stupot07
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact details.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Mean while back in court (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter sotonskyblue
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
If the reduction in rent was being classed as part of the original agreement, which it looks like it was, then we may well have still had the first option to buy Higgs share. I think that would have been enough to put Wasps off.
No weaker position that the original position we were in when £400k was agreed, probably a stronger position, as it's clear to everyone there's no money available, and we could have spent 3 years highlighting that fact, explaining the situation to fans to get them on board with the owners position rather than against it.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Firstly, do you think we're capable of doing that?
Secondly, do you think that that would have been an easy sell, even if we *were* capable?
In a way, perversely, because the club's been battered about, there's a case to make that the simple fact we're back in the city could mean fans are more accepting of positions (such as no cash, break even etc.) then they would have been before we moved. Now we're relieved just to have a club, so it cuts what we hope for and expect!
Thirdly (genuine question!) wasn't our option for the Higgs share coming to the end of its existence anyway? Tied into that is the fact nobody ever thought it worth purchasing at formula price, so it would always have been there just to put off carpet-baggers. Not an unreasonable position to have, of course, but safe to say I doubt (m)any thought that particular piece of it all was needed (beyond, maybe, CRFC getting investment and taking the ground on, or it being turned into a massive ten pin bowling alley!)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The option for the Higgs share was going and there was a small matter of a veto so I disagree.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
1/2. Yes I do, I don't believe that anyone thinks the rent was fair and affordable, but the way SISU has gone about things is not what most people think is acceptable. They could have been open with people, all the information about rent comparisons, limited access to revenues etc, it's all correct, but because they have tried to be 'hard nosed' about things, they have lost the support, and people want them to get their just desserts.
3. Don't know about it coming to an end, haven't heard there was a time limit. The formula price was the maximum, not the minimum, Higgs had agreed to sell at below formula in the failed bid.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Your first point doesn't really answer the question, which wasn't *should* we be capable of doing that, but *are* we? I'd suggest the club is thoroughly incapable of communicating a message...
As for point 3, it's worth noting that nobody wanted the lease as set out.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
The possible use of the veto wouldn't detrimentally affect the rent negotiations, as shown by them agreeing the £400k in the first place.
Rusty Trombone
Well-Known Member
ok, I'll try Q1 again, I think the message is easy enough to convey, so yes.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Yes. It's Les Reid. Trouble yourself to find out what went on at the CET when he tried to expose the Council bailout that was done in secret for the Ricoh, and then feel free to come on here and apologise for being sold a much bigger pup yourself.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I don't find it odd that people don't ask you, quite the contrary.
What is my arguement?
I am proud of them. No issues saying that. Many a council would have took an easier path with this. I think it has taken some balls doing what they have done.
I don't say that for the fun of it. As I think they lost those balls when it came to a referendum over Greater Birmingham. They choose the easier path on that one.
1) dogma prevails over reason
2) subjectivity over objectivity
3) stupidity over the Law
One or combo of the above...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh look another one appears.
All we need is that mentalist Pendrey and we have a full house.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes I can see you.
So why did CCC keep trying to negotiate with SISU if they were not going to let them have the arena?
There was some on here thinking it was great that SISU were taking the piss while trying to devalue the arena so they could get it on the cheap. Many of us could see it was going to end badly. But no. It was a white elephant without CCFC. Nothing could go wrong.....could it......
CCFC has been used as a pawn to try and make faceless investors money. So have our supporters. The problem is that SISU have failed at everything they have tried. They are used to battering others into submission with massive legal fees. This time they took on someone much bigger than themselves. But some still try to put all the blame on CCC and say it was the only chance of our club owning the arena. Not taking the piss or trying to negotiate and keeping to what was agreed would have been much better than what has happened. But it would have cost money they didn't want to pay. Just like Fisher said they wouldn't have paid what Wasps did.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I often wonder if things like paying solicitors come out of some sort of management fees that SISU might charge their investors for managing the investment whereas if they want to purchase something like the Ricoh they have to sell that to investors to part with their cash to make said investment. Have they tried and failed to raise the capital leaving litigation the only choice they had in pursuit of the Ricoh? It's a theory anyway.
Correct.
When, one day, the dust settles on this sorry period of our club it will be seen as an aberrant episode where incompetence and malevolence conspired to fuck over fans and sporting values. Nobody is blameless but a significant part of the blame must rest with the Football League who refused to enforce their own guidelines permitting Sixfields and may have led to a different outcome.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Great post.
