Valuations of ACL

[Moff]

Sorry Moff, I didn't realise that you're telepathic and know my every thought. Oh wait you don't. Godiva has given an opinion, no more and no less. Unfortunately his opinion is based on what he has decided is relevant and fact before it's been ruled to be either relevant or fact.

The judges ruling is probably the first time in years we have had the chance to make an informed opinion on fact yet some seem to want to bask in the glory of uncertainty and here say. Well more fool them.

Oh the old telepathic line, when you cant raise a legitimate point. I dont have to be telepathic to know, as I said, that if OSB or PKH had made a post you would be fawning all over it as fact. That you cant deny.

Oh and dont flatter yourself that I would want to know your every thought...hilarious.

 

[Godiva]

Yeah, I stopped reading that as soon as you said "what I have extracted so far". You were starting to sound too much like Leonardo Decaprio in catch me who can when he's in court for the first time acting like the lawyers he's seen in TV drama's. I'm sure you'll get a like of grendull though.

So you're not going to argue any actual point then. Just dismiss them and ridicule the poster.

 

[Astute]

Now... I don't like entering a debae and talking about people, as it seems unfair; especially when they are polite to other posters, and willing to take to them and discuss, even when holding a different opinion.

Thing is... both flag up it's opinion, not objectivity, more than most.

And both are unfailingly polite.

Unfair to tar one and not the other, when they are slightly different sides of the same coin.

Are you saying that OSB doesn't help us to understand what is going on with points of law and with the way numbers are twisted about?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Are you saying that OSB doesn't help us to understand what is going on with points of law and with the way numbers are twisted about?

Are you having trouble reading?

 

[skybluetony176]

Oh the old telepathic line, when you cant raise a legitimate point. I dont have to be telepathic to know, as I said, that if OSB or PKH had made a post you would be fawning all over it as fact. That you cant deny.

Oh and dont flatter yourself that I would want to know your every thought...hilarious.

Sorry, that should have said telepathetic.

 

[limoncello]

Because he looks at both sides and not just looking for what could be bad news for one side. He breaks down the numbers so we can all understand them even if a few would like to twist them......or even try to say he is all one sided like you are.

That's the thing, though. The supposed 'Sisu lovers' have always said that Sisu have been pretty shit. There's been a false dichotomy drawn, with those who think Sisu are solely to blame believing that those with a more measured view somehow absolve Sisu of all blame. Then it all goes down the route of 'Sisu are 90% to blame and all that bollocks. It's all a nonsense, and I'm certain that Weber Shandwick have earned their £600 per hour, with us lot paying the price in divisions.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That's the thing, though. The supposed 'Sisu lovers' have always said that Sisu have been pretty shit. There's been a false dichotomy drawn, with those who think Sisu are solely to blame believing that those with a more measured view somehow absolve Sisu of all blame. Then it all goes down the route of 'Sisu are 90% to blame and all that bollocks. It's all a nonsense, and I'm certain that Weber Shandwick have earned their £600 per hour, with us lot paying the price in divisions.

90& certain?

 

[Moff]

Sorry, that should have said telepathetic.

I expected better Tony. As I said hilarious. Stick to your fawning you seem better equipped for that.

Oh and dont be too hard on yourself, your not always that pathetic.

 

[skybluetony176]

So you're not going to argue any actual point then. Just dismiss them and ridicule the poster.

What actual point? You're arguing opinion, sound bites and selective evidence.

I don't pretend to know how to glean the points out of that. Like I said, leave it to the judge and base you're opinions on fact.

 

[limoncello]

I'll tell you in 3 weeks.

 

[Astute]

Are you having trouble reading?

No I am not. The point I made that has been ignored was that out of all the three days in court nothing that could be seen as not good news for SISU wasn't mentioned but if it could be made to sound good for SISU it was. He made some good points I agree. But to many these will be lost in what can easily be seen as being biased.

 

[skybluetony176]

I expected better Tony. As I said hilarious. Stick to your fawning you seem better equipped for that.

I'm surprised you expected better. You're not very good at this reading minds lark are you?

Best leave that to the experts, a bit like the JR.

 

[Godiva]

The judge pulled them up when they tried to say tyhat they could have bought the debt for much less than the loan was for. Was this supposed to have been done without trying?

No, both ACL and sisu agreed to make a joint approach to the bank.
I did say that I don't believe they could have gotten the price anywhere near £2m-£5m as sisu said.

And the part on the road map has already been said to be false in the court of law. That is why SISU didn't have to pay Higgs the 29k as neither side wanted to complete the road map idea.

It was a different case with a different objective. The judge found either party had no appetite to do a deal after the exclusitivity period had run out in August, but in the JR both QC's have argued negotiations did continue and only fell away in mid January 2013. The council QC even used the January talks about a new rent agreement of £400K as evidence both parties were still very much looking to find a solution.
It's just that sisu were still following the roadmap but ACL abandoned it a few days after they signed HoT.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

No I am not. The point I made that has been ignored was that out of all the three days in court nothing that could be seen as not good news for SISU wasn't mentioned but if it could be made to sound good for SISU it was. He made some good points I agree. But to many these will be lost in what can easily be seen as being biased.

And many of OSB's points are partial too.

Indeed, OSB always takes care to flag up they are just his opinion.

But because they coincide with your view you claim objective there, whilst Godiva (unfailingly polite, even if I may not often agree with where he comes from!) is condemned and slurred when he gives his reading of evidence.

RobS was rightly jumped on when he started doing the willy waving about who was the biggest plant; but it seems Godiva is fair game here.

For what? Giving his opinion, just his opinion.

Godiva adds more than many to this site because he makes you think.

Or he would, if we were thinking allowed.

 

[Grendel]

Because he looks at both sides and not just looking for what could be bad news for one side. He breaks down the numbers so we can all understand them even if a few would like to twist them......or even try to say he is all one sided like you are.

The saddest thing is I think you actually believe that. You'd be a double glazing sales persons dream.

You used to be good on here. Now you are down with the likes of Italia and sky blue kid. Why?

 

[Moff]

I'm surprised you expected better. You're not very good at this reading minds lark are you?

Best leave that to the experts, a bit like the JR.

I dont profess to be able to read minds, I dont need to with you and just have to read the useless drivel you write to know you are a tool. I did expect better though as I didn't think anyone could be as cretinous as you. I stand corrected.

I am happy to leave the JR to the experts, unlike you did when it was in progress. Oh the irony yet again.

 

[skybluetony176]

I dont profess to be able to read minds, I dont need to with you and just have to read the useless drivel you write to know you are a tool. I did expect better though as I didn't think anyone could be as cretinous as you. I stand corrected.

I am happy to leave the JR to the experts, unlike you did when it was in progress. Oh the irony yet again.

Ha ha, you're funny. As the mind reading thing hasn't worked out you could always try stand up.

 

[duffer]

Similary I believe sisu when they say they never went behind the councils back in an attempt to buy the loan. That makes no commercial sense as it would start a bidding war.

On this one bit, Godiva, there was evidence presented in the Higgs case that suggests you are incorrect. There was an email quoted from (as I recall) PKWH and someone at ACL the council saying that they were very unhappy to learn that SISU had approached YB unilaterally, not long after the Road Map had been presented.

I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the JR, but then in truth the JR was primarily about SISU presenting their case, with a considerable amount less time given to the Council and ACL QCs. I'm not grumbling about that, my understanding is that it is for SISU to prove their case, rather the Council needing to defend every line. If it wasn't I guess we'd still be in court!

I don't think this changes my opinion on what needs to happen much, although I have far more doubts than I used to about the openess of the Council process when coming to the bailout decision. Ultimately though, the way forward will be to stop digging all this up at some point, and move on - imho.

* and I've read it - all three days. It wasn't as much fun as the Higgs case. All in all I prefer Jack Reacher novels, written by a Cov lad y'know.


(Edit, fwiw: Higgs case - 1st day, page 27: Higgs QC, I think, making his case...

11 What was, however, abundantly clear is that ACL
12 shareholders, let alone its board of directors, had not
13 at this point sanctioned a direct approach by SISU to
14 Yorkshire Bank. Very shortly after this meeting, ACL
15 got wind of the fact that SISU had sought to initiate
16 a meeting with Yorkshire Bank itself, having, it is
17 believed, misrepresented their authority to do so. This
18 led to a sharp exchange by e-mail....)

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If it wasn't I guess we'd still be in court!

There's always next week!

 

[Astute]

No, both ACL and sisu agreed to make a joint approach to the bank.
I did say that I don't believe they could have gotten the price anywhere near £2m-£5m as sisu said.




It was a different case with a different objective. The judge found either party had no appetite to do a deal after the exclusitivity period had run out in August, but in the JR both QC's have argued negotiations did continue and only fell away in mid January 2013. The council QC even used the January talks about a new rent agreement of £400K as evidence both parties were still very much looking to find a solution.
It's just that sisu were still following the roadmap but ACL abandoned it a few days after they signed HoT.

Judges have the right to visit old cases to make a decision. The one that sat in the JR seems to be on the ball. So if something has been decided to be the truth how can SISU then say it is false after saying it is true?

 

[Nick]

Judges have the right to visit old cases to make a decision. The one that sat in the JR seems to be on the ball. So if something has been decided to be the truth how can SISU then say it is false after saying it is true?

So the past does matter sometimes?

 

[Moff]

Ha ha, you're funny. As the mind reading thing hasn't worked out you could always try stand up.

Why not I could use your material to take the p*ss out of.

Anyway as much as I have enjoyed our time together tonight, I am now bored of arguing with some faceless bloke on the internet, so perhaps you will be on tomorrow to provide some more material for me, or if not you can always catch me sometime for a coffee in the Clock Towers.

 

[Astute]

The saddest thing is I think you actually believe that. You'd be a double glazing sales persons dream.

You used to be good on here. Now you are down with the likes of Italia and sky blue kid. Why?

Because you are allowed a POV just like everyone else is.

I don't come on here to be wise, to try and sound wise or even to stick up for anyone. I say it as I see it.

You know that they bullshit us all the time and can't be trusted. Why do you try and make excuses for them most of the time?

 

[Astute]

So the past does matter sometimes?

The past matters more than anything. Look at our previous chairmen and how we have got to where we are now.

 

[skybluetony176]

if not you can always catch me sometime for a coffee in the Clock Towers.

Why? Do you work in the coffee shop on the corner opposite Wilco's?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think this changes my opinion on what needs to happen much, although I have far more doubts than I used to about the openess of the Council process when coming to the bailout decision. Ultimately though, the way forward will be to stop digging all this up at some point, and move on - imho.

However, to move on both 'sides' need to change their approach. If your doubts were valid, and if a future consequence were indeed more open decision making, in return for a less hardball stance from SISU, then that would surely help us move on as there'd be more likelihood of the two parties being able to actually, you know, talk?

It's the Jeremy Kyle approach, break everyone down then build up renewed and refreshed, with plenty of therapy thrown in!

 

[Astute]

And many of OSB's points are partial too.

Indeed, OSB always takes care to flag up they are just his opinion.

But because they coincide with your view you claim objective there, whilst Godiva (unfailingly polite, even if I may not often agree with where he comes from!) is condemned and slurred when he gives his reading of evidence.

RobS was rightly jumped on when he started doing the willy waving about who was the biggest plant; but it seems Godiva is fair game here.

For what? Giving his opinion, just his opinion.

Godiva adds more than many to this site because he makes you think.

Or he would, if we were thinking allowed.

I said I agree with a lot of what he said. But do you admit that he was saying that what he got from reading 3 days worth was all good for SISU and bad for CCC?

It don't look good for either side. But without having the evidence in front of us like the judge had we are not in such a good position as he is to see the truth from the bullshit.

 

[Godiva]

Still on day 3.

The judge grills the sisu QC over the fact the club did not pay the rent it was legally obliged to.
Clearly the judge finds it very relevant that the by not paying rent the club placed ACL in distress which lead to the decision to use public money to buy the loan.

It will be interesting if this will influence his ruling and to what extent.

 

[Moff]

Why? Do you work in the coffee shop on the corner opposite Wilco's?

Sorry, my mistake I thought that the bloke with the apron on with the name badge Tony 176 was you. Apologies.

 

[Astute]

Still on day 3.

The judge grills the sisu QC over the fact the club did not pay the rent it was legally obliged to.
Clearly the judge finds it very relevant that the by not paying rent the club placed ACL in distress which lead to the decision to use public money to buy the loan.

It will be interesting if this will influence his ruling and to what extent.

This is where the guessing comes into it.

Will it get as far as considering parts like this? Was it an unlawful loan? Were CCC forced to act? Are both sides to blame?

I wouldn't like to guess. But I am very interested in waiting to find out how he comes to all his decisions. And I can't see it as being a simple yes or no.

