JR2 - SISU's bargaining tool? (1 Viewer)

skybluetony176 said:

Surely if there's going to be a judicial review some rules need to have at least been bent a little. Which rule?

Click to expand...

A JR isn't just on the grounds of legality, you can have followed the letter of the law but still lose a JR.

skybluetony176 said:

OSB has explained the lease valuation dozens of times and it's now getting like SISU's management fees being SISU taking money out of the club.

Click to expand...

Unless I've missed something what OSB has said is the figure Wasps paid is the value of ACL which is not the same as the lease. However that doesn't mean the valuation of the lease stacks up.

So the lease is worth £48.5m. What in ACL caused the value of the company to be £42m lower than the value of its major asset?

Skyblueweeman said:

ANYTHING...but owned by another nomadic hedge fund who have no interest in football.

Don't we ever learn?!

The mind boggles that some think it's a good idea...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Italia admitted yesterday as well as wanting the club to sign a deal at the RICOH, he was also ok with SISU staying as owners.

Funny 'the usual suspects'* who jump on the so called SISU lovers haven't jumped on Italia for this.

*(Use of irony for all those too dumb to see it)

chiefdave said:

A JR isn't just on the grounds of legality, you can have followed the letter of the law but still lose a JR.


Unless I've missed something what OSB has said is the figure Wasps paid is the value of ACL which is not the same as the lease. However that doesn't mean the valuation of the lease stacks up.

So the lease is worth £48.5m. What in ACL caused the value of the company to be £42m lower than the value of its major asset?

Click to expand...

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

A judicial review is about the process of decision making. If you've followed the process to the latter of the law how can you lose? It's not even about the decision made, it's about how you arrived at that decision.

If Wasps valuation of the lease doesn't add up (for arguments sake) what's that got to do with a judicial review?

italiahorse said:

You know nothing as always.
Certainly no contribution to this thread............... again !!

Click to expand...

Ok let's entertain this tripe for a moment. Is your source from within the "sponsor"?

skybluetony176 said:

If Wasps valuation of the lease doesn't add up (for arguments sake) what's that got to do with a judicial review?

Click to expand...

That would, in my opinion, mean the council's valuation would be classed as an error of fact.

chiefdave said:

That would, in my opinion, mean the council's valuation would be classed as an error of fact.

Click to expand...

Why? A private companies valuation of a lease for accounting purposes is not a sale price. This as I understand it is the point OSB keeps making. You have to compare eggs with eggs.

Terry Gibson's perm said:

I never get this 10 year rubbish from the league, clubs in our league and below are surviving year by year

Click to expand...

And they will be understanding and sympathetic to the club, and use their discretion. If in 18 months time thr club agree another short term deal with wasps, thr FL won't kick us out the league because its not a 10 year deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Terry Gibson's perm said:

I never get this 10 year rubbish from the league, clubs in our league and below are surviving year by year

Click to expand...

It's in the FL rules, have a look

rupert_bear said:

It's in the FL rules, have a look

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it is but I can't see how they can enforce it, a team can say will do this and that and then go into administration two or three times or sell to new owners who have different ideas.

Grendel said:

Ok let's entertain this tripe for a moment. Is your source from within the "sponsor"?

Click to expand...

No. Wrong again.

skybluetony176 said:

Why? A private companies valuation of a lease for accounting purposes is not a sale price. This as I understand it is the point OSB keeps making. You have to compare eggs with eggs.

Click to expand...

So you're saying the independent valuation carried out to enable the lease to act as security for the bonds doesn't reflect the true value of the lease but is a number that has been arrived at for accounting purposes? Are you suggesting the true value is less and the bond holders don't actually have the level of security claimed in the bond prospectus?

skybluetony176 said:

You're missing the point Dave. Why do CCC have to give proof of anything regarding the sale of ACL? Where are the guidelines for offloading what is essentially a half quango? Is there any? They still retain the freehold so land disposal doesn't come into it. What rules have they broke or not followed correctly? Surely if there's going to be a judicial review some rules need to have at least been bent a little. Which rule?

OSB has explained the lease valuation dozens of times and it's now getting like SISU's management fees being SISU taking money out of the club.

Click to expand...

The lease valuation for WASPS was calculated on net future earnings ( they told future bond holders )
The current value of the freehold would only be current net value of the land and buildings on the lease reversion
If WASPS fail and the lease falls back to CCC with no major tenant then who knows?

skybluetony176 said:

Why? A private companies valuation of a lease for accounting purposes is not a sale price. This as I understand it is the point OSB keeps making. You have to compare eggs with eggs.

Click to expand...