Yes funny how all those that thought the stadium was a White Elephant with no soul and worth fuck all are now the ones shouting and crying the loudest about us not owning it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Haven't got a clue if they have funds or not. However I think they may have sold some shares in a German company around Xmas time.
Probably not relevant.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
While proclaiming that said worthless white elephant was sold on the cheap while also accusing others of rolling over and accepting wasp's while not actually doing/done more than alot of those they're accusing of rolling over in apposing and not as many as some others that they've accused of rolling over. Nothing as queer as folk.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
"Build it and they will come" Tim Fisher 2013
Is this the new build or The Butts (which we're definitely moving to)?
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Read some of the threads over the weekend. To be honest when it got to name calling and personal insults I just stopped looking
Just a few thoughts
Question. Don't our laws reflect, to some degree, our community/society morals?
JR1. What was being tested - (and for the first time in court) - was the private investor test. So the JR1 examined most of what went on but was not an apportionment of blame for any of the actions. In that sense people are free to have their own opinions as to villain etc. What is clear is that to date SISU have failed spectacularly to prove CCC has a case to answer over its reliance on the private investor test and therefore state aid
The 400k rent deal that was offered. It looked to me like the original lease was to be kept in place which actually gave both sides some element of security of tenure. Yes the offer was for 3 years but it didn't say that the terms couldn't be renegotiated in that time and a rent less than 1.3m couldn't be agreed. Academic really as the offer was never taken up by the club.
Whilst I agree the doing of a deal with Wasps in secret does seem underhand, such things were done by the otherside. For example the ARVO charge taken out in 2012 was not made clear until we discussed it on this site (old site), Mr Reid published about 4 weeks later. It was purely normal business according to the owners but it became apparent it had separated the CCFC assets from the liabilities and ultimately gave SISU control of any insolvency situation (forward planning perhaps?). Also apparently by accident the assets of CCFC Ltd appeared in CCFCH - so what you might say - well that weakened any security ACL had for the lease and put ACL at risk. That didn't come to anyones knowledge it seems until many months after it happened. So what - well the natural conclusion to that is that it increased the risk to the tax payer. A wrong by SISU doesn't equal a wrong by CCC or vice versa just proves each were as bad as each other and neither could/should cry foul
The lease. Well yes a 250 year lease in terms of valuation would be similar to the unencumbered freehold but it is not the same. The freehold still exists and has value. Legally 250 leasehold is not the same as freehold
JR2. As I understand it ARVO, SBS&L and Otium are challenging CCC and joining AEHC & Wasps in over the sale value of ACL to Wasps and the grant/value of a 250 year lease extension.
So 8th October 2014 Wasps bought 50% of ACL from CCC
14th November 2014 Wasps bought remaining 50% From AEHC
29th January 2015 ACL 2006 Lease extended to 250 years cost £1m
I have listed the above because it is important to see how things were worked
The valuation of ACL at first point of sale 08/10 by CCC did not include a 250 year lease - the intention to have may have been there but such a lease did not exist so had no value - it was the original lease that was included. The company we all know was not pulling up trees but had a balance sheet value 31/05/14 of £6.8m including a valuation of the original lease. Half of that value was £3.4m but there is in valuation terms a discount that could be applied because 50% does not give you control not to mention the losses and time effects between 31/05 and 08/10. So there is an argument to illustrate £2.77m is not far off
The second sale by AEHC was never going to be above the sum paid to CCC for similar reasons to the above
So that brings us to the lease extension. The only company that could obtain a lease extension was ACL 2006 Ltd because it owned/managed the head lease which had 40 years+ to run. The extended lease came in to existence and was paid for 29/01/15 not before and well after the purchase of ACL by Wasps. Was that deliberate almost certainly - half an eye on potential for a legal challenge and that would be hardly surprising given what has gone on. Because there was only one possible option as to who could extend the lease - ACL 2006 Ltd. That restriction will have deflated the value as it wasn't and couldn't be open market and equally CCC had received almost 50 years rent upfront when the lease was set up so there was no rental stream to value either.
But you might say Wasps then valued the lease at £48.5m. Well first off lets be clear that valuation had nothing whatsoever to do with the purchase of the shares in October 2014. The original lease is the only lease value to include at that sale date (circa £18m). Professional valuers valued the lease for Wasps/ACL in April 2015 for the purpose of the LSE bond issue it is not like they stuck a finger in the air and said that's it. The revised value in Wasps hands is in part because of the security of tenure that Wasps have, it does include CCFC in some extent but they are at that time only there for under four years so it terms of longevity bring little value in reality
As for who should make the first move. Well yes you could argue CCC should but reality is that whilst they are threatened with court cases and costs, whilst CCFC have no where else to go then you can see why they might not. I don't like it because I want to see our club succeed on and off the pitch. A more significant olive branch would be SISU ending the court cases - they wont because I believe it has become too personal and that it would not be a strength to do so In so far as their investors are concerned
Offer the same terms. Yes would have been good for CCFC to be offered similar and get the same deal but where is it said that the council was legally bound to do so? Thing is it got to be all about legals not morals or partnership so why is everyone surprised. Equally CCFC had 8 years to get it done. In fact all they really had to do was repay the Charity, no we do not know it would have been vetoed we only assume. But CCFC never had the money to do so, in fact they never until recently seemed to have a viable business plan for CCFC let alone a combined group. Like it or not such a lack of financial prudence or acumen will have coloured the CCC view of risk in doing such a deal, risking such an asset (yes I know they had risk with Wasps but it seems Wasps had a well thought out plan ) Sad thing is if CCFC had driven towards self sufficiency in 2008 as they are doing now then I reckon they had a much better chance of ownership - but other forces drove this adventure rather than the success of CCFC didn't they
SISU investors - are they the same ones still or did the originals take a haircut and the ownership lies at a much discounted value elsewhere?
Trust. Yes the Council did say build trust, perhaps hinted at ownership after such a rebuild but wasn't the reaction of the Owners to issue the first JR. Trust is a two way street
Neither side has covered themselves in glory, both have faults. I know people like to say that CCC must be held to a higher standard and to a degree I can go with that. However as a CCFC fan I expect the highest standard from the custodian owners of our club, I expect their decisions actions etc to be first and foremost to the benefit of CCFC - any one feel that to be the case over the last 8 years? The owners have to maximise the cards the club has been dealt, not what the owners have been dealt
The responsibility for CCFC first and foremost lies with its owners, not councils, not FA, not FL, not charities
Just a few thoughts
Question. Don't our laws reflect, to some degree, our community/society morals?
JR1. What was being tested - (and for the first time in court) - was the private investor test. So the JR1 examined most of what went on but was not an apportionment of blame for any of the actions. In that sense people are free to have their own opinions as to villain etc. What is clear is that to date SISU have failed spectacularly to prove CCC has a case to answer over its reliance on the private investor test and therefore state aid
The 400k rent deal that was offered. It looked to me like the original lease was to be kept in place which actually gave both sides some element of security of tenure. Yes the offer was for 3 years but it didn't say that the terms couldn't be renegotiated in that time and a rent less than 1.3m couldn't be agreed. Academic really as the offer was never taken up by the club.
Whilst I agree the doing of a deal with Wasps in secret does seem underhand, such things were done by the otherside. For example the ARVO charge taken out in 2012 was not made clear until we discussed it on this site (old site), Mr Reid published about 4 weeks later. It was purely normal business according to the owners but it became apparent it had separated the CCFC assets from the liabilities and ultimately gave SISU control of any insolvency situation (forward planning perhaps?). Also apparently by accident the assets of CCFC Ltd appeared in CCFCH - so what you might say - well that weakened any security ACL had for the lease and put ACL at risk. That didn't come to anyones knowledge it seems until many months after it happened. So what - well the natural conclusion to that is that it increased the risk to the tax payer. A wrong by SISU doesn't equal a wrong by CCC or vice versa just proves each were as bad as each other and neither could/should cry foul
The lease. Well yes a 250 year lease in terms of valuation would be similar to the unencumbered freehold but it is not the same. The freehold still exists and has value. Legally 250 leasehold is not the same as freehold
JR2. As I understand it ARVO, SBS&L and Otium are challenging CCC and joining AEHC & Wasps in over the sale value of ACL to Wasps and the grant/value of a 250 year lease extension.
So 8th October 2014 Wasps bought 50% of ACL from CCC
14th November 2014 Wasps bought remaining 50% From AEHC
29th January 2015 ACL 2006 Lease extended to 250 years cost £1m
I have listed the above because it is important to see how things were worked
The valuation of ACL at first point of sale 08/10 by CCC did not include a 250 year lease - the intention to have may have been there but such a lease did not exist so had no value - it was the original lease that was included. The company we all know was not pulling up trees but had a balance sheet value 31/05/14 of £6.8m including a valuation of the original lease. Half of that value was £3.4m but there is in valuation terms a discount that could be applied because 50% does not give you control not to mention the losses and time effects between 31/05 and 08/10. So there is an argument to illustrate £2.77m is not far off
The second sale by AEHC was never going to be above the sum paid to CCC for similar reasons to the above
So that brings us to the lease extension. The only company that could obtain a lease extension was ACL 2006 Ltd because it owned/managed the head lease which had 40 years+ to run. The extended lease came in to existence and was paid for 29/01/15 not before and well after the purchase of ACL by Wasps. Was that deliberate almost certainly - half an eye on potential for a legal challenge and that would be hardly surprising given what has gone on. Because there was only one possible option as to who could extend the lease - ACL 2006 Ltd. That restriction will have deflated the value as it wasn't and couldn't be open market and equally CCC had received almost 50 years rent upfront when the lease was set up so there was no rental stream to value either.
