Are they that interested in local authority governance that they'd waste a six figure to prove a point that's irrelevant to them?
I'd expect there would be grounds for compensation for their own distressed state. If the rescue package had been funded differently (i.e. in SISU terms, legally) then ACL would have been ripe for a cheap buyout, which would have meant gained revenue for the club. If the review leads to eventually the same end - SISU will be crowing...& be in a position to sell up - likely for a tidy profit, which is exactly what they are all about.
I think the former would be too spurious to value legally; and wasn't part of a contractual agreement in any case. On the second issue, that's closer to the truth. And had been from the very start, the more its thought through.
Another question? Does anyone believe SISU's Due Diligence was really 'that bad' when they bought the club so as to miss the elephant in the room?
Good to see your on the forum MMM. Did you confirm the £7 million transfer discrepancy during sisu's reign. You said you would provide the evidence today?
Well, how about it was their motivation right from the very start. And I mean the very start.
Think it through, a Hedge Fund like to mitigate exposure by hedging. To have a Plan B, a second horse to back, a deliverable that still pays out if the primary investment goes awry.
Here's a scenario; we know SISU were looking at distressed football clubs ahead of 'clinching' the deal in Coventry. So, imagine this paraphrased conversation, somewhere in a Mayfair office:
A) I think we've found another football club. This one's in Coventry - a place the Germans bombed in the war up by Birmingham somewhere. They're desperate
B) Can we buy it cheaply?
A) Yeah, for peanuts. We can turn the place around and sell it on very quickly as a profit
B) Okay, sounds interesting. But what if we can't turn it around?
A) They've got a new stadium, owned by a JV between the local council and a charity. The rent's sky-high and unsustainable if the team hits hard times. We can claim the rent is too high, cease to pay it which will break the JV - as they've heavily reliant on the football club's income - and we can pick up the stadium at a knock-down price
The above would explain the apparently slap-shot Due Diligence; they saw the rent issue - indeed it was part of their planning. It explains why Fisher isn't interested in lower rents, as they're irrelevant to the ambition. It explains why he didn't even bother to engage with the Compass JV to see where F&Bs could be driven to. It explains the madness to an out-of-town stadium. It explains why a Hedge Fund would throw it's own money at a judicial review that's supposedly now irrelevant to them.
It also means the whole rent saga, and all of the F&B debates on here about how much Fanta is drunk at Charlton, etc. has been a waste of time. It's all just been a convenient vehicle to hide behind what was always 'Plan B'. Or the hedge
Bigger fish to fry now dear chap. I'm being a conspiracy theorist! What do you think?
I think your avoiding my question.
to answer you need to know what the possible outcomes would be. i guess if the council are found to be at fault SISU could sue the council and / or ACL. the other possibility is if ACL have to pay the money back they have a huge problem, would be very open to a takeover then and I wonder who would be interested in buying a football ground on the cheap.
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?