Looking at the bigger picture (1 Viewer)

[grego_gee]

The forums told us nothing, by then TF was effectively gagged by changed timescales on administration and perhaps the Judicial review. But the earlier CCLSC minutes were surprisingly factual and revealing. They also contradict the general consensus that SISU were trying to get ACL or the Stadium "on the cheap", they were prepared to pay at least £21.5m!

SISU started withholding rent in April 2012 but that was before and continued during ongoing negotiations for SISU to become a half owner of ACL.

TF asked SISU to do a deal with ACL on match-day revenues because of prospect of Financial Fair Play. His counterpart, Daniel Gidney, said ACL would reduce rent to £500k p/a and give them match-day revenues including catering and parking at the Ricoh for £24m consideration in effect - net present value over next 40 + years.

In March 2012, crowds were down and SISU tried again to discuss a deal to buy half the stadium company – the business, not the bricks and mortar. The Council had the right to veto any deal. SISU and Higgs signed a term sheet on 18 June 2012. So SISU were prepared to pay a sum presumably in excess of £6.5m that Higgs paid for it, and this was agreeable with HIGGS.

To support the deal then, SISU negotiated with the Council to buy the Yorkshire Bank debt and to discharge the debt so that the value (of both halves) of the equity would go up. The leasehold would need to rise from 42 years to 125 years – again leading to an increase in the value of both equity stakes. On 2 August 2012, a heads of terms agreement was signed with the Council. So SISU were prepared to pay £14.4m outstanding to Yorkshire bank in addition to a sum in excess of £6.5m to buy the Higgs share in ACL and this was agreeable with ACL( i.e. at least £21.5m in total)

Steve Brookfield was charged in his role of FD to do a pay-as-you-play deal with an interim rent. This was circa £10K per match. Something went wrong in about September/October 2012. The Council reneged on the deal agreed in August but the football club still needed a share of the stadium revenues. With the prospect of FFP, the terms of occupancy needed to be changed. A rent reduction was agreed from £1.3m to £400K.

In December 2012, Yorkshire Bank said they were about to foreclose on ACL. Joy Seppala went to Leeds with ACL, and a deal was negotiated that would restructure the debt but allow the football club and the mortgage to stay in place. Despite SISU/CCFC agreeing the terms of a deal, the Council said “No.” YB said they would re-structure in order for ACL to survive.

On 15 January 2013, however, the Council used £14.4m of tax-payers’ money to enable it to pay off the YB mortgage and to become ACL’s bankers. This is now the subject of an application for a judicial review.

So its not just a matter of SISU reneging on a done deal to reduce the rent to £400k, that was part of the bigger picture agreed in which SISU would buy a half interest in ACL, and pay off (and discharge) the ACL debt to YB in return for extending the lease to 125 years.
SISU didn’t renege on this deal the Council did!
And they did so in a very big way by buying the ACL debt them selves when ACL and SISU already had agreed that SISU would buy it and discharge it.
No wonder there is a judicial review and we will not hear much about it until it is heard there!
imp:

 

---

[italiahorse]

How do we know what is true and what is false/speculation?

I'm clutching for facts on every thread.

 

[James Smith]

The forums told us nothing, by then TF was effectively gagged by changed timescales on administration and perhaps the Judicial review. But the earlier CCLSC minutes were surprisingly factual and revealing. They also contradict the general consensus that SISU were trying to get ACL or the Stadium "on the cheap", they were prepared to pay at least £21.5m!

SISU started withholding rent in April 2012 but that was before and continued during ongoing negotiations for SISU to become a half owner of ACL.

TF asked SISU to do a deal with ACL on match-day revenues because of prospect of Financial Fair Play. His counterpart, Daniel Gidney, said ACL would reduce rent to £500k p/a and give them match-day revenues including catering and parking at the Ricoh for £24m consideration in effect - net present value over next 40 + years.

In March 2012, crowds were down and SISU tried again to discuss a deal to buy half the stadium company – the business, not the bricks and mortar. The Council had the right to veto any deal. SISU and Higgs signed a term sheet on 18 June 2012. So SISU were prepared to pay a sum presumably in excess of £6.5m that Higgs paid for it, and this was agreeable with HIGGS.

