Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

SkyBlueZack · May 19, 2016

martcov said:
it is not always clever to report confidentual talks in the newspapers.

Unless it's a meeting between Joy and AL in which Joy requests it to be confidential but it's leaked to the papers? I get it. Hypocrisy.

oldskyblue58 · May 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
If the council issued the original lease to ACL without a clause that any insolvency event reverts ownership back to the council some very serious questions need to be asked about their incompetence.

The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new lease

martcov · May 19, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Unless it's a meeting between Joy and AL in which Joy requests it to be confidential but it's leaked to the papers? I get it. Hypocrisy.

Same shit, different bucket you mean.

martcov · May 19, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
Why has there never been serious questions why a 50 year lease was originally granted? Which effectively hamstrung both ACL and the football club.

Good point. The best time would have been at the take over by SISU. They could have 250 year lease or your tenant dies ( figuratively speaking ).

SkyBlueZack · May 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new lease

So as I have mentioned before there would have been an open bidding process for ACL in administration. The only people to lose anything being YB. I acknowledge the charity losing their share. Can someone tell me why this was such a devastating option? Other than SISU might have bought it. It seems to be the only logical explanation. I for one don't care if a bank loses a few quid.

SkyBlueZack · May 19, 2016

martcov said:
Good point. The best time would have been at the take over by SISU. They could have 250 year lease or your tenant dies ( figuratively speaking ).

Ahhhhh but this was at the same point SISU were only approved as they weren't interested in the stadium. Shapiro and Manhattan were and got no where. So whilst in theory you're right, the evidence would appear to say otherwise.

Nick · May 19, 2016

martcov said:
Good point. The best time would have been at the take over by SISU. They could have 250 year lease or your tenant dies ( figuratively speaking ).

You mean like when the council laughed at the Shapiro offer to buy the Ricoh and "scared" the Manhatten group off by their talks about the Ricoh?

chiefdave · May 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
The CCFC lease didn't revert back to ACL until it was disclaimed by the liquidator. Administration is an insolvency event yes but the courts wont enact any related reclaim clause if there is a possibility of selling the company. Once there is no such possibility or reason to keep the company then a liquidator gets appointed and the lease disclaimed. At that point there is no lease and the freeholder is open to offers for a new lease

I haven't seen the actual lease so I don't know what was in it but as we are repeatedly told it is an asset of the city I would expect a clause to force forfeiture should any insolvency event occur.

oldskyblue58 · May 19, 2016

SkyBlueZack said:
So as I have mentioned before there would have been an open bidding process for ACL in administration. The only people to lose anything being YB. I acknowledge the charity losing their share. Can someone tell me why this was such a devastating option? Other than SISU might have bought it. It seems to be the only logical explanation. I for one don't care if a bank loses a few quid.

Only thoughts........

in theory to bid on ACL you would be buying the other debts too and the shares would have sold for £1. But as investors and owners CCC & AEHC didn't have to choose that path and if they were aware of other tangible interest had other options. It would have meant the shareholders would have lost control of the asset in a way they had no control of and therefore could not put in caveats as to use and development. It may also have meant some of the grants having to be repaid (buts only a thought not a fact)

The bank would have lost out, CCC would have lost out, AEHC would have lost out, Creditors would have lost out, employees would have lost out.

It is not certain SISU would have gained ownership, I would guess plenty of other parties would have been interested in acquiring then long leasing to CCFC

Of course at that time SISU were repeatedly insisting that unencumbered freehold was what they wanted. CCC, AEHC and ACL were also being advised (including by Yorkshire Bank) that with restructuring there was a viable business there even without CCFC

oldskyblue58 · May 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
I haven't seen the actual lease so I don't know what was in it but as we are repeatedly told it is an asset of the city I would expect a clause to force forfeiture should any insolvency event occur.

I would expect such a clause was included CD but like I said administration does not immediately mean the Freeholder snatches the lease back (on any commercial lease)

chiefdave · May 19, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
I would guess plenty of other parties would have been interested in acquiring

And this is exactly the reason the way CCC conducted the sale was wrong. To maximise return for the taxpayer, and the charity, it should have been properly marketed by a specialist agency.

oldskyblue58 · May 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
And this is exactly the reason the way CCC conducted the sale was wrong. To maximise return for the taxpayer, and the charity, it should have been properly marketed by a specialist agency.

wrong but from what I have seen not illegal

SkyBlueZack · May 19, 2016

Would there not be a penny in the pound kind of offer? Thus reducing the YB loan which was the original plan. Employees would have lost out? Only if the stadium closed? As you said SISU being the only interested party would be unlikely so a takeover/purchase/buy out would secure employees futures? Don't know about the grants but as the Ricoh had been open for a number of years and was 'facing financial difficulties' would they have much chance of getting grants back? Restructing what though? Company structure or financial structure? Do we know if YB ever offered to restructure the loan during the dispute? It does seem strange that if there was a viable business that the loan was not taken out with a market lender so to prevent the whole JR thing.

oldskyblue58 · May 19, 2016

or would you take your chance in ACL being liquidated and get a different set up entirely ....... being the only game in town, it being CCFC hometown etc

The restructuring was both IEC was set up and overheads were cut, staff let go. Drive to obtain more and different income streams etc Bank had seen the restructuring plans and concluded business viable

Legal advice probably said that the risk of successful challenge was low - so far it has proven correct.

