1. Sisu claim both the club and ACL were close to insolvencyOur verdict: Certainly the club was struggling and most people can agree the £1.3m rent was way too high. Chief executive Tim Fisher is quoted in Sisu's legal documents as saying that the club would file for insolvency if a stadium deal wasn't reached. ACL is a different matter.
The club not paying its rent made the business weak and evidence was presented that the business could do a lot better but Sisu's own document outlining their case quotes Yorkshire Bank, which had a loan to ACL, saying: "with appropriate cost savings, a solvent debt restructuring could be agreed".
In other words, it would appear that the bank thought the company could carry on in business and pay off its loan.
Who are the couple?
Is it you and me, Grendel and MMM, Astute and Torch, Sky Blue Kid and the good Lord Summerisle, Hill and Valiant, OSB and PSGM1 ? The suspense is killing me!
(Apologies for missing many good posters out in the name match up)
I found out the other day that Valiant has been banned. I miss him.
I found out the other day that Valiant has been banned. I miss him.
The charity and Sisu signed an outline agreement for the half-share in ACL for £1.5m up front and £4m in shares in the new stadium company which it could cash in at a later date. This £4m seemed to be a sticking point but why did the deal fail? After looking at the books Sisu wanted to pay the charity closer to £2m rather than the total of £5.5m originally agreed on.
I found out the other day that Valiant has been banned. I miss him.
So why did the council refinance the loan? Are you saying that it wasn't necessary and basically just a state aid to assist ACL?
This version of events has yet to be refuted but further evidence may emerge as part of the Judicial Review.
It's difficult to take Sisu's complaint seriously when the court also heard they used CBRE - the property firm working on their plan for a new stadium - to approach Yorkshire Bank behind the backs of the council and the charity.
what about this bit though ?
What was actually said and produced about that bit? Must have missed it myself trawling through the fucking hundreds of pages of crap!
This was the bit mate
The Higgs charity and the council hatched a "secret and perverse plan" to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank without Sisu/the football clubOur verdict:Mr Justice Leggatt certainly didn't seem to agree when he cleared the charity of any wrongdoing and went on to say Sisu's allegations were "misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings". In court, Sisu pointed to the 'August report' - written by the council's Finance Director Chris West.
We haven't seen the full report but parts of it were been quoted in Sisu's 35-page document outlining its case. It says there was a "stalemate" with Sisu and outlined the need to "stick together to protect our joint interests".
Is there anything untoward in the council trying to protect a taxpayer asset? Interestingly, it also suggests continuing to discuss the main deal with Sisu "to keep communication open" adding "we may need a fallback position". Was it secret? Not on the charity's part as they testified in court that they had assurances from the council that Sisu would be told.
This apparent pledge by Chris West was made five months before the council agreed to buy ACL's debt and at that point it is clear that Sisu were not aware of the plan as it was voted on in private by the council.
This version of events has yet to be refuted but further evidence may emerge as part of the Judicial Review.
It's difficult to take Sisu's complaint seriously when the court also heard they used CBRE - the property firm working on their plan for a new stadium - to approach Yorkshire Bank behind the backs of the council and the charity.
This was the bit mate
The Higgs charity and the council hatched a "secret and perverse plan" to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank without Sisu/the football clubOur verdict:
Mr Justice Leggatt certainly didn't seem to agree when he cleared the charity of any wrongdoing and went on to say Sisu's allegations were "misplaced and it is unfortunate that allegations were made in some of the terms which have been put forward by SISU in these proceedings". In court, Sisu pointed to the 'August report' - written by the council's Finance Director Chris West.
We haven't seen the full report but parts of it were been quoted in Sisu's 35-page document outlining its case. It says there was a "stalemate" with Sisu and outlined the need to "stick together to protect our joint interests".
Is there anything untoward in the council trying to protect a taxpayer asset? Interestingly, it also suggests continuing to discuss the main deal with Sisu "to keep communication open" adding "we may need a fallback position". Was it secret? Not on the charity's part as they testified in court that they had assurances from the council that Sisu would be told.
This apparent pledge by Chris West was made five months before the council agreed to buy ACL's debt and at that point it is clear that Sisu were not aware of the plan as it was voted on in private by the council.
This version of events has yet to be refuted but further evidence may emerge as part of the Judicial Review.
It's difficult to take Sisu's complaint seriously when the court also heard they used CBRE - the property firm working on their plan for a new stadium - to approach Yorkshire Bank behind the backs of the council and the charity.
That's just quoting what Simon Gilbert has written, meant the bit from the case about it?
I think he means in the court documents, not the article.
Has anyone got a link I'll have a look, just do CTRL+F and look for CBRE I'd imagine.
Who are the couple?
Is it you and me, Grendel and MMM, Astute and Torch, Sky Blue Kid and the good Lord Summerisle, Hill and Valiant, OSB and PSGM1 ? The suspense is killing me!
(Apologies for missing many good posters out in the name match up)
How much the club are losing at sixfields should have no bearing on what ACL should charge as rent.
I found out the other day that Valiant has been banned. I miss him.
So there was no need to use state aid then? Brilliant strengthens the JR case for sisu.
Just had a look the phrase CBRE doesn't appear and I've done quick searches for "YB" "consultant" and "approach" but can't see anything. That said he does say "the court heard" so maybe it was in testimony not in the documents. I'd say you gotta trust him as he was there.
Just had a look the phrase CBRE doesn't appear and I've done quick searches for "YB" "consultant" and "approach" but can't see anything. That said he does say "the court heard" so maybe it was in testimony not in the documents. I'd say you gotta trust him as he was there.
I'd have thought as a reporter that Simon Gilbert would have actually read the court documents and understood them before putting out an article?
The 2 million pounds deal was cash, and was becuase Higgs wanted a deal outside the scope of the original agreement which involved more risk to Sisu.
The original offer would have still stood I think if stuck to the original terms.
Valiant was actually getting a bit more mellow I thought!
Just had a look the phrase CBRE doesn't appear and I've done quick searches for "YB" "consultant" and "approach" but can't see anything. That said he does say "the court heard" so maybe it was in testimony not in the documents. I'd say you gotta trust him as he was there.
Similarly, how much the average L1 or Championship rent is should have no bearing either.
But it does.
But the judge in his written judgement makes clear there was no such "deal" for £2m merely a conversation LS. The Trustees never agreed to it. It is also on the trial transcript page 151 Day 3
An abusive, narrow-minded xenophobe, but yes he was mellowing a little.
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?