any prospect of solution.
Firstly, that definitely wasn't the headline. Secondly, the fact the charity was taking Sisu to court was in the third sentence. Sorry if people couldn't make it that far. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-owners-court-battle-6519080
As for the £590k story, the reason why it hasn't been paid is clearly in there. As is the fact someone has objected to the process. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sky-blues-insist-pay-590000-6786677
Important to check these things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?