CCC and AEHC should not have sold to Wasps but it seems to me the they were the only ones prepared to take on the structure, had a convincing plan as to how to take it forward and a plan to back it financially. Aside from egos and past history it seems to me that's what swung it. But that's just an opinion - mine

oldskyblue58 · May 20, 2016

According to the CT the deadline for an appeal on the JR1 is 4pm today

Nick · May 20, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
According to the CT the deadline for an appeal on the JR1 is 4pm today

Would be too quiet without an Exclusive today surely?

oldskyblue58 · May 20, 2016

Nick said:
Would be too quiet without an Exclusive today surely?

but its not a Thursday!! how dare they mess with the order of things :jawdrop:

Nick · May 20, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
but its not a Thursday!! how dare they mess with the order of things :jawdrop:

The Gilbert / Reid willy wave is a 24/7 activity!

Nick · May 20, 2016

Apparently applying for permission to appeal.

It is like some weird sort of self harm where they like being punched or something.

torchomatic · May 20, 2016

How fucking stupid.

Nick · May 20, 2016

Can just imagine the conversation...

SISU : Do we have a chance?
SISU Lawyers: Of course, 10 of us, 100 hours, £1000 an hour, piece of piss

oldskyblue58 · May 20, 2016

sadly it is not unexpected is it

This quite literally will go on for years.

Hardly engenders a positive relationship with CCC when the club need it to be. Yes I know you could say CCC should make a positive move towards the club but very hard to see that happening when the clubs owners are so set on court action at every turn

Both as stubborn as each other but the SISU insistence on taking everything to court has got to the level beyond ridiculous now

Kingokings204 · May 20, 2016

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-city-fc-owners-appeal-11364456

It will never end this nightmare

oldfiver · May 20, 2016

oldskyblue58 said:
sadly it is not unexpected is it

This quite literally will go on for years.

Hardly engenders a positive relationship with CCC when the club need it to be. Yes I know you could say CCC should make a positive move towards the club but very hard to see that happening when the clubs owners are so set on court action at every turn

Both as stubborn as each other but the SISU insistence on taking everything to court has got to the level beyond ridiculous now

chiefdave · May 20, 2016

They can't think they're going to just pressure the council out so why keep going?

Unless they think they can win it what do they stand to gain?

Kingokings204 · May 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
They can't think they're going to just pressure the council out so why keep going?

Unless they think they can win it what do they stand to gain?

A lucky break, puts more pressure and time on ccc. More time for things to happen.

It's sill nonsensical. Why just give away your money. This is why people hate sisu. They don't do themselves favors in my opinion. Doesn't put them higher in my estimation. It drags ccfc down further so why would I be happy about this?

Kingokings204 · May 20, 2016

This high legal bills could be spent on the team in a piss poor league.

Just saying

James Smith · May 20, 2016

We passed the

"Pack it in Frank you silly bastard"

stage a while ago. As OSB58 says, they ain't finished yet despite first one Judge and then another three telling them what they don't want to hear. I was hoping that we'd be able to concentrate on the football now not the court cases, guess not.

chiefdave · May 20, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Why just give away your money

Kingokings204 said:
This high legal bills could be spent on the team in a piss poor league.

Wonder if they are actually spending much. If they have an in-house legal team or counsel on retainer it might not be costing them all that much.

Personally think there's zero chance that the playing budget would increase without legal action.

James Smith · May 20, 2016

chiefdave said:
Wonder if they are actually spending much. If they have an in-house legal team or counsel on retainer it might not be costing them all that much.

Personally think there's zero chance that the playing budget would increase without legal action.

I doubt that they're on a no win no fee deal. Can't imagine anyone would take that risk. Didn't someone say before that the legal action was being bankrolled by Sisu and not the Club?

Kingokings204 · May 20, 2016

James Smith said:
I doubt that they're on a no win no fee deal. Can't imagine anyone would take that risk. Didn't someone say before that the legal action was being bankrolled by Sisu and not the Club?

Maybe that's the problem if it was funded by the club it was Would be easier to justify to stop.

No way is this cheap legal action. No such thing and sisu are paying ccc costs as well so it's a double cost. Why? It's beyond me

Grendel · May 20, 2016

Kingokings204 said:
Maybe that's the problem if it was funded by the club it was Would be easier to justify to stop.

No way is this cheap legal action. No such thing and sisu are paying ccc costs as well so it's a double cost. Why? It's beyond me

I would guess that the costs are funded by investment funds. In truth this would be a tiny tiny percentage of the total portfolio - its like someone buying a lottery ticket and hoping to win millions but better (arguably) in that Sisu will say they have experience in this. Think about it - if you are an investment manager in a Billion pound fund and were approached to put 0.001% in for an opportunity to quadruple the investment would you?

All speculation but I suspect these actions cost the actual owners of Sisu and the club nothing

Kingokings204 · May 20, 2016

Grendel said:
I would guess that the costs are funded by investment funds. In truth this would be a tiny tiny percentage of the total portfolio - its like someone buying a lottery ticket and hoping to win millions but better (arguably) in that Sisu will say they have experience in this. Think about it - if you are an investment manager in a Billion pound fund and were approached to put 0.001% in for an opportunity to quadruple the investment would you?

All speculation but I suspect these actions cost the actual owners of Sisu and the club nothing

True Grendel we have been told that sisu funds this and is completely separate to the club but it's still hard to take. When is 2 year we are homeless and we need to get something sorted one way or the other.

skybluetony176 · May 22, 2016

Grendel said:
All speculation but I suspect these actions cost the actual owners of Sisu and the club nothing

Depends on your definition of cost.

RegTheDonk · May 23, 2016

Probably, but if they're that flush why don't they just build the new fucking stadium, get the revenues they reckon are needed so badly, and make the dough over the long term - instead of pissing about and having a product that is reducing is value and fanbase every year.

Mean while back in court (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

CCFC Finance Director

Administrator

CCFC Finance Director

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency