shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes. Financial institutions never act on impressions and rumours. That's why the stock market never crashes, insider trading isn't a thing and governments never worry about the market.
YB must be a shit bank then if they become "unsettled" by an "impression".
Yes. Financial institutions never act on impressions and rumours. That's why the stock market never crashes, insider trading isn't a thing and governments never worry about the market.
YB must be a shit bank then if they become "unsettled" by an "impression".
A Hostile takeover is what sisu were surely trying to start by approaching Yorkshire bank themselves were they not?
As opposed to sensible adult conversations/negotiations over buying the share
It's why the World is fucked, whole economy of the World virtually run by people who get spooked like a gazelle downwind of a mangy lion.
Well given that ACL never missed a payment and are still in business why did YB suddenly become worried about their ability to pay at the same time SISU stopped paying rent and Fisher was telling anyone who would listen they were about to go bust?
YB must be a shit bank then if they become "unsettled" by an "impression".
Not really, it's just buying the debt so that the loan is owed to them rather than the Yorkshire bank.
A key point in this is if the new owner of the debt can vary the repayment terms. Lets say you owed Yorkshire Bank £100K on your mortgage and you were paying £750 a month with no problems. Bank of Tim then buys that mortgage, with say £75K remaining on it and tell you that want it all paid off next month you probably couldn't do that. The person owning the debt is really in the driving seat.
Absolutely. Why worry. They're only holding a mortgage for £15m on a property in which the primary tenant is withholding rent.
It's why banks don't stress if you miss a couple of payments on your loans, cards or mortgages. Or reprice/reduce your lending based on amended risk profiles even if you haven't missed payments. Yeah, people have got entirely the wrong impression about banks.
(Sorry, is that too defensive again?)
That may well be but it's also conjecture because we don't know what they would have done. And at that point it wouldn't have stopped a bailout like ACL have already had.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
That may well be but it's also conjecture because we don't know what they would have done. And at that point it wouldn't have stopped a bailout like ACL have already had.
That may well be but it's also conjecture because we don't know what they would have done. And at that point it wouldn't have stopped a bailout like ACL have already had.
Well all they had to do was simply talk to ACL who would have dismissed what Fisher had to say or were they not allowed to do that.
Alternatively they could have believed CCCs "impression" that the future was a land of milk and honey despite the anchor tenant walking away.
I just think its a bit odd that YB would panic over something the disgruntled tenant would say rather than picking up the phone and actually finding out.
Anyway we'll see if this is the way it workd. I've just gone up to s cashier in Barclays and whispered "psst...Tesco looking a bit dodgy...say no more".
Judge questioning PKH and now he's done. Calm under a lot of questioning but some interesting references. Lunchtime!
Anyway we'll see if this is the way it workd. I've just gone up to s cashier in Barclays and whispered "psst...Tesco looking a bit dodgy...say no more".
out of interest when did SISU approach Yorkshire Bank? was it before or after ACL ( CCC & AEHC) did ? was it before or after YB told ACL there was a problem with the loan?
A better test would be to go and tell your bank that you've just lost one of your main sources of income - then let me know what happens to your overdraft limit and your credit card rates.
Don't worry. I would send my wife in and she would say that "we'd like to keep that source of income.
We need you down in that court room passing notes to the barristers.
And why fucking not... SISU imply the same line as you take here, as if ACL owe the club revenues and are "leeching". CFC has got no moral or contractual claim on the revenues. Up to them if they want to negotiate but totally reasonable if they want to hang on to them. Saying "CCFC needs these revenues" does not crate an obligation for ACL to grant these to CCFC for nothing in return.
This was SISU's proposal or an agreement between who exactly?
In fairness mate, I'm not sure they were panicking - but we know there were discussions between the bank and ACL which I assume were started because of the non-payment of rent and concerns regarding the security of the business.
And it seems that one of the points of the rent strike was to do just this, damage ACL in the eyes of YB in the hope that SISU could then pick up the mortgage below value. I've got the impression that this has been largely admitted now, though perhaps I've read it wrong.
According to evidence and PKH answers, this was the conditional agreement on the table with the fine details being worked on.
Lots of reference in court to indicative terms sheet (ITS) so look out for that on public disclosure of docs
My bank like to know that my tenants in my flat are still there and paying the rent. When the last lot moved out they said they were very pleased to hear that there would only be a one week gap between tenants.
Judge questioning PKH and now he's done. Calm under a lot of questioning but some interesting references. Lunchtime!
The point is, of course, they contacted you. They didn't listen to your ex-tenants who may have been giving the "impression" that you didn't have anyone else to move in.
The most depressing thing about this is that back in Aug 2012 there was the chance to do a great deal.
It's easy with hindsight but I wonder how many people in this saga (CCC, Sisu, Higgs, etc) now regret not following thru?
I'm miserable about it myself but then I'm just a Cov fan...
so no actual binding contract or binding terms then ?
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?