cloughie
Well-Known Member
A tiresome argument as sisu had many years to buy and were unwilling to pay anything
Acl (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
A tiresome argument as sisu had many years to buy and were unwilling to pay anything
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Even the bid was conditional.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
There was plenty of information to suggest that during the ultimately failed negotiations they were willing to pay more than Wasps did
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I wonder why. Always couldn't understand the car park sale until now.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Still can't find anything on the car park being sold off.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It was declared as part of the restructuring of the loan. Companies do not suddenly get huge gains in cash flow unless there is an injection of cash from a source when their profit figures are precarious.
Why not send Anne Lucas an s mail to see if it was part of the loan restructure? As its not part of any confidentiality agreement I am sure she will be open and honest about it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
They were fair because although it is worth nothing because of its status as a charity and were prepared to pay 2 million for it.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
There's nothing in these accounts to suggest the car park was disposed of, either for cash or for nothing. No assets have been disposed, and nothing is written in the related party transaction note.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Your judgement is that it was irrational. Then again, you stated that before the Judicial Review, and you seem loathed to move from that position, despite the judge fundamentally disagreeing with you.
Sisu’s key argument was that no commercial investor would make a loan to ACL on the terms that the Council agreed with ACL and so the deal constituted “state aid” which is contrary to EU law.
But the Judge disagreed, saying that “On the basis of all the evidence, in my judgment, a rational private market operator in the position of the Council might well have considered that refinancing ACL on the terms in fact agreed was commercially preferable to allowing ACL to become insolvent. He said: “The private investor in the shoes of the Council would have been properly entitled to take the view that ACL was capable of servicing a loan for £14.4m over 41 years, and the security was sufficient to make the risk of it failing to do so commercially worthwhile. He highlighted the fact that the bank was itself willing to consider a restructured loan having considered that ACL could service “a larger loan over a shorter period”.
So, he considered rationality, as indeed the auditors of ACL's latest set of accounts did - and the auditors, and judge - disagree with you.
It appears to me that you are one of the posters on here who simply won't change their view, irrespective of how many times facts are subjected to independent scrutiny and judgement.
In fact, you take the piss out of me with regards Wasps; but your mind-set of ignorance-despite-the-facts looks very Fisheresque to me.....
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
She does sound a bit queasy from the sounds of those quotes to the Telegraph.
Surprised it hasn't got it's own thread with a title of "LIES" or something.
Though apparently they're not lies if from CCC or Higgs, but Fisher's favourite, "Standard business practice".
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Oh... you accept it now do you Lucas?.....Bunch of lying twats. Disgraceful.
CCFC PimpRail
New Member
No different to me pulling a gorgeous Bird in Mr G's at ten to two, then realising the next morning that she was not quite so attractive.....
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Errr....its quite different.
More like you pulling a 25 stone munter but telling all your mates she was miss world & maintaining the lie until a few weeks later when she puts your photo on facebook as her new fella for all to see.....then you saying "Oh I accept now that she was not miss world"
