Seems to me Ranson promised them if they put a certain amount in they would get a good ROI in a couple of years. They put the money in put he didn't get the club promoted so couldn't give them the promised ROI. As simple as that.
Remember he used to keep banging on about the crowds not being big enough. He'd clearly mis-calculated and when SISU wouldn't put more money in (when he then sold Fox and Dann) that's when the game was up and he tried to resign.
What he should have done at that point is advised SISU to cut their losses and sell up. At that point they would have still taken a hit but it would have been manageable.
Since then they've just dug themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.
Doing the Telegraphs job for them OSBAnyway back on track
These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal
https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf
Yes, but it's not a quote from the group (SISU) who had apparently committed to spend £20m on transfers and clear the club's debt. Considering Elliott's role in getting people's shares, it was in his interest to talk up the merits of the deal with SISU, so perhaps he's exaggerating.
Or, perhaps SISU had intended to do that without realising the structural issues the club had (god knows how they didn't).
Either way, I don't even know what we're arguing about.
Seems to me Ranson promised them if they put a certain amount in they would get a good ROI in a couple of years. They put the money in put he didn't get the club promoted so couldn't give them the promised ROI. As simple as that.
Remember he used to keep banging on about the crowds not being big enough. He'd clearly mis-calculated and when SISU wouldn't put more money in (when he then sold Fox and Dann) that's when the game was up and he tried to resign.
What he should have done at that point is advised SISU to cut their losses and sell up. At that point they would have still taken a hit but it would have been manageable.
Since then they've just dug themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.
Doing the Telegraphs job for them OSB
Hard to disagree with CD
Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too much and failed to spend wisely? Operating losses in 2011 were £7m before interest depreciation amortisation and a £6m write down of goodwill created on takeover
Ranson didn't sell Dann and Fox, SISU board out voted him and sold both players. If you are going to point fingers, at least get facts right first.
In terms of the JR, does that mean SISU have seven days to respond I.e. In response to substantive JR dismissed at an oral hearing.
That is how a board of directors works though. Its a joint decision and you can be out voted. But how else were they going to fund the 10m operating loss before player sales in that year that the board of directors including Ranson had sanctioned?
my reading of it is they have to appeal by Friday. The judge has already told them they have to appeal to the Court of Appeal when closed his session on Friday
I know that is how a board of directors work OSB58. It is the implication of Chiefdave that it was Ranson and Ranson alone that sold the players.
Ranson at the time said that fox and Dann wanted to leave and had to leave. Danns wages increased five fold so he couldn't be persuaded to stay. Still we have Chris Hussey and Richard Wood who would be at least as good if not better.
That's what he said at the time.
Less Read has come back from his hols then..According to the Observer, SISU will "consider an appeal"
Just says correspondent.Less Read has come back from his hols then..
Just says correspondent.
Of course if LR is on his hols it shouldn't preclude him from putting out a statement /sorry, article given modern communication.
Well started buying cheaper in transfer dews, but wages were most certainly not proportionateHard to disagree with CD
Only comment I have is that the Dann & Fox sales were in the 2010 accounts. The following year (2011 accounts) the debt to SISU went up by £7.6m. Ranson resigned March 2011. So were they not prepared to fund further, it seems they did, or was it that Ranson expected too much and failed to spend wisely? Operating losses in 2011 were £7m
It isn't a quote.Not sure what people are arguing about either to be honest. I was just pointing out that it wasn't something a journalist made up which is what was being suggested it was a quote from an official of the club about the takeover. Whether you choose to believe it or not is a different matter although there does seem to be clarification from Ransom that includes more than just a transfer kitty given who we're dealing with still doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Anyway back on track
These are I think the rules for making an appeal to the Court of Appeal
https://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/form-207-eng.pdf
It isn't a quote.
When I heard SISU were appealing it reminded me of this
The Time the K Foundation Burned a Million British Pounds for No Apparent Reason
Perhaps Joy is a fan of the KLF?
ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.
Told you that its not the accounting purchase price that you need to consider (£5.5m) but the real purchase price £19m that was the true cost of the transaction, even SISU are using that valuation
ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.
Told you that its not the accounting purchase price that you need to consider (£5.5m) but the real purchase price £19m that was the true cost of the transaction, even SISU are using that valuation
Coventry City’s owners Sisu may appeal after another court defeat
COVENTRY City’s ‘owner’ Sisu is set to appeal against a judge’s decision to refuse a High Court judicial review into the council’s Ricoh Arena sale to Wasps.
It would see the off-field courtroom battles rumbling on in a multi-party dispute which has already lasted five years.
London-based hedge fund Sisu claimed at the High Court in Birmingham on Friday that the council and Alan Edward Higgs Charity’s circa £19million stadium company sale in 2014 unlawfully shortchanged the taxpayer under ‘state aid’ laws by around £30million, with an uncompetitive deal.
The court heard Sisu’s suggestions Wasps, already around £40million in debt, should pay the shortfall to the council.
Sisu was also seeking compensation for being denied the opportunity to also bid for the stadium, built for the Sky Blues and propped up for years by the football club’s £1.4million rent.
The ‘state aid’ claim was made on the basis that the stadium company, Arena Coventry Limited, was sold to then London Wasps Holdings Limited on a massively extended lease from 41 to 250 years.
ACL on the new lease term had later been independently valued at nearly £50million. The £19million deal included just £1mIllion for the lease extension, £2.77million each for the council and Higgs’ charity’s shares in ACL, and paying off the council’s loan.
But the judge, Justice Singh, rejected that claim as well as refusing a full judicial review.
Lawyers for the Sisu group of companies told the court it was likely Sisu would at the very least consider lodging an appeal.
A separate judicial review into an earlier Coventry City Council £14.4million taxpayer bailout of the Ricoh Arena was heard in 2014 – after a judge had initially refused to allow the hearing to take place.
Sisu had been successful in overturning that judgment, only to lose the subsequent judicial review, an appeal, and further attempts at appeal.
Sisu was on Friday ordered to pay £75,000 costs to the council and £20,000 ACL/Wasps. Coventry City Football Club insists its budget is not affected by the legal action.
Labour council leader George Duggins and Conservative group opposition leader Gary Ridley said in a joint statement: “We hope that this will be the last stage of the litigation, and that Sisu will not seek permission to appeal, which would only lead to further unnecessary legal costs for all parties involved.”
What did KMPG actually value? It reads to me like they've valued the freehold with the existing lease in place. That would be worth little as with the lease in place for the next 40 years how do you generate any income? The councils own funding document for the Ricoh build acknowledges that stating that the value of the freehold will rise as the lease draws to a close.At that time, the council had internal advice and external advice from KPMG which provided a valuation of the relevant interest.
The valuation analysis stated that because there was a £21m pre-payment in 2006, the freehold was estimated between £0.6m to £1m.
The council received £1m at the top end of the estimate given by KPMG.
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?