Ricoh (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 25, 2013

If the Higgs formula was that simple, why was there such a large cost attached to an independent valuation of it?

shmmeee said:
At the back of all this is the slight worry were just not sustainable as a club, in which case put us down cos I don't want to hang around for years watching it die on life support.

This is where I'm with you, although if we're not sustainable as is,shouldn't we be grateful for small mercies that at least this brings it to a head one way or another, rather than sell to someone else who makes promises, followed by failure, followed by a league decline, followed by a bit more apathy....

shmmeee · Aug 25, 2013

theferret said:
It was 50% of ACL - which 50% has not been made clear, but I suspect it was probably a buy out of the council owned stake which was valued at £14 million in effect. I'm not sure how they were trying to distress ACL - the bank were about for foreclose and they offered to settle the mortgage in full. Seems a fair offer to me?

You're right I misread it.

In which case how can CCC offer Higgs shares? Otherwise how would CCC end up owning half?

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

shmmeee said:
You're right I misread it.

In which case how can CCC offer Higgs shares? Otherwise how would CCC end up owning half?

SISU went after the council owned shares, it was opportunism. Taking up the Higgs option would have given them a 50% share in a company that would still have owed the bank £14 million.

By paying a bit more and offering to pay off the mortgage they instead would have had 50% of a company that owed the bank nothing, and then presumably would still have had the option to buy out Higgs at some later point, given them complete ownership of ACL on an extended lease.

skybluetony176 · Aug 25, 2013

theferret said:
Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:

"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."

"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."

"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

mmm statements from fishface, must be true then. just remind me how many did he say would follow the club to Northampton? 500/600 or was it in the 1000's?

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
mmm statements from fishface, must be true then. just remind me how many did he say would follow the club to Northampton? 500/600 or was it in the 1000's?

Why are you responding to a post you haven't read? I clearly said that I have no idea if it is true, but the fact is there has never been a whiff of a denial from ACL or CCC. Why not? They're not exactly averse to releasing angry, finger-pointing statements. My guess, is that there is not a denial because it is true and the signed document exists, but I am willing to concede the lack of comment might be due to legal issues surrounding the JR, but I doubt it.

Buster · Aug 25, 2013

Deleted member 5849 said:
a) the value of the Higgs share wasn't agreed years ago, a formula to determine the value was agreed... and also a formula to determine the value of half of ACL.

b) That could also be vetoed by the council. It would (have been/be) nice if somebody had got a definitive answer out of the council as to whether or not they would have vetoed any deal (I must find that quote btw. Give me an hour of very boringly reading various peoples' posts, as it's not coming up on the search);

c) I'm really not convinced half a stadium management company is a great deal. Never have been, even from when it was planned to be built (was agaionst the club signing over the rights to it at the time, seen nothing yet to suggest I was wrong!). Seems I'm not alone in that either, as Ranson decided the option wasn't worth taking up. I find the whole concept of football club not owning football stadiumn rather incongruous tbh. It works in other countries, but in this country there's far more a culture of ownership that teams depend on.

Regarding your point c, does this not point to the principal that SISU follow is to borrow money on the stadium to sponsor past debts and to maintain team . When debts are built up again the whole lot will fall like a house of cards. Why can't we have a good product ( on the pitch) happy customers (us) and a steady build up with no debts and owners who want long term involvement ,not a quick killing . That idea has certainly gone tits up with this lot

skybluetony176 · Aug 25, 2013

theferret said:
Why are you responding to a post you haven't read? I clearly said that I have no idea if it is true, but the fact is there has never been a whiff of a denial from ACL or CCC. Why not? They're not exactly averse to releasing angry, finger-pointing statements. My guess, is that there is not a denial because it is true and the signed document exists, but I am willing to concede the lack of comment might be due to legal issues surrounding the JR, but I doubt it.

why are you assuming i was having a dig at you. all i'm doing is pointing out that if fishface is full off shit, as i said in another post if these signed documents existed i'm sure their would have been a law suit by now as this is sisu's form in all their business dealings not just when it concerns ccfc.

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

skybluetony176 said:
why are you assuming i was having a dig at you. all i'm doing is pointing out that if fishface is full off shit, as i said in another post if these signed documents existed i'm sure their would have been a law suit by now as this is sisu's form in all their business dealings not just when it concerns ccfc.

Fair enough.

It wasn't a binding contract though, that much is clear. Just a headline agreement.

