Grendel
Well-Known Member
The offering was not because they were a charity status.
Mean while back in court (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter sotonskyblue
- Start date
The offering was not because they were a charity status.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Except in an interview with cwr PWKH said they'd be selling to wasps - before details of the revised CCFC bid was even made public.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
So what ? I would think the details of the ccfc bid were available to them prior to them being made public wouldn't you
Astute
Well-Known Member
Are you accusing SISU of lying?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh come on you know as well as I do that the deal to purchase was for 100% of ACL - wasps wouldn't have considered buying 50%. The deal was done and the antics afterwards were just paid circus act as I assume some lawyer said to follow procedure do this. They were selling to wasps regardless.
Astute
Well-Known Member
They were after a stadium of their own so would guess that it was 100% or nothing.
Nick
Administrator
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The £2 million was an offer to purchase. I hardly think the revenue would have considered it a legitimate charitable donation do you?
It was a throwaway line - the point though was valid. The half share was worthless - wasps wouldn't have paid a dime for it - that's why they secured the council share first.
Astute
Well-Known Member
A quick question for you.
If you owned something that you had no use for and was costing you time and money would you look at getting rid of it?
If so if someone kept taking the piss out of you and was costing you even more time and money would you look for another buyer?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
They weren't selling to Wasps when they were selling to SISU which is what I am talking about.
When SISU offered 2 million fur something worth nothing because Higgs are a charity.
The silly games back then cost us dear.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Throwaway line?
So if one share is worthless so is the other. So are you trying to say that Wasps paid millions too much?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
According to the council it wasn't costing time and money.
PWKH bragged on here CCFC wouldn't be missed as it was only 17% of turnover
One certain former ACL employee once said he'd rather the club were not there as it was preventing the stadium from becoming a major force in the entertainment industry
I can't recall anyone from ACL the council or Higgs saying they needed the football club there.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Must have done according to SISU as they would never have done the deal Wasps didThrowaway line?
So if one share is worthless so is the other. So are you trying to say that Wasps paid millions too much?
Even though hadn't the business doubled in value just by having a bit of security and a pet many anchor tenant not playing games.
How much is ACL valued at these days?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Throwaway line?
So if one share is worthless so is the other. So are you trying to say that Wasps paid millions too much?
Is that a serious post?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
and SISU said get on with it we wont interfere in the CCC sale then put in a bid for the charity shares that came across as just being able to say "well we tried"
What I said was that PWKH probably had the details of the CCFC bid well before the CCFC bid went public
Of course the deal had been negotiated didn't say it hadn't.
The judges said that the deal between AEHC & SISU had previously broken down irretrievably nothing I can see that would have improved that since, in fact the various actions only damaged any potential for a deal. But then SISU only had nearly 6 years by 2014 to get the club sorted and a deal done, they were not blameless in that failing to happen
What I said was that PWKH probably had the details of the CCFC bid well before the CCFC bid went public
Of course the deal had been negotiated didn't say it hadn't.
The judges said that the deal between AEHC & SISU had previously broken down irretrievably nothing I can see that would have improved that since, in fact the various actions only damaged any potential for a deal. But then SISU only had nearly 6 years by 2014 to get the club sorted and a deal done, they were not blameless in that failing to happen
Grendel
Well-Known Member
ACL valuation? Haven't a clue. Have you?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying sisu are blameless but let's not kid ourselves. The council made the sale and Higgs would have to take their lead.
The Higgs association to the club has in my view been significantly weakened since the demise of Derek Higgs anyway. The current occupant of the role showed far less interest in the club.
If the charity had a significant interest in the club and the council had a similar outlook it's not inconceivable they could have held firm forced the club to stay at Northampton and then offered fan all or nothing deal of £5.7 million.
Astute
Well-Known Member
So you say that they use throwaway lines when giving evidence in court. Seriously?
Both shares had the same value. Full ownership could only be obtained with both shares. The same amount was paid for both shares.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Here's where the rebalancing comes in, however.
I don't think anybody claims they were. Ranson, after all, said the stadium wasn't a priority when he came in - nobody was bothered about owning the stadium when it was a quick gamble. In fact the issues here stretch back to pre-SISU- when McGinnity did his own PR (guess for McGinnity, scare quotes here would have been appropriate!) and had a chat with me 'between these four walls' he was very vague about how the club *would* own the stadium, whilst being patently unable to answer any of my questions about how... or indeed *why* we'd want to own ACL as it stood. This part continued under SISU.
