Charity statement on court case (2 Viewers)

[Deleted member 5849]

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.

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

 

---

[Nick]

Can you imagine if they had claimed costs for this week as well?

 

[James Smith]

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?

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.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

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

haha, I still can't quite figure out whether SISU know what they are doing or not. It's still a massive gamble on their part to keep spending their investors money in the hope of getting something out of the JR, but I guess they are the happier ones tonight.

 

[olderskyblue]

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.

£500 for a man on your salary? You should be ashamed of yourself

Question for OSB58 while I'm here, nothing to do with this post.

Is donating to charity a method of saving tax for high earners?

 

[duffer]

It's easy to say the action is 'ill-advised' in retrospect isn't it, but that doesn't make it true.

Things end up in court because both sides think they've got a case - if one side or the other thinks they haven't, they settle well before risking all that money. I don't exactly see the Higgs Trustees as chancers here, they would be obliged to take proper advice, and one presumes that advice was that they had a fair chance of winning. At that point their duties as Trustees will have been clear, take action.

I've just read the last day of the court transcript, and the judgement. It's not exactly open and shut, which is the way these things often go.

As to costs, it turns out that it wasn't really a particularly generous offer from SISU. The judge himself says that he would have ruled that each side should bear their own costs had the sides not agreed, " a nil-all draw" as he described it. SISU's QC realised this, I expect.

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

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

They would have sold it on and cancelled their cheque

 

[Hobo]

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.

No you don't understand court etiquette. No clear winner both engaged in a deal that went sour, both parties contributed to that and their own expenses...both have to bear their own costs and withdraw gracefully.

 

[covcity4life]

nice glossing over your loss acl

 

[Nick]

nice glossing over your loss acl

This wasn't ACL?

 

[covcity4life]

higgs i said. you just edited my post to ACL

poor nick

 

[Nick]

higgs i said. you just edited my post to ACL

poor nick

I very much doubt I did.

 

[James Smith]

So basically the Higgs won on not having to pay £290k + Sisu costs as well as their own etc. but lost on £29k + their own legal costs. Given Sisu had 8 lawyers there for part of this case that's likely to mean they had far higher costs than the Higgs, certainly more than the £29k.

Now why this couldn't have been settled by Tim, Laura and PWKH over a pint in a Coventry pub I don't know.

 

[dongonzalos]

Can you imagine if they had claimed costs for this week as well?

I imagine they would have failed in trying to due to the counter claim

 

[wince]

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

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 imho

 

[Grendel]

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

 

[Hobo]

They would almost certainly have suceeded as Higgs bought the case to court and lost

You have missed the fact SISU counter claimed. The judge looked at both. SISU lost on day one, Higgs lost on day three.

Verdict both parties cooled on a deal that went sour, so meet your own costs. It wasn't a case of one party pulling out leaving the other high n dry.

 

[covcity4life]

it was a case of council messing things up to scupper a deal.

 

[Hobo]

it was a case of council messing things up to scupper a deal.

Or looking for other options? There are three parties involved all trying to get the best deal for themselves. Faults on all sides.

 

[James Smith]

They would almost certainly have suceeded as Higgs bought the case to court and lost

So you're disagreeing with what the judge said in court (and available to read on page 159 line 14 of the transcript of day 3) where he said:

"Well I think it is the right conclusion. I would have come to it anyway."

The conclusion being the same as was offered by Sisu i.e. everyone pays their own costs?

Did you read the judgement before posting that comment?

 

[shmmeee]

Or looking for other options? There are three parties involved all trying to get the best deal for themselves. Faults on all sides.

Only a fault if it was the wrong idea. Still not convinced giving Sisu everything they ask for is "faultless" TBH.

 

[covcity4life]

but charging extortionate rent until you force the tenants to leave is flawless?

 

[martcov]

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.

 

[fernandopartridge]

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.

 

[The Gentleman]

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.

 

[Nick]

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?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

The club asked for the rent to be looked at in 2006 and were rebuffed.

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

 

[James Smith]

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.

What History tells us is that the creepy teacher is taking the next class and not the nice one who takes English.

 

[The Gentleman]

Would the lower.offers have come if we didn't go?

I think so yes, leaving the decision to leave very late then it pushed ACL into making an offer. But if they had shown that they were serious in leaving (just about everyone thought they were bluffing) and gone about it with plenty of time to spare then I think a reduced offer would have come from them. Lets be honest, ACL would rather have us than not. Now whether that is renting or owning is a whole NEW argument

 

[Godiva]

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.

 

[The Gentleman]

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?

 

[Godiva]

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?

 

[The Gentleman]

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?

 

[stupot07]

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?

From the q and a it suggests that it still would have been £1.2m in the championship. They wouldn't have gone any lower (back in the day) as they needed the high rent to pay the mortgage. As we don't know all of the variables it's difficult to point at it as a 'good' or 'better' deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[James Smith]

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 don't know what the starting rent would have been or any of the details so we don't know if it was a good deal or not. It could have meant that ACL paid the council an annual rent instead of the £21m upfront - we don't know. If PWKH makes an appearance on here again you can ask him.?