D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
The one that benefited the social wellbeing of the city of Coventry.
If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?
If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?
Majority of the money is owed to SISU as ACL has had a payout + escrow account of 1.1 million anywayI still don't believe this is as straight forward as just paying out a couple of million.
Be nice if it was.
IMHO I would say that if CCFC Ltd are to bid then SISU need to put money into CCFC Ltd.
If they do that then the people owed money by Ltd surely get first pick of that money before they can use it to buy the share.
In addition I would also say that who ever owns that share also takes on half the ACL debt.
It would be nice to understand why Sisu are not snapping Higgs hand off if it's clear cut.
It would also be nice to know whether Wasps would like to split ACL with Sisu.
Once bitten, twice shy?
You accept both and continue to negotiate in good faith like grown up business people.If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?
If you have 2 equal offers, 1 company has brought from you before and everything went well, the other company said they wanted to buy from you before, pulled out, tried to destroy you, didn't pay the costs you had accrued as they had agreed and took you to court with a team of 7 lawyers. Which of the 2 offers would you take?
You accept both and continue to negotiate in good faith like grown up business people.
Lets hope that either Higgs have short memories or are more grown up than SISU.
(balloons)
If he puts in one that AEHC finds acceptable then he has the right to a great deal of information subject to NDA's etc.
He has the right anyway as Liquidator of CCFC - but he is then bound by the NDA's
(sense of humour)
Really believe that they should bid for more than wasps and make it public.
How can the council or the charity turn down offer that leads to the charity getting more money.
However it needs to be a straight payment up front deal and a drop the pointless JR deal.
They would have the whole city backing them and probably most the councillors.
Have feeling they will underbid and try a court appeal and cock it all up again though.
(desperate excuses)
(too big a sentence for brackets pal)
Nothing to do with the council anymore.
he has the right to information about CCFC Ltd certainly, he should for instance have the full details of the option in his possession and should know for certain who actually owns the option (physically or beneficially) so there should be no argument about that.
He does not have the right to information about commercial arrangements between the stakeholders of a third party (ACL) unless he has a bid accepted by one of those stakeholders for the sale of their interest to CCFC Ltd. At the moment he doesn't have that acceptance indeed he hasn't even put a bid in. So where in law exactly does he have this right to information on the JV - CCFC Ltd have no part right or interest in the JV, ACL, Wasps, AEHC
It has been completed and is not reliant on anything else - confirmed by the council.
and the assets of CCFC ltd that he has power over are what exactly?
Unless they match or better the deal with Wasps then it is going to be rejected. There is the problem for SISU. They do not actually know the finer details of the Wasps offer to AEHC. Which means they could easily undercook the offer and that's it gone. This is not a bidding war or an auction. The option allows one crack at it get that wrong and that's it gone.
The original JV deal SISU should already have details of from the previous due diligence, if they haven't what the hell were they doing at that time? They could make an offer that matches or betters Wasps subject to disclosure of the revised JV details (if it has been revised at all). Do the ACL stakeholders have to disclose the details of anything at the moment - would have thought they are within their rights not to release anything detailed at the moment. Make an offer subject to disclosure that is of interest and that's different. Is that possible though considering AEHC probably want nothing to do with SISU - so it would have to be a better offer to make them have to consider it
I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.
As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.
Has the veto question been bottomed out?
If it is genuine and wasps have the power to veto then this is a waste of time.
If the council have a power to veto or there us no power to veto. Then it really comes down to SISU bidding 3 million plus with a promise of payment immediately.
3 million for half of ACL of 30 million for a 18k stadium?
Come in SISU show you can do the right thing for once do not try and manoeuvre on this one show us you have learnt from your mistakes.
If it is a payment up front for more than the existing bid are they not bound by the charities commission to do what is best for the charity?
I have said before and will repeat - until we have actually seen what CCC have "sold" to WASPS you do not know what they have "bought". WASPS may have been tempted by added incentives above those available to SISU - this might be the reason they are refusing to give out details
I seem to remember that the joint venture agreement was changed as part of the council buying out the mortgage.
It would not be unreasonable to ask for details of the changes.
As you say: The club have only one shot at getting the bid right.
And even if they do log 'the right bid', there's nothing to suggest that Higgs are bound to accept it.
It does not always come down to money - I understood the HIGGS investment was to help provide the community with a local sports facility and for its local football team.
( I do not know ) but if helps fulfill those aims it could argue it has met its obligations and aims?
Just thinking aloud
It could also be that Wasps have given incentives so that CCC sell,ie why have compusory purchase orders been instigated on certain businesses in the Ricoh area:thinking about:
That Sky Blue PM seems like a fun guy.
Where are these people found?
It could also be that Wasps have given incentives so that CCC sell,ie why have compusory purchase orders been instigated on certain businesses in the Ricoh area:thinking about:
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?