However, it's also safe to say that there was no *need* for CCC to sell the stadium, or even entertain the thought of selling it, before this all blew up. It's safe to say they've all shown themselves remarkably inflexible and... short-sighted and, sad to say, actions since have suggested nobody's learned from that either.
So what it probably boils down to (with, admittedly, some benefit of hindsight, if not all) is that the setup of club and ground was inevitably only going to attract somebody along the lines of SISU, somebody who had no interest in the infrastructure and foundations of what they were dealing with. In effect, the relative setups encouraged SISU. The horror, of course, is that the setups as they are now probably encourage... a SISU equivalent, if ever SISU bog off, or well-meaning nutcases.
You'd think we'd learn.
Astute
Well-Known Member
With a big loan in place that SISU wouldn't take on.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So it wasn't a purchase bid then it was a charitable donation?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The biggest damage done to the Charity interest in CCFC was the abrasive day to day relationship they had with SISU in my opinion. In the end whether CCC had structured the deal with Wasps or not the Trustees just wanted out and away from the grief it was causing
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No they are not. No one would consider 50% of purchase in any way shape or form half the value as the value is in owning strategic direction and planning. Ownership gives total autonomy in decisions. This was an arrangement where the council effectively controlled all the strategy. On their own the charity shares gave ownership to a liability and ironically the terms would still mean the club could be charged £1.3 million rent and the owners of the club who owned half of ACL couldn't change that.
So no on their own they were worthless.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
A lot of this discussion would not be taking place if CCFC had been offered the same deal as Wasps. In addition if they had been and they still declined - fans would be far more united on this matter and CCC wouldn't be getting anywhere near the amount of animosity they do.
They were not - and this was a conscious choice made by CCC.
They were not - and this was a conscious choice made by CCC.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes by the end they did. However they did at one point say that fisher and co were good people to deal with. The latest incumbent does in my opinion view the club and the sport in general very differently to the predecessor.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
I would agree that's definitely where it ended up.
I'd also suggest that early on, the will was there for the charity to get out, but CCC were not so keen. There's enough reading between the lines to suggest that CCC were happy to veto any deal done between charity and CCFC.
Of course, from the charity's POV they absolutely *need* CCC onside as much as the football club do, so it's hardly surprising that when it comes to taking sides, they'd head for that of CCC. They can't function without them, after all.
Now the sensible policial stategy of football club would have probably been to keep charity close, so at least there'd have been a two-pronged push against CCC. What SISU don't do, though, is politics.
Another reason why SISU and council are stupid bedfellows for one another in the first place!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The loan wasn't taken on by wasps at the point of purchase. Are you saying they was a pre condition of the actual purchase?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which is of course bollocks.
If SISU had have entered into negotiations with CCC they to would have had a confidentiality agreement. It's standard. The problem is that SISU didn't enter into negotiations despite being publicly invited to do so. You can't really blame anyone else but SISU for that. Why people keep trying is unbelievable to me.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It's not a popular view, but of course the only reason they ended up involved with the football club at all is because Derek Higgs was part of a board that catastrophically ran the club into the ground.
You could certainly make a case that his closeness to Robinson and the club impaired his judgement...
Astute
Well-Known Member
So they took over ACL but not the debt? If what you are saying is true why did they pay the loan off?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid it's you talking the bollocks here. Were CCFC offered the same deal and the same terms as Wasps were offered? Yes or no?
Were Wasps given a preferential deal to that which had previously been negotiated by CCC and CCFC before it fell apart?
You could well argue that maybe they were the better negotiators - but at the same time they were given concessions that the club never got the opportunity to have.
You can blame SISU for contributing to the farce in the way they behaved, but how you can defend the position of CCC is inexcusable.
Astute
Well-Known Member
As you know SISU refused to negotiate. SISU also wouldn't take on the loan. But some like to ignore these points.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I think if they had been offered the deal that Wasps got they would have snapped it up.. it was a deal of the century.
They only said they wouldn't take on the loan after the deal was done.
In the same way I would think my girlfriend was an ugly slag if she dumped me for another bloke.
