Football League deadline update (7 Viewers)

oldskyblue58 · Jun 3, 2014

Am going to sit on the fence on that one BA and say they are both at fault for bad communication and I would guess each would say they had their reasons I suppose. I think from early 2012 the trust between the parties was rapidly going down the tubes and both sides kept things to themselves that might have prevented this mess had they been disclosed promptly and in a transparent manner

Unless there was some term in the HOT's that prevented certain actions taking place then whilst morally best business practice would be to communicate the basis of the plan there is nothing in law that stops CCC from doing that. Similarly there is nothing in law that stops SISU approaching the ACL's bank but ethically you might think you would inform them first.

skybluetony176 · Jun 3, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"

His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.

As I said earlier, CCC went to the bank to try and buy the mortgage at a reduced rate 3 days after heads of terms were signed.

Did the deal fall apart because of SISU or the councils actions?

I think its more about what didn't happen, not what did happen.

What deal? other than a road map and HOT's that weren't legally binding there was no deal, no draft contracts, no approved contract and certainly no signed contracts. at best there was an agreement on how to come to an agreement and even that didn't get going from what i can see.

Unless you know of an actual deal that was on the table. That bloke from your works canteen seems well informed, ask him.

oldskyblue58 · Jun 3, 2014

Did SISU have an exclusivity period with CCC like they did with Higgs Charity? Were the HOT's binding in any legal sense at all? Poor business ethics or morals really do not come in to it. Is there anything that stops two deals running alongside each other until a final decision is made?

You would have to think that the nature of CCFC Ltd had changed or was planned to be changed at around the same time as this complaint that CCC did things behind SISU's back. That little fact didn't come out until March 2013. That change was going to be fundamental to all that has gone on. Without it happening then SISU couldn't walk away cheaply from the lease and retain ownership. Knowledge of that change may have changed some of the decisions that were being made by CCC, Charity, ACL and Bank. Really cant help thinking it is both sides "pot calling kettle black"

Bennets Afro · Jun 3, 2014

I don't know if there was any exclusivity with CCC. Doesn't look like it.
I do agree tho OSB. Relationships deteriorated and the trust went. Instead of doing deals everyone just started looking after their own interests and the fans have had a massive kick in the nuts as a result. Nothing over the last few years has been done for the benefit of the club!!!

oldskyblue58 · Jun 3, 2014

Didn't the bank knock the first couple of CCC proposals back? When was the deal actually agreed with the bank? Aside from being more open is there anything legally that stops two deals being worked on at the same time?

seems to me both sides provided their own little bombshells. CCC in buying the loan out and SISU in restructuring the Group.

Monners · Jun 3, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I don't know if there was any exclusivity with CCC. Doesn't look like it.
I do agree tho OSB. Relationships deteriorated and the trust went. Instead of doing deals everyone just started looking after their own interests and the fans have had a massive kick in the nuts as a result. Nothing over the last few years has been done for the benefit of the club!!!

Ain't that the truth!

sky blue john · Jun 3, 2014

The Yorkshire bank were hardly going to sell the loan off cheap when they had two parties fighting over it !!

chiefdave · Jun 3, 2014

sky blue john said:
The Yorkshire bank were hardly going to sell the loan off cheap when they had two parties fighting over it !!

Doesn't that then blow out of the water the theory that the loan could be purchase at below value by SISU?

sky blue john · Jun 3, 2014

chiefdave said:
Doesn't that then blow out of the water the theory that the loan could be purchase at below value by SISU?

If Sisu approached the bank first they may have been quoted a lower value, who knows.
Also didn't someone leave Acl and go and work for the yorkshire bank ?

ccfcway · Jun 3, 2014

Covstu said:
Stop saying road map!!

I said it twice !

Most people put SISU in every response several times, yet you pick up on "Road Map" twice ?

I feel like saying "road map" just for that

road map

chiefdave · Jun 3, 2014

sky blue john said:
Also didn't someone leave Acl and go and work for the yorkshire bank ?

Yes they did so if there was any plan to pull a fast one by making it seem ACL were in trouble it would have failed once someone at YB knew what was going on.

Sky Blues · Jun 3, 2014

Has anyone seen a skeleton legal argument by any party other than Sisu?

fernandopartridge · Jun 3, 2014

shmmeee said:
Every side including the administrator engaged a PR firm. It's standard practice FFS. Put your tinfoil hat away.

@stupot: How was I defending ACL? I simply stated they aren't relevant to LASTs discussion about what we'd like to hear from the club. You and FP are obsessed. This is a CCFC forum, it's normal for people to discuss CCFC.

If it's standard practice then why was it mentioned in the first instance?

chiefdave · Jun 3, 2014

Sky Blues said:
Has anyone seen a skeleton legal argument by any party other than Sisu?

Has it yet be revealed how the SISU court documents became publically available while the Higgs side of the argument didn't? Would be nice to have access to both sides of the story.

Jack Griffin · Jun 3, 2014

chiefdave said:
Has it yet be revealed how the SISU court documents became publically available while the Higgs side of the argument didn't? Would be nice to have access to both sides of the story.

Well, Rob Stevens was handing out copies he had printed out at an open SBT meeting a month or so ago.
Though ISTR a poster on this site provided a dropbox link to a copy of them a shortly after the court case.
You'll have to search back on the forum & see if you can find out who provided that link.

chiefdave · Jun 3, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
Well, Rob Stevens was handing out copies he had printed out at an open SBT meeting a month or so ago.
Though ISTR a poster on this site provided a dropbox link to a copy of them a shortly after the court case.
You'll have to search back on the forum & see if you can find out who provided that link.

Wasn't that Rob S as well? The question would be how he, or whoever it was, gained access to them. I assumed at the time they were in the public domain as part of the court case and the equivalent Higgs documents would follow shortly after but that never happened.

skybluetony176 · Jun 3, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
If it's standard practice then why was it mentioned in the first instance?

More importantly why keep mentioning it. It's not only boring it's a distraction from what's important, hence why ML always starts blabbing on about it when he needs to change the direction of an interview. You may as well be arguing about how many grains of sand there is in the Sahara desert, it's about as relevant.

Jack Griffin · Jun 3, 2014

chiefdave said:
Wasn't that Rob S as well? The question would be how he, or whoever it was, gained access to them. I assumed at the time they were in the public domain as part of the court case and the equivalent Higgs documents would follow shortly after but that never happened.

Poster Rob S & Rob Stevens are one & the same.

skybluetony176 · Jun 3, 2014

chiefdave said:
Wasn't that Rob S as well? The question would be how he, or whoever it was, gained access to them. I assumed at the time they were in the public domain as part of the court case and the equivalent Higgs documents would follow shortly after but that never happened.

Perhaps that was the purpose of making the sisu skeletal argument public? So when Higgs wasn't people would start questioning why not, putting two and two together and coming up with a conspiracy theory that they are hiding something.

If that was the case it didn't seem to work.

Bennets Afro · Jun 3, 2014

I put the docs up. I was sent them by my mate at work. He seems to know what is going on.
I have a JR skeleton one too, but I'm waiting to see if I can put it up

skybluetony176 · Jun 3, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I put the docs up. I was sent them by my mate at work. He seems to know what is going on.
I have a JR skeleton one too, but I'm waiting to see if I can put it up

I have to ask. Where do you work?

chiefdave · Jun 3, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I put the docs up. I was sent them by my mate at work. He seems to know what is going on.
I have a JR skeleton one too, but I'm waiting to see if I can put it up

Did he get them from a public domain source or were they passed to him by someone (SISU?) in the hope they would be leaked? Seems odd that everything on the SISU was made public, seemingly through unofficial channels, very quickly.

Bennets Afro · Jun 3, 2014

I work for a global company with offices in Coventry. I'm not gonna say who as I'm sure they wouldn't want to be associated with any of this mess. Sorry

stupot07 · Jun 3, 2014

Houdi said:
You continue to mention Weber Shandwick, however it is right to point out that there is nothing remotely illegal or wrong in doing that, and shouldn't be something they need to apologise for. Plus of course it would be interesting to note when they last issued a PR release on behalf of ACL. Probably a better criticism of ACL if that is what you want to do,is that for months they have hardly made any public comments, certainly not that they are constantly spinning anti SISU stories. As for SISU I don't think the problem is that they are no good at PR, more that the 'story' they have got to sell is so horrific that no PR could ever disguise what an utter disaster they have made of things. Or to put it more succinctly, how on earth do you polish a turd.

I continue to mention them? If you do a search for posts mentioning them by me, you will see just 7, the last of which was April and the time before that September 2013.

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

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 3, 2014

oldskyblue58 said:
So far I don't feel comfortable with the "negotiating" CCC were doing nor with what SISU were doing. The judge has stated in court he sees the actions of the Charity & Trustees as above reproach and professional so I believe they acted properly. As yet however there is no judgement or proof either side acted illegally. We might not like it but it doesn't make it wrong

Aye, and this is where the problem of resolution comes in.

It becomes a commercial dispute, and ones where we really should be asking questions of both sides involved if they want to continue being involved into the future but, at the same time, by its very nature is one where we probably have to let it play out to its resolution, rather than hope for miracle developments.

fernandopartridge · Jun 4, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
More importantly why keep mentioning it. It's not only boring it's a distraction from what's important, hence why ML always starts blabbing on about it when he needs to change the direction of an interview. You may as well be arguing about how many grains of sand there is in the Sahara desert, it's about as relevant.

Tell me more about the European commission for England mate

Monners · Jun 4, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I work for a global company with offices in Coventry. I'm not gonna say who as I'm sure they wouldn't want to be associated with any of this mess. Sorry

McDonalds?

Hobo · Jun 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Tell me more about the European commission for England mate

You can look up European Commission and their UK office on line, they have their own web page Fernando.

skybluetony176 · Jun 4, 2014

Hobo said:
You can look up European Commission and their UK office on line, they have their own web page Fernando.

As could have sisu should they have wished to lodge a complaint about the ACL mortgage bail out.

martcov · Jun 4, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
"I have come to the conclusion, however, that in circumstances where the transaction fell apart or fell away in August 2012, effectively because neither party wished to pursue the transaction contained in the term sheet,"

His judgement was it was dead in August 2012, as proven in a court of law.

As I said earlier, CCC went to the bank to try and buy the mortgage at a reduced rate 3 days after heads of terms were signed.

Did the deal fall apart because of SISU or the councils actions?

Ask your mates in the cantine.

Bennets Afro · Jun 4, 2014

I will do when I'm back in work Monday. Away the family on holiday this week so can't ask.

martcov said:
Ask your mates in the cantine.

martcov · Jun 4, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
I will do when I'm back in work Monday. Away the family on holiday this week so can't ask.

Ok. Have fun.

Football League deadline update (7 Viewers)

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency