Supporters' group tells Coventry City FC owners to clarify stadium plans (6 Viewers)

[Astute]

1. Sisu claim they would have paid the loan - unless you have some evidence to the contrary then your assumption is based on guesswork and prejudice.
2. The Higgs share in isolation is worthless as the council representatives pretty much acknowledged. Wasps would never have just wanted the half share.
3. For the 100th time council officials had already by then stated that official policy was not to deal with sisu.

Fisher said publicly that they wouldn't have paid the full value of the loan. He even said it after Wasps did. Fisher is SISU not CCFC.

And yes we know that all trust had been lost. That is public knowledge.

 

---

[Nick]

PR for who?

Who was sending out a PR war?

 

[Grendel]

Fisher said publicly that they wouldn't have paid the full value of the loan. He even said it after Wasps did. Fisher is SISU not CCFC.

And yes we know that all trust had been lost. That is public knowledge.

Seppella said she would have paid the loan in a letter to Lucas. She's the boss and fisher for the record is not an employee of sisu.

 

[Astute]

Seppella said she would have paid the loan in a letter to Lucas. She's the boss and fisher for the record is not an employee of sisu.

Where are the details of this letter then?

Fisher is only at our club because he is part of SISU. What use is he to CCFC?

So he is the mouthpiece of Joy. Are you saying that he is impartial?

 

[Grendel]

Where are the details of this letter then?

Fisher is only at our club because he is part of SISU. What use is he to CCFC?

The details are available if you can be bothered to look for them.

 

[torchomatic]

They were NEVER going to accept ANY offer from SISU regardless of how good it was, highlighted by "hell freezes over", Mutton "the Council will never sell its stake to SISU", not to mention stuff in the documents regarding Members being briefed that SISU will never get hold of the stadium.

Also, some amusing quotes from Mutton stating that if SISU got hold of the place they would borrow against it.

Wasps...cough...bond...cough

That offer was accepted, this wasn't. Why not? Maybe it was no where near as good or maybe it was simply far too late & brinkmanship backfired.

Only the negotiating parties know & they can't disclose details.

 

[skybluetony176]

Who was sending out a PR war?

I had a suspicion you'd ignore the rest of the post if I put that in but I was trying to think better of you. Oh well.

 

[Astute]

The details are available if you can be bothered to look for them.

Not going on a wild goose chase. If you want to continue to change the history of what has gone on show it on here.

 

[tisza]

Due to the different rules of disclosure for public bodies there is obviously much made of the internal communications of CCC/ACL etc. Have we seen much of the internal communciations of CCFC/SISU etc. on any of these issues?

 

[Astute]

They were NEVER going to accept ANY offer from SISU regardless of how good it was, highlighted by "hell freezes over", Mutton "the Council will never sell its stake to SISU", not to mention stuff in the documents regarding Members being briefed that SISU will never get hold of the stadium.

Also, some amusing quotes from Mutton stating that if SISU got hold of the place they would borrow against it.

Wasps...cough...bond...cough

A fair few of us were worried about SISU doing it. But glad Wasps have. Who here thinks that they will raise the 50m needed by May 2022? I wouldn't like to think that we had to raise 50m in 7 years. And we come from Coventry. They are nearly 100 miles away from their supporters. 1 bad season and they will certainly be in trouble.

Anyone keen for a party if it happens?

 

[italiahorse]

Was that £2m "charitable" offer not Market Value then? The purchase price seems to think so, the council seemed to think that the £5.5m was way over value.

You are very naive to the actual timing facts that are crucial.
The offer was in summer 2012 with CCFC in situ and the Olympics about to start. It had unachievable conditions that included obtaining the YB loan for between £2M-£5M.
A couple of years later with no tenant in the stadium the value was less.

I'm not sure at what date the council valued ACL so if you give me the date or a reference I will comment.

I do note that in September 2012 a detailed valuation was commissioned
"Richard Ellis report referred to above (paragraph 13), whichvalued the Arena with no CCFC rent at £6.4m, with a rental of £200,000 at £8.6m,and with a rental of £400,000 at £10.8m" (JR)

 

[tisza]

A fair few of us were worried about SISU doing it. But glad Wasps have. Who here thinks that they will raise the 50m needed by May 2022? I wouldn't like to think that we had to raise 50m in 7 years. And we come from Coventry. They are nearly 100 miles away from their supporters. 1 bad season and they will certainly be in trouble.

Anyone keen for a party if it happens?

i'd make 2 points
1. where will we be in 7 years time?
2. From what I understand rugby (at Wasps level) is getting huge TV income boosts from domestic & European competitons. Unless BT becomes another ITV digital I'd thought Wasps would be in a reasonable position with proper management of the Arena (something ACL didn't seem good at) and TV money.

I'd rather hope that 7 years down the line City fans shouldn't be in the least bit concerned what happens with Wasps or at the Ricoh - otherwise it would mean we would probably have achieved very little on or off the pitch in that time frame.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

1. Sisu claim they would have paid the loan - unless you have some evidence to the contrary then your assumption is based on guesswork and prejudice.

The claim in the JR was that they would discharge the loan and then write it off, discharging doesn't mean the same as paying it off in full.


Extracts from JR

SISU would discharge and write off the Bank loan debt, in return for the lease to ACL being extended to 125 years

SISU considered that the Bank debt could be purchased for £2m-5m. It was part of
their plan that the debt be purchased – in whole, or at least as to 50%, by them – for
that sum. They were not prepared to offer more. The Heads of Terms supposed that,
the debt having been purchased, it would be entirely written off; although the Council
was sensible to the possibility that SISU might purchase the debt from the Bank
(which had no constraints on the person to whom the loan and mortgage might be
transferred) and use their position as creditor to put further pressure on ACL and thus
the Council.

 

[italiahorse]

The details are available if you can be bothered to look for them.

So why not reference them?

I do know that Sisu expected to buy the loan for as little as £2m and no more than £5M (JR)

 

[SkyBlueZack]

A fair few of us were worried about SISU doing it. But glad Wasps have. Who here thinks that they will raise the 50m needed by May 2022? I wouldn't like to think that we had to raise 50m in 7 years. And we come from Coventry. They are nearly 100 miles away from their supporters. 1 bad season and they will certainly be in trouble.

Anyone keen for a party if it happens?

All over it! I'll bring the balloons

 

[Grendel]

So why not reference them?

I do know that Sisu expected to buy the loan for as little as £2m and no more than £5M (JR)

We also know the Council were trying to do the same

 

[SkyBlueZack]

The council were also at one stage a willing party to SISU's dastardly plan of buying the YB loan on the cheap.

 

[Nick]

We also know the Council were trying to do the same

Which document was that in?

I heard that council staff were trying to learn how from sisu during those negotiations and then tried themselves. How true I.Don't know

 

[Grendel]

Which document was that in?

I heard that council staff were trying to learn how from sisu during those negotiations and then tried themselves. How true I.Don't know

It's on Page 44 it's clear there was an even lower offer made before that one if you look at paragraph 3

 

[italiahorse]

1. Sisu claim they would have paid the loan - unless you have some evidence to the contrary then your assumption is based on guesswork and prejudice.
2. The Higgs share in isolation is worthless as the council representatives pretty much acknowledged. Wasps would never have just wanted the half share.
3. For the 100th time council officials had already by then stated that official policy was not to deal with sisu.

Can you either put a reference to your 'quotes' or put a comment somewhere that it is your opinion ?

 

[italiahorse]

We also know the Council were trying to do the same

When you negotiate you start low and work up to the value acceptable to you.
The Sisu max valuation for the loan was £5M and it was never going to be acceptable (JR)

 

[stupot07]

£2m for 125 year lease = £16k pa

£2.77m for 250 year lease = £11k pa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Captain Dart]

When you negotiate you start low and work up to the value acceptable to you.
The Sisu max valuation for the loan was £5M and it was never going to be acceptable (JR)

I think the pay off values CCC tried with YB, from memory started off about £9M & ended up at £14.4 after 3 iterations.
I think there was some sort of YB write down, in the order of £2-3M, details ISTR in the judgement for first JR if someone cares to look.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

£2m for 125 year lease = £16k pa

£2.77m for 250 year lease = £11k pa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

How long do you think a stadiums life is before major expenditure is required? Are any stadiums still being used that are over 125 years old? This length of lease argument seems to be a red herring to me.

 

[skybluetony176]

£2m for 125 year lease = £16k pa

£2.77m for 250 year lease = £11k pa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Unbelievable isn't. SISU are clearly shit negotiators

 

[Grendel]

How long do you think a stadiums life is before major expenditure is required? Are any stadiums still being used that are over 125 years old? This length of lease argument seems to be a red herring to me.

