Did SISU not look at ACL's books and say they were not viable and not worth buying?
Wow so if they can only get 50 million for all that.
What would we get for a 12k stadium no hotel and the rest
Much of the debts will have been written off with limited and holding being liquidated. That's the debts that was kept on the books from before sisu took over.
OSB made a post a month ago about it.
The debt left that is actually making an impact is the debt to ARVO as that is carrying interest. I think that amounts to some £12m.
JS said the debts to the original funds had been written of in the funds accounts, which means that can be bought at a much reduced value.
I thought the football related debt was around £10 million. The rest will have been written off.
You are getting confused between the debt in Otium and the group debt in SBS&L, which is more like £35M.
No I am not - keep reading.
You are getting confused between the debt in Otium and the group debt in SBS&L, which is more like £35M.
Written off, LOL inaccurate & misleading statement with zero evidence to back it up, no wonder no one pays much heed to what you say.
They did due diligence on ACL and apparently found it wasn't worth paying the set formula price for the Higgs shares. Since then ACL did some cost cutting and business development exercises that kind of imply sisu were right?
Funny thing is if sisu had bought the ACL mortgage at distressed value they might have got a discount big enough to justify paying Higgs over the top for their shares.
If that happens do ARVO then need to recoup as much of 8 million that they can?
They can probably cover about £2M, selling Ryton, golden share & players. That is all.
They did due diligence on ACL and apparently found it wasn't worth paying the set formula price for the Higgs shares. Since then ACL did some cost cutting and business development exercises that kind of imply sisu were right?
Funny thing is if sisu had bought the ACL mortgage at distressed value they might have got a discount big enough to justify paying Higgs over the top for their shares.
They did due diligence on ACL and apparently found it wasn't worth paying the set formula price for the Higgs shares. Since then ACL did some cost cutting and business development exercises that kind of imply sisu were right?
Funny thing is if sisu had bought the ACL mortgage at distressed value they might have got a discount big enough to justify paying Higgs over the top for their shares.
But that would have meant two parties (Sisu and the Council) conspiring to damage a the business of a third party (Yorkshire Bank or ACL), and that according to Mark Labovitch is illegal.
So how could Sisu have done this whilst staying on the right side of the law?
But why should they continue to do so - should they put in another £Xm per year when those £Xm could just as well come from the turnover ACL already generate?
How much is the ACL revenue? I can't remember. Is it forecast at £13m for this fiscal year? That would really expand our FFP potential.
Do u roughly what the set formula price was?
That crossed my mind.
I assume if the council state that this us the reason they stepped away from any deal with SISU. I think Joy has publicly admitted this plan. Is that not a defence against the JR?
In my opinion it is SISU's fault we are not playing at the Ricoh and as a result of that we have a huge drop in revenue which they should make up. If the revenue isn't high enough then there's a very simple solution to that problem.
Not sure what you're suggesting with ACL's revenue, are you suggesting ACL revenues are run through CCFC for FFP purposes? Didn't SISU reject an offer that included that happening? If you mean the actual revenue should go to the club then surely they need to purchase that back. The Higgs 50% share includes all match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues so that seems an easy solution to that problem.
I don't think it was ever public but was generally accepted to be around £10m. I think I'm right in saying SISU offered around half that, Higgs accepted and never heard from SISU again.
So buying it for 7 million instead of 10 million.
All this over three million. Which I would hazard a guess if they lose the JR plus the loses of one season in Sixfields will probably be three million.
Well done SISU
I can't get to sleep
Do u roughly what the set formula price was?
In my opinion it is SISU's fault we are not playing at the Ricoh and as a result of that we have a huge drop in revenue which they should make up. If the revenue isn't high enough then there's a very simple solution to that problem.
Not sure what you're suggesting with ACL's revenue, are you suggesting ACL revenues are run through CCFC for FFP purposes? Didn't SISU reject an offer that included that happening? If you mean the actual revenue should go to the club then surely they need to purchase that back. The Higgs 50% share includes all match day revenues and 50% of all other revenues so that seems an easy solution to that problem.
I don't think it was ever public but was generally accepted to be around £10m. I think I'm right in saying SISU offered around half that, Higgs accepted and never heard from SISU again.
A one off payment of ten million would have led to 13 million for FFP purposes year upon year.
What were SISU aiming to pick it up for instead of spending 10 million, if the what sounds (to a layman) the somewhat unethical plan went ahead?
It's not "Chrstal Clear" but in the Trust q+a
it almost sounds like for clearing the YB loan for £7M. They expected to pick up the HIGGS stake for free
If that is the case you can see why It didn't happen
EitherCCC would have to settle with HIGGS should CCC wish to retain Its stake or HIGGS step aside for nowt
Sounds outlandish but how it reads, unless there is some unmentioned nuance.
I do not believe it was ever the intention to acquire the Higgs shares for free. I think it was always the idea that Higgs would be paid at least what they originally invested.
[If it's proven that SISU were going to buy a share of ACL and CCC wrecked the deal, will you still blame SISU for taking us away, or accept that the Council never wanted an equal partner?]
The middle sentence I've copied and pasted from knowl on GMK.
I would still like clarity about my Initial post that led to your response,will revisit Trust Q+A.
[If it's proven that SISU were going to buy a share of ACL and CCC wrecked the deal, will you still blame SISU for taking us away, or accept that the Council never wanted an equal partner?]
The middle sentence I've copied and pasted from knowl on GMK.
that's exactly what's been said. CCc and sisu were going to loan acl the 14m loan 50:50 and it is sisu contention that ccc went and did it aloneWhat an odd stance to take, how could that ever justify everything SISU have done? Let's for a minute say that SISU wanted to buy the Higgs share of ACL and were blocked by the council (bearing in mind the information currently available to us suggests SISU walked away having agreed a HOT and the council have stated no veto has ever been used) then how are these tactics acceptable? Why not just issue a statement saying the club tried to purchase 50% of ACL but were blocked by the council as a first step? You get all the fans supporting SISU and putting pressure on the council. Would that not be an obvious and very cheap thing to do?
that's exactly what's been said. CCc and sisu were going to loan acl the 14m loan 50:50 and it is sisu contention that ccc went and did it alone
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?