But it was not for accounting purposes it was used to support a £35m Bond Issue
The valuation was based on Director's forecasts and with a caveat the stadium did not require any substantial works
It was also included in the bond prospectus the stadium would be professionally valued in June 2016
Instead they have given a Director's valuation based on Director's forecasts

From the valuation report:

italiahorse said:

No. Wrong again.

Click to expand...

It's not happening for all the reasons I explained. Whoever your source is perhaps can explain how a contract is pre signed when it clearly breaches the said companies Code Of Conduct Policy. Ask that can you?

chiefdave said:

From the valuation report:
View attachment 6026

Click to expand...

But their valuation is based on net future income streams - it is somewhere in the reprt

skybluetony176 said:

Why? A private companies valuation of a lease for accounting purposes is not a sale price. This as I understand it is the point OSB keeps making. You have to compare eggs with eggs.

Click to expand...

The valuation was to provide assurance and security for the bond holders Tony

oldfiver said:

But their valuation is based on net future income streams - it is somewhere in the reprt

Click to expand...

Correct - it's an assumed future valuation at the time the bond is up for renewal and it's based on an income projection.
It's probably not the biggest issue. The real issue will be the maintenance and repair of the building. It's in a pretty sorry state and in a few years it's a major headache

surely the value of anything is what you are prepared to accept for it ?

Grendel said:

It's not happening for all the reasons I explained. Whoever your source is perhaps can explain how a contract is pre signed when it clearly breaches the said companies Code Of Conduct Policy. Ask that can you?

Click to expand...

I'll run through it with you at some point.
Cleary lacking business acumen but I can help.

oldfiver said:

Question - why are WASP's so bothered if they are not involved in the case other than witnesses?

Click to expand...

Costs them time and money.
They probably know like with JR1 that the action is a pointless attempt to get the people the action is taken against to concede and give an out of court settlement (which they won't and and like JR1 they won't lose).
Plus they have a close business relationship with the council.

dongonzalos said:

Costs them time and money.

Click to expand...

How do the JRs cost Wasps time or money?

chiefdave said:

And one who have just admitted that they're more interested in property development than running a rugby club, let alone a football club. Are those that want Wasps to take us over happy for us to be moved as leverage for another property deal?

Click to expand...

I definitely wouldn’t want CCFC to be taken over by Wasps, but would be happy if an investor took over the whole lot (stadium, CCFC, Wasps). Not saying it’s likely, just hoping.

The Wasps/CCFC comparison has never held water. We can’t be moved in the way that they were. Since the Wimbledon/MK Dons disgrace, the football authorities have taken a much more principled stance on clubs moving than the rugby lot, who have presided over several re-locations of teams from London to towns which are miles way – not least Wasps to High Wycombe. It’s my belief (not shared by many I know) that Wycombe watered down their geographical identity, and explains why they couldn’t even raise a meaningful protest when it came to moving to the Midlands. If they had, CCFC fans (me included) would have tried to fight alongside them. But how do you join a battle that isn’t happening?

My concern is CCFC. The Football League seem to have an 8 miles rule, which still leaves it open for Fisher & Co. to come up with something daft like Nuneaton, or a groundshare with Brum near the NEC/HS2 interchange, which for me would kill the identity of the Coventry City. But those who have been arguing a sports club can happily be moved 30 miles back and forth around a vast London commuter belt, might find it difficult to argue against that.

chiefdave said:

How do the JRs cost Wasps time or money?

Click to expand...

They will be having legal people reviewing it as they are named.

Grendel said:

The valuation was to provide assurance and security for the bond holders Tony

Click to expand...

So therefore has no relevance to the price it was purchased for. As has been pointed out is based on future earnings forecast, it's not a sale price. It's a long term valuation based on turnover and profit for the purpose of the bond and not the price they would sell it for tomorrow. That is likely to be considerably less. Dave seems to think because they purchased the lease for considerably less than the valuation CCC have questions to answer but he's not comparing eggs with eggs is he. If they sell tomorrow for 40 odd million he'd have a point but that isn't going to happen because the valuation isn't a sales valuation.

chiefdave said:

How do the JRs cost Wasps time or money?

Click to expand...

I would imagine it's cost them both already. I think it would be naive to think that they didn't shell out extra on legal advice during their due diligence before they took over ACL and it would be naive to think that they haven't had to seek further legal advice as the basis of JR2 has become available.

skybluetony176 said:

As has been pointed out is based on future earnings forecast, it's not a sale price.

Click to expand...

I must be missing something then as in the Strutt and Parker valuation report dated 23 April 2015 it explicitly states that the valuation is the market value they would expect a buyer to pay on that date.

chiefdave said:

What evidence can CCC give to show they maximised the return for the taxpayer?

