fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's not just that, the fact he's performed something for you and you've paid it constitutes a contract. Contract is just another word for agreement.
Correct.
I run a little business with a good mate of mine. We have no written contract. We trust each other. Everything is in his name. But if for some unknown reason something went wrong between us I wouldn't have the written proof. But what I do have is the financial trail.
Correct.
I run a little business with a good mate of mine. We have no written contract. We trust each other. Everything is in his name. But if for some unknown reason something went wrong between us I wouldn't have the written proof. But what I do have is the financial trail.
Presumably they've fixed that issue with Wasps? :thinking about:
Wasps didn't purchase the existing lease though did they. They purchased the shares of ACL which had a net value including the existing lease all the other assets AND all the liabilities including the loan. It was never ever going to be a similar value to the value of the lease taken in isolation. I know you acknowledge that cd. But why do people keep comparing totally different things and saying but it doesn't read the same, it wont.
no because the lease valuation is for security purposes.
seriously no matter how good a mate he is get something in writing. It is in both your interests to do so. A simple letter written by you both and signed, witnessed, would do. I have a business partner, known him since I was 12, our two families are very close, would trust him with my life .............. but we have a partnership agreement anyway
So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?no because the lease valuation is for security purposes. They took a charge over all the assets including the lease, as any bank would do. That's perfectly normal business practice. No bank would take security over liabilities would they ? that would weaken the lenders security wouldn't it?
Yes you could add shares in but why unless it was a protective measure to stop anyone else getting them, say like ARVO have done. But even they secured their loans first and foremost on the assets of the SBS&L group
The loan already existed in ACL they didn't give a new loan as such, CCC bought out the rights to the loan YB had then varied the terms they had acquired. ACL never repaid the debt nor did it receive funds from CCCi n 2012 it seems to me
.
So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?
2[SUP]nd[/SUP]June 2006 ACL draw down Yorkshire Bank loan £21m to pay lease premium rather than pay annual rent of 1.9m
So if they just secured it on a lease worth say 6.4 but gave them 14. Is that not like a mortgage of 140k on a 60k house? Or is that why they are saying its value is so high to say it was worth 14m?
Doesn't that bring us back to the initial point. How can the lease act as security if it doesn't revert to CCC in the event of ACL going under?
It was pretty much the same in the previous hearings, SISU arguments were often interjected with the Judges saying "thats not relevant" or "this is of no consequence" etc. etc.. so far there is no smoking gun, just a rehash, looks like it is going the same way.. roll on the sequel, that is JR2 in a court room Spring 2017.
Simples, the the judge said the reasons for the rent being withheld are irrelevant, but the CC QC is arguing about the rent being illegally withheld, which is a breach of contract.
because until there is an insolvency event title to the lease is ACL's and business is conducted on a going concern basis until events prove otherwise.
Possibly, but then of course there is the loan window.When will the judges decide on the outcome? is it today.
Who's winning?
Council QC said the council produced a financial forecast to see if ACL could service the council loan without any rent from the football club.
He said another factor to consider was that the tenancy of Wasps had been waiting in the wings for “some time”.
[h=3]wasps "waiting in the wings"[/h]council qc said the council produced a financial forecast to see if acl could service the council loan without any rent from the football club.
He said another factor to consider was that the tenancy of wasps had been waiting in the wings for “some time”.
Justice treacy asks for evidence to show wasps was in the wings at the time of the loan.
Sisu qc says the document with reference to this was from march 2012.
Council qc admits he may have been overdoing it to say it was “in the wings”, “but certainly it had been mentioned”
The loan already existed in ACL they didn't give a new loan as such, CCC bought out the rights to the loan YB had then varied the terms they had acquired. ACL never repaid the debt nor did it receive funds from CCCi n 2013 it seems to me
.
My gut feeling here is, despite there being plenty of shady stuff from CCC, is that this will go against Sisu.
It is clear the council wanted to fuck us, and yeah Sisu deserve it, but the fans deserve so much better from all sides.
My gut feeling here is, despite there being plenty of shady stuff from CCC, is that this will go against Sisu.
It is clear the council wanted to fuck us, and yeah Sisu deserve it, but the fans deserve so much better from all sides.
Which will be swept under the carpet..I suspect you are correct. The council must have known how close to the line they were so would almost certainly have had every little thing checked out and checked again to be safe.
The thing you take from this is the narrative the council is giving in court is very very different from the narative they presented to the media and public.
Would ccc have been so against ccfc having it if wasps weren't there?
I don't think you can say 'the fans' as we were never unified in this. I seem to remember fans representatives urging CCC not to do a deal with the club.
Council QC is now looking at ACL’s revenue streams.
Justice Tomlinson said: “There would have been no revenue from the club for ACL if Sisu hadn’t put any money in. My understanding is that they were entirely dependant on them.”
Mr Goudie responds: “It’s important to note the club had been mismanaged and with better management the financial position would have been less weak. It was on an inevitable downwards trajectory.”
He’s now talking about revenues from “high profile” concerts including Bruce Springsteen and Coldplay - the latter of which seems to have peaked the interest of Justice Floyd.
Sisu QC says there have been some wrong findings of fact with the original High Court judgment.
He points to value of ACL as the most important, as well as the loan value, assumption of profits, the ACL business plan and findings in relation to loan security, policy and subjective hostility.
He says the council had a strong position to acquire the lease if ACL went bust because it was worth more if it went to another leaseholder to create added value, such as it did to Wasps.
He said: “On the Wasps situation, which Mr Goudie said was going along well, first of all it shows the good sense of Sisu’s heads of terms - because it’s in an effect a glorified version of it.
“They got 100 per cent of the lease for 250 years and state aid, followed by a good measure of secondary state aid.”
Which will be swept under the carpet..
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?