 

[Godiva]

On this one bit, Godiva, there was evidence presented in the Higgs case that suggests you are incorrect. There was an email quoted from (as I recall) PKWH and someone at ACL the council saying that they were very unhappy to learn that SISU had approached YB unilaterally, not long after the Road Map had been presented.

I was surprised that this wasn't mentioned in the JR, but then in truth the JR was primarily about SISU presenting their case, with a considerable amount less time given to the Council and ACL QCs. I'm not grumbling about that, my understanding is that it is for SISU to prove their case, rather the Council needing to defend every line. If it wasn't I guess we'd still be in court!

I don't think this changes my opinion on what needs to happen much, although I have far more doubts than I used to about the openess of the Council process when coming to the bailout decision. Ultimately though, the way forward will be to stop digging all this up at some point, and move on - imho.

* and I've read it - all three days. It wasn't as much fun as the Higgs case. All in all I prefer Jack Reacher novels, written by a Cov lad y'know.


(Edit, fwiw: Higgs case - 1st day, page 27: Higgs QC, I think, making his case...

11 What was, however, abundantly clear is that ACL
12 shareholders, let alone its board of directors, had not
13 at this point sanctioned a direct approach by SISU to
14 Yorkshire Bank. Very shortly after this meeting, ACL
15 got wind of the fact that SISU had sought to initiate
16 a meeting with Yorkshire Bank itself, having, it is
17 believed, misrepresented their authority to do so. This
18 led to a sharp exchange by e-mail....)

It is actually covered in the JR to great extent.

Here's just a part of it (after coucil QC accuses sisu of going to the bank behind ACL's back):

MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: SISU were talking to the bank.
MR THOMPSON: Yes, the bank and Deloittes approached SISU in mid-November. I took you through a great deal of detailed documentation showing what happened. As part of a consensual debate about how the bank deal would go forward, there were discussions, which Mr Goudie's clients were well aware of. What didn't happen, except for a very early stage when there was some contact directly with the bank, which Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen took strong exception to back in March, and it was a matter that was debated in the Higgs litigation, there wasn't any contact between my clients and the bank of the kind that we complain of in this respect. That's why we complain.
MR GOUDIE: My Lord, in any event, it was obvious that SISU had the option of approaching the bank directly and it was likely that they would do so, and in terms of protecting commercial interests that was something that had to be taken into account.

So sisu claim they were not going to the bank, but the bank came to sisu. Sisu claim that nothing but rent was discussed. And in the end it seems that Council QC leaves his argument and say 'yes, but they could have done it'.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Really? Refusing to be out of pocket is now "hardball"?

The rhetoric gets more ridiculous as we go on.

Keep on clutching at straws. The council now have a £14m debt as do ACL both of which accrue interest.

 

[fernandopartridge]

So you are ignoring the fact of the judge saying about the value at the time the loan was taken out and not whilst SISU were doing their best to devalue the arena? So even the judge is wrong now?

You ignore every fact that doesn't fit your paradigm. You're like Comical Ali.

 

[Godiva]

Judges have the right to visit old cases to make a decision. The one that sat in the JR seems to be on the ball. So if something has been decided to be the truth how can SISU then say it is false after saying it is true?

Ah, I am sorry, you lost me there. What did sisu say is true/false? I don't think in the Higgs case sisu ever agreed their appetite to fullfil the termsheet ever ceased? It was the judges opinion - but it doesn't mean sisu necessary agree. It had no adverse effect on sisu's case as they won anyway.

 

[duffer]

However, to move on both 'sides' need to change their approach. If your doubts were valid, and if a future consequence were indeed more open decision making, in return for a less hardball stance from SISU, then that would surely help us move on as there'd be more likelihood of the two parties being able to actually, you know, talk?

It's the Jeremy Kyle approach, break everyone down then build up renewed and refreshed, with plenty of therapy thrown in!

Apart from the fact I've never watched Jeremy Kyle (honest!) the problem with this is that we're never going to get to the whole truth and it will take forever.

We don't have forever, and I don't need 'closure'.

Confession: I met TF briefly on Thursday, after the trial, and although we didn't talk at all about the club (he offered to, anytime, in fairness), the one thing he did say is that 'we've made mistakes' - in the way that things have gone with the club, I presumed.

For me, that's good enough. I don't need to know the details, and I don't need apologies, I just want to see a willingness to move on. If we could get past all of the JR noise, and for that matter stop digging into all of SISU's past dealing to do that, then that's a price worth paying.

At the moment though, it feels like we're still stuck.