To support the deal then, SISU negotiated with the Council to buy the Yorkshire Bank debt and to discharge the debt so that the value (of both halves) of the equity would go up. The leasehold would need to rise from 42 years to 125 years – again leading to an increase in the value of both equity stakes. On 2 August 2012, a heads of terms agreement was signed with the Council. So SISU were prepared to pay £14.4m outstanding to Yorkshire bank in addition to a sum in excess of £6.5m to buy the Higgs share in ACL and this was agreeable with ACL( i.e. at least £21.5m in total)

Steve Brookfield was charged in his role of FD to do a pay-as-you-play deal with an interim rent. This was circa £10K per match. Something went wrong in about September/October 2012. The Council reneged on the deal agreed in August but the football club still needed a share of the stadium revenues. With the prospect of FFP, the terms of occupancy needed to be changed. A rent reduction was agreed from £1.3m to £400K.

In December 2012, Yorkshire Bank said they were about to foreclose on ACL. Joy Seppala went to Leeds with ACL, and a deal was negotiated that would restructure the debt but allow the football club and the mortgage to stay in place. Despite SISU/CCFC agreeing the terms of a deal, the Council said “No.” YB said they would re-structure in order for ACL to survive.

On 15 January 2013, however, the Council used £14.4m of tax-payers’ money to enable it to pay off the YB mortgage and to become ACL’s bankers. This is now the subject of an application for a judicial review.

So its not just a matter of SISU reneging on a done deal to reduce the rent to £400k, that was part of the bigger picture agreed in which SISU would buy a half interest in ACL, and pay off (and discharge) the ACL debt to YB in return for extending the lease to 125 years.
SISU didn’t renege on this deal the Council did!
And they did so in a very big way by buying the ACL debt them selves when ACL and SISU already had agreed that SISU would buy it and discharge it.
No wonder there is a judicial review and we will not hear much about it until it is heard there!
imp:

But a lot of this (highlighted in red) is just what Tim & PWKH said and they haven't backed any of this up yet. Tim claims to have signed copies of this and that which he hasn't produced possibly due to the judicial review. Until they prove otherwise a lot of this is just what Tim and Higgs/PWKH have claimed nothing more.

 

[Jack Griffin]

There is a lot of suppositions about what SISU were prepared to pay in that viewpoint.

There is absolutely no basis for those opinions, all I've seen is that SISU have shown no inclination to pay any of the values discussed for the stadium, presumably because they think they can get it cheaper is they put ACL under fiscal stress.

Also I think the idea SISU had was to buy out Higgs and raise the cash by negotiating with YB, that would have left ACL owing millions to SISU and therefore even more vulnerable to fiscal stress, which I'm confident wouldn't have been long in coming.

My viewpoint is equally as valid & better supported by the facts as known, I'm afraid everyone will have to wait for the JR for the bigger picture, everything else is pure conjecture.

One thing I am sure about is that swimming with sharks is a bad idea.

 

[Godiva]

How do we know what is true and what is false/speculation?

I'm clutching for facts on every thread.

I agree totally with the OP and have been saying the same over and over - but not including dates and numbers as I didn't know. But all the information is 'out there' - just waiting for someone like Grego to compile them and present them in a readable and chronological post.

It won't change anything though - most people won't believe it - not even if they in a few months are told by a judge.

Keep an open mind italia - that way you won't paint yourself into a corner where your only option is a total renouncement of the club.

 

[James Smith]

There is a lot of suppositions about what SISU were prepared to pay in that viewpoint.

There is absolutely no basis for those opinions, all I've seen is that SISU have shown no inclination to pay any of the values discussed for the stadium, presumably because they think they can get it cheaper is they put ACL under fiscal stress.

Also I think the idea SISU had was to buy out Higgs and raise the cash by negotiating with YB, that would have left ACL owing millions to SISU and therefore even more vulnerable to fiscal stress, which I'm confident wouldn't have been long in coming.

My viewpoint is equally as valid & better supported by the facts as known, I'm afraid everyone will have to wait for the JR for the bigger picture, everything else is pure conjecture.

One thing I am sure about is that swimming with sharks is a bad idea.

Is that last point something to do with the Cayman Islands?

