It seems to be a pretty generous thing of SISU not to claim for costs, if someone brought a case against me that a judge decided should not have been, I'd be pretty peeved that I was out of pocket.
Not that odd really if taking donations adds to the complexity of the running of the charity, it also could have been a condition of old man Higgs in his request to set up the charity when he croaked. If you're that interested why not ask them or the Charity Commission who are their regulators, as they might actually know. If you are planning to offer to leave them £1m in your will they might take it (you can always ask) but that would seem weird to me as I'd have thought that our club would have been your first thought as that never has any money.Bad luck for Tony then.
Its a bit wierd. If I offered a private company some money I think they can take it and pass to a charity. So are you saying if I left them £1 million in my will they would have no mechanism to take it as a tax free gift? Haven't they got a charity registered number then James?
I wasn't sure if I dared point out how seeming to agree a price for the Higgs share above what CCC thought it was worth, and not claiming for costs today actually makes SISU benevolant towards the charity... thought it a step too far if I valued my virtual life
So they are a registered charity and would not expect any donations? I thought you were an educated man James? I give approximately £500 a year to charity and not through a charity box.
Desperate.
I wasn't sure if I dared point out how seeming to agree a price for the Higgs share above what CCC thought it was worth, and not claiming for costs today actually makes SISU benevolant towards the charity... thought it a step too far if I valued my virtual life
It seems to be a pretty generous thing of SISU not to claim for costs, if someone brought a case against me that a judge decided should not have been, I'd be pretty peeved that I was out of pocket.
Maybe others were right and this was just a way of getting more documents out in the open, and maybe SISU see the costs of this case as money well spent.
I guess we'll find out in June.
nice glossing over your loss acl
higgs i said. you just edited my post to ACL
poor nick
Can you imagine if they had claimed costs for this week as well?
Costs weren't claimed this time because during the hearing sisu claimed joy was going to give 2 mill for some thing worth nothing as it was a charity , it would not look good at the JR a couple of months later ,if they at the same hearing then took nearly £300 000 over a claim for £29000 , cost were not sought with the JR in mind imhoIt seems to be a pretty generous thing of SISU not to claim for costs, if someone brought a case against me that a judge decided should not have been, I'd be pretty peeved that I was out of pocket.
Maybe others were right and this was just a way of getting more documents out in the open, and maybe SISU see the costs of this case as money well spent.
I guess we'll find out in June
I imagine they would have failed in trying to due to the counter claim
They would almost certainly have suceeded as Higgs bought the case to court and lost
it was a case of council messing things up to scupper a deal.
They would almost certainly have suceeded as Higgs bought the case to court and lost
Or looking for other options? There are three parties involved all trying to get the best deal for themselves. Faults on all sides.
They charged the agreed rent which wasn't really challenged for the first 6 years - that means it was accepted. The relegation put it into perspektive. The 44 million debt didn't come just because of the rent.
The club asked for the rent to be looked at in 2006 and were rebuffed.
But if they would have shown the same intent that they did recently, would the club have got a different answer. We will never know the true answer but would ACL have let us go without a lower offer? History tells us no.
The club asked for the rent to be looked at in 2006 and were rebuffed.
But if they would have shown the same intent that they did recently, would the club have got a different answer. We will never know the true answer but would ACL have let us go without a lower offer? History tells us no.
Would the lower.offers have come if we didn't go?
Then it should have stuck out like a sore thumb during Due Diligence in 2008; and a reduction being a condition of SISU buying the club. And if not, allow the club to enter administration to encourage other interested parties to show their hand. Anything pre-2008 really cannot be used now in mitigation, as our current owners had chance to change it, or walk away.
Still, it's nothing to do with rent. We all know that
I don't think they could have changed it.
One thing that has come to light during the Higgs vs Sisu case is that all parties involved plus Deloitte and PriceWaterhouseCooper agree ACL were not in a good financial position. Take away £1m yearly rent and ACL would have ended up in serious trouble.
Now, on the back of the Olympics and the restructures made the past two years ACL are doing better. But back in 2007 when sisu took over it seems there was no room for any rent reduction.
If the club was offered a sliding scale when the original deal was brokered then surely that is proof enough that there was room for a rent reduction?
What was the scale? What would we have to pay each year when in the Championship?
Did that scale include access to matchday income?
It is widely known that that this was offered, so despite you bringing other variables into it, it does read that there must have been some room for negotiation. Or do you say different?
It is widely known that that this was offered, so despite you bringing other variables into it, it does read that there must have been some room for negotiation. Or do you say different?
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?