Higgs statement (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
A few figures who are still seen in a positive light by some on this forum.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Will only have an effect on the charity in terms of, to not use their own veto, they were clearly OK with the deal to have Wasps come in as co-owners with them...
James Smith
Well-Known Member
At the time (and that's an important point) Sisu were offering £5m weren't they and that was the asking price, it was the fact that the money wasn't going to be paid in a lump sum that the deal didn't go through. The Higgs possibly were thinking they might not see all the money given the rent boycott we were on at the time.
Last edited:
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Maybe we should have started negotiations before starting the rent boycott? But then would we have had a distressed ACL to attempt to buy half of at a cheaper price. The judge in the JR took a dim view of that didn't he.
Samo
Well-Known Member
But what if they were not? They are in a position (if Wasps do indeed hold that veto) that will be unable to sell to anyone else but Wasps. Seems less than democratic to me.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It would be foolish for anyone to own half a business and not have the right to agree who a prospective new partner would be.
Last edited:
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Shows the importance of getting on with people, building trusting relationships etc.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Has anyone got a link to the PWKH interview?
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
cloughie
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Then they could have vetoed the council selling to Wasps.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
ACL are clearly distressed - they have just managed to offload to another buyer.
Samo
Well-Known Member
Damn! Good point.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It has certainly been sold off cheaply. If SISU hadn't pissed the shareholders off so much then this could have worked out well for the club.
skybluefred
New Member
You are missing the point. The Ricoh would belong to sisu not CCFC and the Club would be paying rent at whatever level sisu chose to implement.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
I'm not missing any point.
You're right they could charge a massive rent, of course they would then have to pay that huge rent themselves, as they own the club.
Calista
Well-Known Member
Just listened to the PWKH interview for the first time. I don’t pretend to be an expert, so apologies if I’ve got any of this wrong (and especially if I’m sowing false seeds of hope).
1) He said that Higgs “would like to accept” the Wasps offer for their shares – that suggests to me that no formal or enforceable deal has been done. Anyone know?
2) He said that the offer from Wasps had triggered a contract clause to give the liquidator of CCFC Ltd. “an opportunity make the purchase” (presumably by at least matching the Wasps offer?). I believe that within ACL each party has the right to veto any sale of the other party’s shares, and that the Council’s right of veto has now passed to Wasps. But does that really extend to vetoing the company which has a contractual option to purchase? What I’m asking is – could Wasps actually veto a sale of the Higgs shares to CCFC Ltd? Has anyone got access to the contract documents for a definitive answer to that?
3) He said that the liquidator can “pretty much do what he likes” if it benefits the creditors of CCFC Ltd. If correct, that seems to provide quite a lot of leeway and room for manoeuvre.
4) The 30 days is just an interpretation of the legal requirement for a “reasonable time”. Higgs wouldn’t expect a deal to be completed within that time – in fact if I got it correctly, all they need within 30 days is an indication of whether CCFC Ltd. INTEND to make an offer. If that’s right, the time frame isn’t as impossible as some people have said on this thread (or has been reported by the Telegraph). Again – can anyone clarify this?
5) The option still rests with CCFC Ltd. because no-one asked Higgs to reassign it when SISU set up the new company structure for the club. WHAT?!
6) A final thought, nothing to do with anything said by PWKH. Just supposing a far bigger bid came in for the Higgs shares from a completely new party – would Wasps really veto it at the expense of the charity? I believe the charity is bound to do the best thing for itself financially, and under those circumstances, might they not just refuse to sell their shares to Wasps?
The Council and the Higgs have both basically said that the ball is now in SISU’s court, to decide whether they want to bid for the shares or not. Even by the standards of this sickening and bitter dispute, if that turns out to be a piss-take (of the fans as well as SISU) they will have plumbed new depths. And if there really is still a way for the club to get a half share in the Arena, and SISU pass it up in favour of their new stadium, they can stuff it. I’ve had enough of these games now.
1) He said that Higgs “would like to accept” the Wasps offer for their shares – that suggests to me that no formal or enforceable deal has been done. Anyone know?
2) He said that the offer from Wasps had triggered a contract clause to give the liquidator of CCFC Ltd. “an opportunity make the purchase” (presumably by at least matching the Wasps offer?). I believe that within ACL each party has the right to veto any sale of the other party’s shares, and that the Council’s right of veto has now passed to Wasps. But does that really extend to vetoing the company which has a contractual option to purchase? What I’m asking is – could Wasps actually veto a sale of the Higgs shares to CCFC Ltd? Has anyone got access to the contract documents for a definitive answer to that?
3) He said that the liquidator can “pretty much do what he likes” if it benefits the creditors of CCFC Ltd. If correct, that seems to provide quite a lot of leeway and room for manoeuvre.