 

[Godiva]

Also I think the idea SISU had was to buy out Higgs and raise the cash by negotiating with YB, that would have left ACL owing millions to SISU and therefore even more vulnerable to fiscal stress, which I'm confident wouldn't have been long in coming.

Ah but that is NOT what is said ... is it?

Disharging the mortgage would mean ACL/ccc did NOT owe one penny to sisu. And discharging the debt in exchange for an extention of the lease to 125 years makes absolutely good financial sense. CCC's shares would increase in value as well as the clubs shares. And that my friend would make ACL stronger and less exposed to financial stress. The exact opposite to your suggestion.

 

[grego_gee]

Italia
Well I always try to be factual in my viewpoint but we have to scrape facts off the sides of the barrel because of the situation with all sides now being very quiet!
Ok I am speculating on the figures but TF confirms HOTs were agreed on two deals. (that I speculate must have probably been in excess of £21.5m)
Whether I am correct or not, it is claimed by TF that SISU were prepared to put cash on the table that was at one time acceptable to ACL & the Council.
So that flies in the face of all that shout SISU were trying to get it for nothing!

imp:

 

[Godiva]

Italia
Well I always try to be factual in my viewpoint but we have to scrape facts off the sides of the barrel because of the situation with all sides now being very quiet!
Ok I am speculating on the figures but TF confirms HOTs were agreed on two deals. (that I speculate must have probably been in excess of £21.5m)
Whether I am correct or not, it is claimed by TF that SISU were prepared to put cash on the table that was at one time acceptable to ACL & the Council.
So that flies in the face of all that shout SISU were trying to get it for nothing!

imp:

I am not sure about the £21.5m - in fact I don't believe that they were ever prepared to push £14m over the table to Yorkshire Bank. The debt was distressed and so the value a lot less. Maybe £5m or a tiny bit more.
One more thing - you didn't mention the fact that ACL chaiman resigned to become director at ... Yorkshire Bank. I think he was appointed in September.

 

[SkyBlueScottie]

So what changed? Once we know the answer to that the villains will be revealed.

 

[Godiva]

But a lot of this (highlighted in red) is just what Tim & PWKH said and they haven't backed any of this up yet. Tim claims to have signed copies of this and that which he hasn't produced possibly due to the judicial review. Until they prove otherwise a lot of this is just what Tim and Higgs/PWKH have claimed nothing more.

And until it is revealed in court what do you do? Keep an open mind?

 

[James Smith]

And until it is revealed in court what do you do? Keep an open mind?

Yup I do try and keep an open mind, but I can't help but remember (so I'd be rubbish on a jury) that Tim has been inaccurate before on a few things before. Still he's got the signed copied of everything* so I can't wait to see them once they have been presented in court.

*and I would assume so do ACL.

 

[grego_gee]

I am not sure about the £21.5m - in fact I don't believe that they were ever prepared to push £14m over the table to Yorkshire Bank. The debt was distressed and so the value a lot less. Maybe £5m or a tiny bit more.
One more thing - you didn't mention the fact that ACL chaiman resigned to become director at ... Yorkshire Bank. I think he was appointed in September.

Yes I think you are right, there was something said that SISU had agreed a lower figure with YB. I think that is one of the planks in their request for JR (that the council paid in effect more than was necessary). I think I remeber a figure of £13.4m being quoted?
The deal to satisfy Higgs could be different too, it could be more or even less than £6.5m.
But the actual figures are not really relevent - it doen't matter if they were up to the value that any of us think was waranted. If they were acceptable to the other parties, the amounts don't matter.
The relevent fact is SISU were prepared to pay sums that were acceptable to the parties concerned.
Yet the NOPM campaign flies on based on an assumption that SISU are bandits!

imp:

Ps surely the ACL chaiman moving to YB is no more than coincidence?

 

[RPHunt]

But the actual figures are not really relevent - it doen't matter if they were up to the value that any of us think was waranted.

Of course not, don't let the facts get in the way of a story that vindicates SISU!

 

[Warwickhunt]

There is a lot of suppositions about what SISU were prepared to pay in that viewpoint.

There is absolutely no basis for those opinions, all I've seen is that SISU have shown no inclination to pay any of the values discussed for the stadium, presumably because they think they can get it cheaper is they put ACL under fiscal stress.

Also I think the idea SISU had was to buy out Higgs and raise the cash by negotiating with YB, that would have left ACL owing millions to SISU and therefore even more vulnerable to fiscal stress, which I'm confident wouldn't have been long in coming.

My viewpoint is equally as valid & better supported by the facts as known, I'm afraid everyone will have to wait for the JR for the bigger picture, everything else is pure conjecture.

One thing I am sure about is that swimming with sharks is a bad idea.

"One thing I am sure about is that swimming with sharks is a bad idea." To bloody right its not a good idea, I think ACL do not realise how bad a Shark SISU is

 

[cloughie]

The forums told us nothing, by then TF was effectively gagged by changed timescales on administration and perhaps the Judicial review. But the earlier CCLSC minutes were surprisingly factual and revealing. They also contradict the general consensus that SISU were trying to get ACL or the Stadium "on the cheap", they were prepared to pay at least £21.5m!

SISU started withholding rent in April 2012 but that was before and continued during ongoing negotiations for SISU to become a half owner of ACL.

TF asked SISU to do a deal with ACL on match-day revenues because of prospect of Financial Fair Play. His counterpart, Daniel Gidney, said ACL would reduce rent to £500k p/a and give them match-day revenues including catering and parking at the Ricoh for £24m consideration in effect - net present value over next 40 + years.

In March 2012, crowds were down and SISU tried again to discuss a deal to buy half the stadium company – the business, not the bricks and mortar. The Council had the right to veto any deal. SISU and Higgs signed a term sheet on 18 June 2012. So SISU were prepared to pay a sum presumably in excess of £6.5m that Higgs paid for it, and this was agreeable with HIGGS.

To support the deal then, SISU negotiated with the Council to buy the Yorkshire Bank debt and to discharge the debt so that the value (of both halves) of the equity would go up. The leasehold would need to rise from 42 years to 125 years – again leading to an increase in the value of both equity stakes. On 2 August 2012, a heads of terms agreement was signed with the Council. So SISU were prepared to pay £14.4m outstanding to Yorkshire bank in addition to a sum in excess of £6.5m to buy the Higgs share in ACL and this was agreeable with ACL( i.e. at least £21.5m in total)

Steve Brookfield was charged in his role of FD to do a pay-as-you-play deal with an interim rent. This was circa £10K per match. Something went wrong in about September/October 2012. The Council reneged on the deal agreed in August but the football club still needed a share of the stadium revenues. With the prospect of FFP, the terms of occupancy needed to be changed. A rent reduction was agreed from £1.3m to £400K.

In December 2012, Yorkshire Bank said they were about to foreclose on ACL. Joy Seppala went to Leeds with ACL, and a deal was negotiated that would restructure the debt but allow the football club and the mortgage to stay in place. Despite SISU/CCFC agreeing the terms of a deal, the Council said “No.” YB said they would re-structure in order for ACL to survive.

On 15 January 2013, however, the Council used £14.4m of tax-payers’ money to enable it to pay off the YB mortgage and to become ACL’s bankers. This is now the subject of an application for a judicial review.

So its not just a matter of SISU reneging on a done deal to reduce the rent to £400k, that was part of the bigger picture agreed in which SISU would buy a half interest in ACL, and pay off (and discharge) the ACL debt to YB in return for extending the lease to 125 years.
SISU didn’t renege on this deal the Council did!
And they did so in a very big way by buying the ACL debt them selves when ACL and SISU already had agreed that SISU would buy it and discharge it.
No wonder there is a judicial review and we will not hear much about it until it is heard there!
imp:

Daniel Gidney has previously stated the only time he has spoken to Sisu or Fisher concerning the Sale of catering rights was in an off the cuff remark mentioning £24 million when passing him in the corridors of the Ricoh officesl. Hardly a meeting never mind an agreement

Like others have said you are using heresay as fact to back your beloved sisu

basically a load of B*ll***s or one of your usual wind up posts

 

[Astute]

Looking at the bigger picture? More like forgetting about where it has been shown that Fisher lied. Like they would pay the rent if it was a lower amount. They were offered a discount of about 2/3 and matchday revenue. They still paid no rent. Joy more or less got called a liar by a judge on a case recently where she was the chief witness IIRC. Yet some believe everything they say.

If they could show me they wanted what was best for our club they would get my full backing. They are only interested in what they can get from our club. This means the Ricoh. How many of you think that if they got their hands on the ground that it would become the property of our club and not sectioned off like they seem to do.

Our club needs the ground. They want it so they can make money.

 

[lifelongcityfan]

Looking at the bigger picture? More like forgetting about where it has been shown that Fisher lied. Like they would pay the rent if it was a lower amount. They were offered a discount of about 2/3 and matchday revenue. They still paid no rent. Joy more or less got called a liar by a judge on a case recently where she was the chief witness IIRC. Yet some believe everything they say.

If they could show me they wanted what was best for our club they would get my full backing. They are only interested in what they can get from our club. This means the Ricoh. How many of you think that if they got their hands on the ground that it would become the property of our club and not sectioned off like they seem to do.

Our club needs the ground. They want it so they can make money.

absolutely agreewith this

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Do we, err...look at this bigger picture "through the square window of positivity" by any chance? :thinking about:

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

And until it is revealed in court what do you do? Keep an open mind?

Just assume that SISU are full of shit like they've proven to be every single other time.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Is that last point something to do with the Cayman Islands?

That wasn't the porpoise of the comment..

Queue dozens of fishy & marine mammal puns.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Ah but that is NOT what is said ... is it?

Disharging the mortgage would mean ACL/ccc did NOT owe one penny to sisu. And discharging the debt in exchange for an extention of the lease to 125 years makes absolutely good financial sense. CCC's shares would increase in value as well as the clubs shares. And that my friend would make ACL stronger and less exposed to financial stress. The exact opposite to your suggestion.

Yeah, right they would pay ACL's debt of for free, pull the other one.

It certainly doesn't seem likely does it.. I think their plan was to pay off YB, take a 1/2 share of the Arena and take a charge on the Arena equivalent to 1/2 the payoff if not more... but we won't know unless it all comes out in the courts we will.

 

[Godiva]

Yeah, right they would pay ACL's debt of for free, pull the other one.

It certainly doesn't seem likely does it.. I think their plan was to pay off YB, take a 1/2 share of the Arena and take a charge on the Arena equivalent to 1/2 the payoff if not more... but we won't know unless it all comes out in the courts we will.

Why pay off one charge only to replace it with another???

And it does make sense to buy out the mortgage and discharge it all together as long as they obtained the Higgs shares AND if the lease was extended to 125 years. That would increase the value of the shares of both ccc and the club part of ACL.
If you don't believe me - ask an accountant.

 

[Astute]

Why pay off one charge only to replace it with another???

And it does make sense to buy out the mortgage and discharge it all together as long as they obtained the Higgs shares AND if the lease was extended to 125 years. That would increase the value of the shares of both ccc and the club part of ACL.
If you don't believe me - ask an accountant.

My eldest daughter is an accountant. She agrees that the value would go up, but this is for who owns the lease. The leasehold would be worth nearly as much as the freehold.

The major problem is as she said......who would own the leasehold.......the club or SISU?

 

[Godiva]

My eldest daughter is an accountant. She agrees that the value would go up, but this is for who owns the lease. The leasehold would be worth nearly as much as the freehold.

The major problem is as she said......who would own the leasehold.......the club or SISU?

ACL would continue to own the lease. ACL would be owned 50% by ccc and 50% by the club.

So here's the scenario: sisu buy out the mortgage (and discharge it) from Yorkshire Bank at distressed value - say £5m. They then buy the Higgs shares at their asking price - say £8m. Then finally the lease is extended from 42 years to 125 years.
Ask your daughter if that would all-in-all increase the share value of ACL - that is ccc's 50% as well as the clubs 50%.

 

[bigfatronssba]

My eldest daughter is an accountant. She agrees that the value would go up, but this is for who owns the lease. The leasehold would be worth nearly as much as the freehold.

The major problem is as she said......who would own the leasehold.......the club or SISU?

Even if the club did own it, having a valuable lease might make the club more valuable, but that would have no impact on what goes on at pitch level. It wouldn't generate any extra income for the club.

Sounds like the old hedge fund trick we've seen before in David Bell's ridiculous contract.