There are certainly questions around the value of the lease given the price Wasps paid for ACL and the lease extension compared to the lease valuation immediately after. If the £48.5m valuation of the lease stands up to scrutiny then would you say £1m for a 200 year extension was a good deal for the taxpayer?

Click to expand...

You was one of those that pointed out that CCC sorted out a loan that was more than the value of the Ricoh. They took this loan on and also paid more money on top to ACL and CCC.

Depending on which valuation is to be used SISU were saying that the lease was valueless. So paying 1m to extend a lease that had no value could be seen as a good move by CCC.

As with all court cases it is down to what the law was at the time of offence/occurrence. It is also down to beliefs at the time. SISU made all of them threats as we know. Look at the stadium they were building for us. They were never going to move us back to the Ricoh after taking us to Northampton. And after the deal was done between Wasps and CCC Fisher said that they would never have paid as much as they did.

So Dave......how many points can you think of that would help SISU win JR2? Because it is easy to come out with a defence for whatever allegations we don't know they will make without having to think about defending them. All you have to do is remember what happened when. And that all comes down to what was believed to be the truth at the time.

stupot07 said:

And they will be understanding and sympathetic to the club, and use their discretion. If in 18 months time thr club agree another short term deal with wasps, thr FL won't kick us out the league because its not a 10 year deal.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

But they can kick us out, I hope you are correct but there are rules and if a member club or clubs complain the rules are being breached the league could take action in fact The FL is not the FA they are separate.

rupert_bear said:

But they can kick us out, I hope you are correct but there are rules and if a member club or clubs complain the rules are being breached the league could take action in fact The FL is not the FA they are separate.

Click to expand...

They can, but I honestly believe they won't, as it would set a precedent, and next time a club comes to renegotiate or renew their tenancy agreement the lease holder then gets carte blance to do what they want. I can't see why any of thr member clubs would complain, as much as sisu have fallen out with everyone in Coventry, the club continues to have foot relationships with the FL and its member club. I don't think thr FA has any jurisdiction when it comes to the golden share or thr FL rules.

At the end of the day we have tried to negotiate, wasps refuse to negotiate using a woolly excuse (they are a mere witness in JR2) and continue to refuse. Thr FL league and its members will be sympathetic, they will see that whilst the owners have made terrible decisions, thr club has been and continues to be fucked over by those around them.

I have never really been worried about post July 2018 I bekive if JR2 is still going on we'll sign a another short term contract with wasps and thr FL will allow it. Don't forget the FL have been kept in the loop and it wouldn't surprise me if they have already given guidance to thr club around this.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

stupot07 said:

At the end of the day we have tried to negotiate, wasps refuse to negotiate using a woolly excuse (they are a mere witness in JR2) and continue to refuse. Thr FL league and its members will be sympathetic

Click to expand...

The FL will know how much SISU have taken the piss out of everyone and everything. They had to deal with them during the Northampton debacle. And do you really believe that they have not been following what has gone on since? So where is the new stadium for instance?

The FL's aim will be the same as before. Bend whatever rule that allows us to keep going. SISU know this. We will be allowed to keep the golden share as long as the life support is switched on. They won't want to be left embroiled in legal action like just about everyone else involved in our club. They won't want to risk being the cash cow SISU are desperately looking for.

Astute said:

The FL will know how much SISU have taken the piss out of everyone and everything. They had to deal with them during the Northampton debacle. And do you really believe that they have not been following what has gone on since? So where is the new stadium for instance?

The FL's aim will be the same as before. Bend whatever rule that allows us to keep going. SISU know this. We will be allowed to keep the golden share as long as the life support is switched on. They won't want to be left embroiled in legal action like just about everyone else involved in our club. They won't want to risk being the cash cow SISU are desperately looking for.

Click to expand...

And thus be sympathetic to the clubs (not sisu's) needs by using their discretion.

To answer your 2 questions:

Ofcourse they have been following what's gone on since sixfields, they have been involved in discussions around the (non) stadium and academy.

And whilst there is no new stadium on thr horizon, the club have (from what they tell us) kept the FL up to date on it, and even showed them around the butts.

The other shit - selling players to try and be self sufficient, leading to shit football and a league one relegation battle won't even feature on the FL's radar. Sure they will feel sympathy for us fans, they won't and cant do anything about that.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

italiahorse said:

I'll run through it with you at some point.
Cleary lacking business acumen but I can help.

Click to expand...

Why don't you explain now rather than wumming and making statements with no basis in fact?

dongonzalos said:

They will be having legal people reviewing it as they are named.

Click to expand...

They are not named as defendants only primary witnesses ( or whatever the term is )

Grendel said:

Why don't you explain now rather than wumming and making statements with no basis in fact?

Click to expand...

... because you are a little thick and can't accept other opinions perhaps ?