James Smith · Aug 25, 2013

theferret said:
Below are quotes from TF. Obviously, the fact he said it doesn't make it true, but he has repeated this many times and has been very specific. If it didn't happen like this, why have ACL and CCC never issued a denial? This what he said:

"We made an incredibly generous offer. ACL’s bankers were willing to support the offer which would have stopped them from foreclosing on ACL and which would have left ACL debt free, while the council’s deal has not. For reasons which are beyond us, the council then spent £14m of public money to take over as ACL’s bankers and, hence, terminated discussions."

"A deal was on the table in December last year – reached without expensive advisers – which would have provided a viable commercial solution for ACL and the club, but ACL declined it and went on to launch a series of legal measures using two law firms."

"In an attempt to put both the club and ACL on a sound financial footing we had a series of meetings in 2012 aimed at resolving the financial difficulties facing both parties.

"As part of this, we reached agreement with the council to buy out the ACL debt in return for a half share in the stadium business and extension of ACL’s lease to 125 years, which means it remain 100 per cent council-owned – we would just access the revenues, which is crucial. This deal was documented, signed by all parties and then reneged on by the council. The council made the problem even worse by then using public funds, something that is now subject to the judicial review proceedings."

"We need to be very clear that this is not about ownership of the freehold in the stadium which would have continued to be held by the council, with the club taking back the 50 per cent interest in head-leaseholder ACL which it was always intended to have."

As Skybluetony176 has said if Tim has this/these signed agreement/agreements why haven't we seen it/them, that would have silenced the council and possibly got more people to attend at Sixfields. Even if it was just a note on council headed paper signed by everyone saying we agree to distress ACL that would be something. Maybe he's put them with the plans for the White Elephant stadium and just can't find them now, as we've seen neither?

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

James Smith said:
If Tim has this/these signed agreement/agreements why haven't we seen it/them, that would have silenced the council and possibly got more people to attend at Sixfields. Maybe he's put them with the plans for the White Elephant stadium and just can't find them now, as we've seen neither?

What? The council haven't denied any of it, so why would he need to? If they did, then I might reasonably ask the same question, but they haven't and I suspect never will because it probably happened. You don't need to silence people who aren't making any noise.

shmmeee · Aug 25, 2013

James Smith said:
As Skybluetony176 has said if Tim has this/these signed agreement/agreements why haven't we seen it/them, that would have silenced the council and possibly got more people to attend at Sixfields. Even if it was just a note on council headed paper signed by everyone saying we agree to distress ACL that would be something. Maybe he's put them with the plans for the White Elephant stadium and just can't find them now, as we've seen neither?

theferret said:
What? The council haven't denied any of it, so why would he need to? If they did, then I might reasonably ask the same question, but they haven't and I suspect never will because it probably happened. You don't need to silence people who aren't making any noise.

To be fair neither side can really talk about this (I think, correct me if I'm wrong Fisher revealed it before the JR was lodged). So you can't really hang either side for not revealing more.

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

shmmeee said:
To be fair neither side can really talk about this (I think, correct me if I'm wrong Fisher revealed it before the JR was lodged). So you can't really hang either side for not revealing more.

No, TF spoke about it after it was lodged, he makes reference to the JR is the quotes I posted. The JR deals with the £14 million bail-out specifically not the events that led up to it.

shmmeee · Aug 25, 2013

theferret said:
No, TF spoke about it after it was lodged, he makes reference to the JR is the quotes I posted. The JR deals with the £14 million bail-out specifically not the events that led up to it.

Ill take your word for it. Personally I believe it happened as described, and the lack of comment would pretty much confirm that.

Would still like to know exactly what they'd be getting. Was it the Higgs shares?

theferret · Aug 25, 2013

shmmeee said:
Ill take your word for it. Personally I believe it happened as described, and the lack of comment would pretty much confirm that.

Would still like to know exactly what they'd be getting. Was it the Higgs shares?

I think it was the council owned stake - buying the Higgs share would have just given them 50% of a company with a big mortgage around its neck. Buying the council half by paying off that mortgage would have given a half stake in a company with no debt and the option to buy the other 50% at some future point. That is my reading of it, and this is why they went cold on the Higgs deal.

mark82 · Aug 25, 2013

RFC said:
Prefer the atmosphere at Sixfields, much, much better than the Ricoh and the players are responding accordingly IMHO!
PUSB - PUSB - PUSB - PUSB

Support Northampton then! Surely you should want Coventry to return to Coventry.

Ricoh (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

Buster

Well-Known Member

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

theferret

Well-Known Member

mark82

Super Moderator

Users who are viewing this thread

Ricoh (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

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

Super Moderator

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency