There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon)
So there was no need to use state aid then? Brilliant strengthens the JR case for sisu.
Nick another case of Grendel supporting Sisu !!!
Where is Les these days
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon)
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?
Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.
Maybe he will next time.
Finally you are getting there
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?
Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.
Maybe he will next time.
Similarly, how much the average L1 or Championship rent is should have no bearing either.
But it does.
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?
Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.
Maybe he will next time.
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon)
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?
To be fair to Les.
You mean apart from in this article? I'm pretty sure it was also in the court report at the time.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-now-know-ricoh-arena-6950053
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Original proposed deal was gone by 31/08/12. Both sides had let if fall by then. The revised "deal" that never was is suggested at £2m in October 2012
West's valuation of the Charity share actually has nothing to do with the value at which the Trustees were prepared to sell at though does it. but it is mentioned in the other article on the CT
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/what-now-know-ricoh-arena-6950053
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon)
4. The Higgs charity and the council hatched a "secret and perverse plan" to do a deal with Yorkshire Bank without Sisu/the football club
What was "your verdict" on that?
That September's PWC report might provide some clarification. But there's bound to be conjecture regardless. Plus this information is now two years out of date.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Isn't pretty much everything from the Higgs v Sisu trial two years out of date?
Why had it become devalued?
To see that report would indeed be very interesting. I have used this type of report before and they almost always generate a number of potential scenarios (As it is impossible to be certain what might happen) ranging from best possible through most likely to worst case. SISU have published the worst case scenario, and who can blame them for doing that?That September's PWC report might provide some clarification. But there's bound to be conjecture regardless. Plus this information is now two years out of date.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you know if, when then exclusivity deal with Sisu ended in order to be available to speak to any other interested parties, there were any serious interested parties to speak to, and were they negotiated with?
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 ?
So there was no need to use state aid then? Brilliant strengthens the JR case for sisu.
The CCC/ACL were using CBRE for their own valuations ,SISU got them to do one for them simultaneously.
I think that there are two primary reasons.
1. If they own the debt, they can control what happens to the asset. They could not do that if the debt is owed to YB.
2. As part owners of ACL if they can get commercial terms to both lower the debt (19 million down to 14 million) and pay a lower interest rate then that is just good business
Is it State aid? No more than what is happening at Northampton.
Other than the loan was reduced from £19M to £14M.
Sounds a good deal to me ?
Also there must have been some risk to the bank otherwise they would have left it at the £19M ?
Does that not mean there was a conflict of interest though for CBRE?
Interesting though isn't it. Ccfc not paying 'way too high' rent devalued/distressing ACL, whilst Ccfc paying 'way too high' rent (along with wage bill,etc) contributes towards devaluing/distressing ccfc.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Ah, so the original deal would have stood then if all stuck to the same terms agreed?
Didn't notice Simon Gilbert mentioning the bit where CCC thought that what Sisu were offering Higgs in that deal was more than the valuation that CCC put on it.
Maybe he will next time.
I wonder if this allegation was 'the sisu fishing expedition' most agreed formed part of the trial?
Sadly I don't have the time to go back and look at the evidence that was used to support and rebuff the claim, so for now it's just a hunch.
There was absolute outrage and when Les Reid reporting it was all lies, but now it is gospel. (no disrespect to Simon)
I wonder if this allegation was 'the sisu fishing expedition' most agreed formed part of the trial?
Sadly I don't have the time to go back and look at the evidence that was used to support and rebuff the claim, so for now it's just a hunch.
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?