 

[Astute]

ACL would continue to own the lease. ACL would be owned 50% by ccc and 50% by the club.

So here's the scenario: sisu buy out the mortgage (and discharge it) from Yorkshire Bank at distressed value - say £5m. They then buy the Higgs shares at their asking price - say £8m. Then finally the lease is extended from 42 years to 125 years.
Ask your daughter if that would all-in-all increase the share value of ACL - that is ccc's 50% as well as the clubs 50%.

It would only have a proper value at time of sale. It would only be worth what someone would be willing to pay and the owner would sell for.

 

[Godiva]

It would only have a proper value at time of sale. It would only be worth what someone would be willing to pay and the owner would sell for.

well, that could be said about all the sisu loans as well, but it's not quite true.
But take the parties one by one:

Higgs would get out at the price they ask and free some £8m to do good in the city.
CCC would not have had to bail out ACL but would instead have an increased value of their shareholdings.
CCFC would own half the stadium and have access to all year income streams. That would benefit the shareholders as the asset value would go up as well as the club as they would increase the FFP budget.

In case the club got promoted at some point the value of the club would increase greatly as long as the operation was kept at break even or at a small profit.
That means it would be easier for the owners to regain their investment should a buyer come along. That is the reason it would be the club owning the part of ACL and not sisu.
Selling either without the other would not be possible as it would create the scenario that is bankrupting the club these years.

 

[grego_gee]

well, that could be said about all the sisu loans as well, but it's not quite true.
But take the parties one by one:

Higgs would get out at the price they ask and free some £8m to do good in the city.
CCC would not have had to bail out ACL but would instead have an increased value of their shareholdings.
CCFC would own half the stadium and have access to all year income streams. That would benefit the shareholders as the asset value would go up as well as the club as they would increase the FFP budget.

In case the club got promoted at some point the value of the club would increase greatly as long as the operation was kept at break even or at a small profit.
That means it would be easier for the owners to regain their investment should a buyer come along. That is the reason it would be the club owning the part of ACL and not sisu.
Selling either without the other would not be possible as it would create the scenario that is bankrupting the club these years.

It could possibly be that is all SISU are asking for!
The last line of the CCLSC minutes reads
" It could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012."

imp:

 

[Godiva]

It could possibly be that is all SISU are asking for!
The last line of the CCLSC minutes reads
" It could all be OK if ACL go back to the terms agreed in August 2012."

imp:

Yes - and as that scenario is a win for everyone ... except Yorkshire Bank, it really is the most credible scenario there is.
But WHO scuppered the deal and why? That is the most important question the Trust can ask. Who pursuaded the council to walk away from the plan and even take on the £14m bail out leaving all parties to lose except if a new buyer was found to take over the club.
Those who capsized the plan are the real villains.

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

Do we, err...look at this bigger picture "through the square window of positivity" by any chance? :thinking about:

That's a Fisherism, in case everybody's forgotten it. If "Play School" had been presented by a corporate spiv....

 

[James Smith]

Well Godiva you're assuming a hell of a lot there, including that the council were complicit with the plan to distress ACL. We don't know that as fact we only have Tim saying that they were and as I said before, he has yet to produce the evidence. It could be that the council just decided that SISU were people they couldn't do business with assuming that Tim is correct.

 

[Godiva]

Well Godiva you're assuming a hell of a lot there, including that the council were complicit with the plan to distress ACL. We don't know that as fact we only have Tim saying that they were and as I said before, he has yet to produce the evidence. It could be that the council just decided that SISU were people they couldn't do business with assuming that Tim is correct.

It's not just that Fischer has told us - it's the fact they have produced evidence to the court to consider. That is not something anyone do lightly and unfounded.
And again - the plan was a win for all parties. Who made sure that plan did not succeed?

Who would gain anything from capsizing the plan?
Not Higgs.
Not CCC.
Not the club.
Not sisu.
So please tell me ... who????

 

[Deleted member 5849]

tbf the court has yet to consider it, and could just throw it out without even a case heard.

 

[Godiva]

tbf the court has yet to consider it, and could just throw it out without even a case heard.

That's true but I hope not. We may never in any case learn all the facts, but it would be interesting to hear what a judge would have to say.