But you might say Wasps then valued the lease at £48.5m. Well first off lets be clear that valuation had nothing whatsoever to do with the purchase of the shares in October 2014. The original lease is the only lease value to include at that sale date (circa £18m). Professional valuers valued the lease for Wasps/ACL in April 2015 for the purpose of the LSE bond issue it is not like they stuck a finger in the air and said that's it. The revised value in Wasps hands is in part because of the security of tenure that Wasps have, it does include CCFC in some extent but they are at that time only there for under four years so it terms of longevity bring little value in reality
As for who should make the first move. Well yes you could argue CCC should but reality is that whilst they are threatened with court cases and costs, whilst CCFC have no where else to go then you can see why they might not. I don't like it because I want to see our club succeed on and off the pitch. A more significant olive branch would be SISU ending the court cases - they wont because I believe it has become too personal and that it would not be a strength to do so In so far as their investors are concerned
Offer the same terms. Yes would have been good for CCFC to be offered similar and get the same deal but where is it said that the council was legally bound to do so? Thing is it got to be all about legals not morals or partnership so why is everyone surprised. Equally CCFC had 8 years to get it done. In fact all they really had to do was repay the Charity, no we do not know it would have been vetoed we only assume. But CCFC never had the money to do so, in fact they never until recently seemed to have a viable business plan for CCFC let alone a combined group. Like it or not such a lack of financial prudence or acumen will have coloured the CCC view of risk in doing such a deal, risking such an asset (yes I know they had risk with Wasps but it seems Wasps had a well thought out plan ) Sad thing is if CCFC had driven towards self sufficiency in 2008 as they are doing now then I reckon they had a much better chance of ownership - but other forces drove this adventure rather than the success of CCFC didn't they
SISU investors - are they the same ones still or did the originals take a haircut and the ownership lies at a much discounted value elsewhere?
Trust. Yes the Council did say build trust, perhaps hinted at ownership after such a rebuild but wasn't the reaction of the Owners to issue the first JR. Trust is a two way street
Neither side has covered themselves in glory, both have faults. I know people like to say that CCC must be held to a higher standard and to a degree I can go with that. However as a CCFC fan I expect the highest standard from the custodian owners of our club, I expect their decisions actions etc to be first and foremost to the benefit of CCFC - any one feel that to be the case over the last 8 years? The owners have to maximise the cards the club has been dealt, not what the owners have been dealt
The responsibility for CCFC first and foremost lies with its owners, not councils, not FA, not FL, not charities
Last edited:
hill83
Well-Known Member
You'd like to think everyone would be shouting and crying about us not owning it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be fair they are.
It's just some wish we negotiated professionally.
Others wish the plan to devalue it worked and the council rolled over and a charity lost a load of dosh.
However everybody is pissed off the football club don't own ACL and Wasps do, to be fair.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is the same gang.
* Found super neat function in new forum SW, select the part of the post you want to reply to and a little 'Reply' tool comes up, hit it and the reply is created with just the relevant bit & not all the rest of baggage. So cool, like it++
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Didn't they lose more by not selling to us?
Nick
Administrator
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No we offered them 2 million because of their charity status for something we stated was worth nothing.
Wasps gave them 2.77 million.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I can like on my phone finally!!!
Good work
Good work
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
It wasn't just about the cash in hand though. It wasn't just about £2.77m. Council's and charities can take in to account their assessment of social economic benefits. So in theory SISU could have offered 3m and the CCC assessment could still have been Wasps was a better deal because of the other things it would bring
Skyblueweeman
Well-Known Member
Upsurge in repellent spray?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If they'd have asked me about the social benefits, they'd have needed to pay a huge ultiple of the price they did...
It's all about who you ask and what answer you want in these things really ;-)
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I just wish SISU made an attempt to negotiate when invited by the council instead of continuing to play silly buggers. I can't see how you can blame anyone else after that point. It's that simple for me.