Well if for no other reason - if WASPS want 100% they may pay more to get the remainder shares than SISU paid for them
Simples!!
Joy Seppala, of the club’s hedge fund lenders Sisu/Arvo, told the Observer last week the intention was to make a "conditional" bid - while pressing on with “medium-term” plans for a new stadium in the local area.
Still want to build a new ground!!
Why bother buying the 50% then?
Isn't the offer self defeating? It is conditional on the Charity making available to SISU via the liquidator confidential documents relating to ACL. Do AEHC have right to even retain such information? I doubt that AEHC has a right to divulge any of the information without the express authority of the ACL directors and, because it is a private company, the other stakeholder. That other stakeholder being Wasps of course.
So is it AEHC refusing to release information or is it simply not in their power in the first place. If the information is not forthcoming then the conditional offer fails doesn't it?
That said isn't the normal bidding process that a bid is made subject to due diligence any way. Due diligence is carried out once a bid is accepted but not binding and would cover such things as JV agreements etc ....... so why the emphasis on it being AEHC refusing to release the information?
Cant help but think this is a positioning of blame for when the CCFC Ltd bid fails ......... :thinking about:
Or is there a difference between Joy being given the information that she wants and the information being given to Appleton on if it can be used in the JR appeal?
And if Appleton should be the only one to be able to make a bid is there a reason to have to give Joy directly what she is asking for?
Well it is difficult to make an offer for something unless you know exactly what it is you are going to get.
Whatever it is it doesn't sound good to me.
They've already agreed to sell to Wasps.Have Higgs said they 'prefer' to sell to wasps? If so, I just dont get that. Maybe they need to move on and say they would like the club i.e CCFC to be able to buy back into the arena. That would make things interesting.
At the point of no other bids. I'm shocked that neither the ccc or higgs would welcome a Coventry bid. But they wouldnt want to upset wasps now would they....They've already agreed to sell to Wasps.
If they won the JR how would that affect what has happened since? Would the whole WASP deal have to be scrapped?
Am I missing something here....shouldn't we be happy about this? Rhetoric or not, it's better than not putting a bid in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Problem is we all know the outcome.
SISU are allowed to ask for any information via the Liquidator.
But they have to accept that NO is a valid answer.
I don't see how CCC/ AEHC or WASPS can respond on behalf of ACL. CCC has no interest and the other two are shareholders and cannot represent ACL.
I repeat - the Liquidator has every right to ask - and the other parties legally have to comply
Am I missing something here....shouldn't we be happy about this? Rhetoric or not, it's better than not putting a bid in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
And I repeat. Why is Joy asking questions and the bid depends on getting the answers when only Appleton is allowed to bid and ask questions?
Sounds like they are after information to drag out appeals on the JR more than trying to get a share of the Ricoh.
They have bid so at least we won't get any more posts that they are only interested in the freehold.
50% each is the perfect conclusion to the situation we now find ourselves in.
Don't you mean 'were' ?
Nope your wrong, no one wanted us to put the bid in, just so all the usual people could come on here and wank themselves silly some more..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They clearly never were or are.
They clearly never were or are.
So Joy and Fisher were bullshitting yet again but you still trust them so much.
I trust them about as much as a Maltese based hedge fund that stated its commitment to staying in the south east or a council that believed sporting clubs are the heart of the community and should never be moved.
I repeat - the Liquidator has every right to ask - and the other parties legally have to comply
I trust them about as much as a Maltese based hedge fund that stated its commitment to staying in the south east or a council that believed sporting clubs are the heart of the community and should never be moved.
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?