Rob, you're going to go the way of Nikki Sinclaire and Les Reid if you carry on.
don't think so stupot because it was disclosed in the CCFC accounts as restricted funds (ie the account balance)
How do they get £800 -900K from the escrow account when there was only ever £536k in it ?
Did they? I thought the impression was "we want CCFC here but if they leave then don't worry we'll ok"?
With hindsight and in view of what's happened since? Everyone, inc Higgs and CCC / city of Cov
Paul Harris meant Escrow + other payments = £8-900k
Rob, you're going to go the way of Nikki Sinclaire and Les Reid if you carry on.
2 questions. Didn't the rent agreement require the escrow to be maintained at a certain level? Also the money in the escrow didn't actually come from SISU or CCFC did it?
2 questions. Didn't the rent agreement require the escrow to be maintained at a certain level? Also the money in the escrow didn't actually come from SISU or CCFC did it?
Yes - but this is something I have on about for the past two years. Something capsized a deal that everybody wanted.
Must have been something - or someone - arriving out of nowhere.
Any mentioning of Hoffman or Elliott btw?
Fair enough but in hindsight I'm more inclined to believe it might have been a lucky escape now we know the colour of Sisu's spots.
Rob, you're going to go the way of Nikki Sinclaire and Les Reid if you carry on.
IIRC grant for stadium building, but stadium already built...couldn't be given to ccfc, as it would look like state aid (yes, really!), so was agreed to put in an escrow account in case of rent arrears.Also the money in the escrow didn't actually come from SISU or CCFC did it?
2 questions. Didn't the rent agreement require the escrow to be maintained at a certain level? Also the money in the escrow didn't actually come from SISU or CCFC did it?
Rob, you're going to go the way of Nikki Sinclaire and Les Reid if you carry on.
Blimey, is that why we haven't heard much from Les recently? Has he been "under the knife" ???
Interesting bit in simons write up
Mr Justice Leggatt said that there was nothing in law which said the charity could not negotiate with other parties and that there was nothing in law which meant the charity should have informed Sisu other negotiations were ongoing with Coventry City Council.
He said: “There was no implied term of the contract as agreed. It follows that the counter claim must be dismissed and all that remains is whether the charity is entitled to succeed in its claim.”
So there was nothing to say "If it doesn't go through, SISU pay the fees"? This is the bit I don't get.
No - he's probably saying that Higgs / ACL haven't broken any laws, they might have broken the exclusivity agreement but that's to be established.
The charity had insisted on a clause which said Sisu would cover their costs for negotiations - up to £29,000 - if talks broke down, when they commenced discussions with Sisu.What does he mean by terms of the contract as agreed?
No - he's probably saying that Higgs / ACL haven't broken any laws, they might have broken the exclusivity agreement but that's to be established.
The charity had insisted on a clause which said Sisu would cover their costs for negotiations - up to £29,000 - if talks broke down, when they commenced discussions with Sisu.
What does he mean by terms of the contract as agreed?
Sisu’s QC Rhodri Thompson had argued that, even though a six-week ‘exclusivity’ period for negotiations between Higgs and Sisu had expired, there was an implied term that the negotiations were continuing ‘in good faith’ and that the charity was not talking to any other parties.
But is that is the one the judge said isn't there?
I am not sure whether he's saying there was no implied term of exclusivity beyond the 6 week period, or whether he's on about something else altogether.
EDIT - Just read the CT story:
So yes, that is what the judge was talking about.
He's saying there were no implied terms in the Contract that had the clause ,that should talks break down SISU were liable to £29k.contribution to Higgs costs incurred ,and once the six week period of HOT was over no right to expect exclusivity.
I am just amazed how many legal experts we have on Sky Blue Talk, whoever loses I am sure will be recruiting them in advance of the JR.
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?