4) The 30 days is just an interpretation of the legal requirement for a “reasonable time”. Higgs wouldn’t expect a deal to be completed within that time – in fact if I got it correctly, all they need within 30 days is an indication of whether CCFC Ltd. INTEND to make an offer. If that’s right, the time frame isn’t as impossible as some people have said on this thread (or has been reported by the Telegraph). Again – can anyone clarify this?
5) The option still rests with CCFC Ltd. because no-one asked Higgs to reassign it when SISU set up the new company structure for the club. WHAT?!
6) A final thought, nothing to do with anything said by PWKH. Just supposing a far bigger bid came in for the Higgs shares from a completely new party – would Wasps really veto it at the expense of the charity? I believe the charity is bound to do the best thing for itself financially, and under those circumstances, might they not just refuse to sell their shares to Wasps?
The Council and the Higgs have both basically said that the ball is now in SISU’s court, to decide whether they want to bid for the shares or not. Even by the standards of this sickening and bitter dispute, if that turns out to be a piss-take (of the fans as well as SISU) they will have plumbed new depths. And if there really is still a way for the club to get a half share in the Arena, and SISU pass it up in favour of their new stadium, they can stuff it. I’ve had enough of these games now.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
So basically, are you saying that the council and the Higgs have sold something worth nothing for cash. Sounds like good business for them if it's true. It's a bloody great shame that we managed to annoy the council and be so dismissive of the stadium that they got to the point where they even considered talking to Wasps. It's a disgrace and slightly hypocritical that it is Wasps, but whatever they're now in the driving seat of what should have been our stadium.
As you said we've got pretty much no chance of buying the Higgs share and Joy has pretty much said good luck to Wasps I assume you'll be looking forward to watching us play in the new stadium. Which will be built sometime this century, hopefully.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You're the last person I expected to commend CCC on getting a good deal for the tax payer. From what you say they were lucky to get anything at all.
Sisued
New Member
They would charge massive rent and 'loan' the money to pay it. Taking the higher interest rate they can get and saddling the club with debts that only ever existed on paper. Eventually the debts will be written off to offset a tax bill or something and then they will start again.
Of course anyone wishing to buy the club will have to pay off at least a % of the fabricated loans and then be at the mercy of sisus extortion.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well James I seem to remember that we had this debate some time ago and I did question the viability long term of the stadium. but you assured everyone the conferences and especially weddings were more profitable that the club renting the pitch. When you say offered something you seem to conveniently forget they have offered far more back. A 180 year extension to the lease this of course has significant value. Another thing you frequently stated is that the charity could be subject to an audit from the charity commission if it sold for less than the initial amount. Hogwash as we thought . In fact if you look at the construct of the deal out together that the council blocked (see LS) it was arguably better and certainly no worse - remember we know nothing of the payment terms of the present deal and probably never will.
As for good deal for the taxpayer what does that mean. £9 per head is hardly good for 9 years into a project is it. If you are referring to discharging the loan then I would draw your attention to the fact the council said it would make a profit from that loan - something you and the many posters on here supporting the move were eager to point out.
Anne Lucas says ACL was washing its face.
Well she's washed her hands of the supporters of Coventry based sport.
Hurrah for the Great Leader
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
It sounded good until the words 'or something' highlighted complete guesswork.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If as you say ACL is distressed £9 per head is better than the zero you've been suggesting it's worth for some time now. So like you say, it's a good deal for the Coventry tax payer given the facts you have presented.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
No, not at all, I don't believe I know everything, and am quite willing to learn something new. So if you can explain what you're suggesting I will be happy to have a read.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Higgs and the Council were mad not to accept the offer on the table from Sisu before could also be said.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
no it cant because council=good and sisu=evil
Astute
Well-Known Member
If there was an offer from SISU that they kept to I might agree with you. But each time they wanted more for less and then it was all about the freehold which CCC were not willing to let go. And still have not.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
No it wasn't.
Still at least you give me fond memories of vinyl and record players and the stylus getting stuck on the same bit, over and over and over again.
davebart
Active Member
Everyone keeps banging on about CCFC needing to own their own ground. That is nonsense. What they need to have is access to the real estate around the ground. The ground itself will never generate enough revenue to support the club and especially not the beer and pies.
And that is just to make the club sustainable ie not losing money.
This doesn't square with SISU/Otium's need to make money for their investors who will also want to take money out of the venture.
As far as I can see the only way to make big bucks is to get back in the premiership. And that doesn't feature in any of this. Will Pressley or anyone else be able to achieve it with the budget he is working to?
And that is just to make the club sustainable ie not losing money.
This doesn't square with SISU/Otium's need to make money for their investors who will also want to take money out of the venture.
As far as I can see the only way to make big bucks is to get back in the premiership. And that doesn't feature in any of this. Will Pressley or anyone else be able to achieve it with the budget he is working to?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ah you now have a new catchphrase. - they are not willing to let the freehold go. So explain from a commercial perspective a 250 year lease and a freehold.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Do anybody know what the yearly rent is for the new lease yet ?
Also what did ACL pay yearly for the old lease ?