The length of lease increases the companies value hugely

 

[italiahorse]

We also know the Council were trying to do the same

They went in at £6M-£9M and worse case the full £15M (JR 53)

 

[skybluetony176]

How long do you think a stadiums life is before major expenditure is required? Are any stadiums still being used that are over 125 years old? This length of lease argument seems to be a red herring to me.

I would think that the lease covers the site as a whole not just the arena. So not really. All it means is that when the arena reaches the end of its design life the leaseholder has the option to redevelop the site. That's were the value is in the length of the lease.

 

[Captain Dart]

How long do you think a stadiums life is before major expenditure is required? Are any stadiums still being used that are over 125 years old? This length of lease argument seems to be a red herring to me.

Look at Highfield Road, something fairly major every 30 years or so.

Opened 1899
Kop built 1922
West Stand covered 1922
New main stand 1936
Floodlights 1953, upgraded 1957
Thackall St stand 1963
West Stand double decker 1967
Main Stand rebuild after fire 1968
All seater 1981, partially reversed soon after
Kop redeveloped 1993
New roof Thackall St stand
Demolished 2006

And the Ricoh is a bit plastic in places.. some parts are going to fail in a major way one day.

 

[James Smith]

I've always been bemused by that argument. Why wouldn't you want the club to buy the stadium? Regardless of owners surely it's best that we own it? If anything it makes us more attractive to any potential buyers.

The council said (I forget who it actually was) something like they didn't want to sell ACL to someone who was going to borrow against it. Then did just that in selling it to Wasps - hypocrisy might not be in their dictionary.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

The length of lease increases the companies value hugely

I would think that the lease covers the site as a whole not just the arena. So not really. All it means is that when the arena reaches the end of its design life the leaseholder has the option to redevelop the site. That's were the value is in the length of the lease.

I appreciate it can increase the value, but I don't agree that the value increases in line equally with the term. The value between years 126-250 would be far less than the value of years 1-125. Surely be far better for the lease to expire before major works are required, especially when the cost of the lease is shown to be far less then the cost of works.

 

[italiahorse]

The council said (I forget who it actually was) something like they didn't want to sell ACL to someone who was going to borrow against it. Then did just that in selling it to Wasps - hypocrisy might not be in their dictionary.

One person is not the council.
Reference ?

 

[Grendel]

They went in at £6M-£9M and worse case the full £15M (JR 53)

Why did they buy the loan of the bank?

 

[James Smith]

Was that £2m "charitable" offer not Market Value then? The purchase price seems to think so, the council seemed to think that the £5.5m was way over value.

Depends on your definition of market value I guess. The one I found online is
The highest estimated price that a buyer would pay and a seller would accept for an item in an open and competitive market.
Http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/market value.html

Not sure that there was an open and competitive market in this case.

 

[chiefdave]

So Wasps paid well over market value then especially as they also paid off the whole loan that SISU said they would never have done.

Does this mean that nobody will ever say that Wasps got it cheaply again?

I think not.

We have some valuations on which to decide if a fair price was paid.

Council's Arena Construction Report from June 2006:

The Council's freehold interest in the Arena, i.e. the market value that could be obtainedfrom the sale of the freehold with the existing ACL lease in place, has been independentlyvalued by Lambert Smith Hampton. The market valuation of the interest as at 31 March2006 is £0.6m. The valuation report states that the value of the Council's freehold interestin 48 years time, at the expiration of the ACL lease, will be "substantial".

From court papers the value of ACL at the same time was:
valuation report from C B Richard Ellis (“Richard Ellis”) of current market value of £37m; and thereafter valuations at regular intervals on various bases, e.g. a valuation of £31m after 20 years, and of £26.9m after 5 years on the basis that the Football Club had ceased to trade.

Sale of CCFC's 50% stake in ACL in August 2007:
ACL valued at £37m, sale price to Higgs £6m, actual money received £4m (the other £2m related to existing loans), option to buy back at £10m.

ACL Accounts from May 2014:

Leasehold, land & buildings £18,304,722

Sale of ACL to Wasps November 2014:

Total paid was £5.5m, an additional £1m for 210 year lease extension.

Wasps prospectus from April 2015:

The valuation of the Arena given by Strutt & Parker for the long leasehold interest as at 23 April 2015 is £48,500,000.