New Trust Statement (51 Viewers)
- Thread starter I was eleven in 87
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Elliot has a great track record doesn't he?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
No he has been around for some shocking moments
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
The 'car accessories' jingle was pretty catchy...
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Think this where you have look at the time line and dates of transactions. There may have been an agreed intention to do a lease extension by 14 November 2014 when the 100% purchase of the shares took place. However I suspect in law that the 250 year lease does not exist until both parties have signed it and it has been registered. The lease is dated 29 January 2015.
Not on about whether the land disposal regulations apply or not to a share disposal. At the date of the share disposal 14 November 2014 for the Charity and 07 October 2014 for CCC the 250 year lease did not exist and was therefore not legally binding and as a consequence had no value to include in the ACL figures for valuation. Was the grant of the lease conditional on the shares being purchased or the other way round - we do not know, and it can only be tested in court.
But in terms of someone providing a market valuation of the original lease or ACL shares in October or November 2014 then the 250 year lease simply did not exist. Whereas in May 2015 it did, which is when the £48.5m valuation was provided
I am pretty sure given the contentious nature of this that CCC & wasps will have been very careful to map the whole thing out. I would guess the £1m payment for the lease extension was also at the end of January 2015 and will be used to evidence a separate deal
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
And that will be SISU's arguement. That CCC & Wasps were aware of what they were doing and the timeline was a deliberate ploy to avoid having to confirm to certain regulations.
Come JR2 it will be down to a judge to decide.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
OSB whilst you are around liquidation getting the odd mention.
I know under the old situation it seemed unlikely.
Any idea now the goal posts have moved could it be a likely possibility
I know under the old situation it seemed unlikely.
Any idea now the goal posts have moved could it be a likely possibility
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
what are the regulations for disposal of shares? Which is the deal done in 2014
What are the regulations for extending the lease of an existing lessee?
The ownership of the leases still remain with ACL & ACL 2006, the lease extension was never something that could be offered to the open market because ACL & ACL 2006 already owned the base lease for the next 41 years
The lease extension was paid for by the existing sitting leaseholder (albeit under new ownership). Because it was existing then that depresses value because there is no open market for the lease extension
Not sure I see a good case for SISU to pursue to be honest
What are the regulations for extending the lease of an existing lessee?
The ownership of the leases still remain with ACL & ACL 2006, the lease extension was never something that could be offered to the open market because ACL & ACL 2006 already owned the base lease for the next 41 years
The lease extension was paid for by the existing sitting leaseholder (albeit under new ownership). Because it was existing then that depresses value because there is no open market for the lease extension
Not sure I see a good case for SISU to pursue to be honest
Last edited:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
From a CCFC point of view it would be a complete disaster - extinction. It is not a way to restructure the club or even start again
From investors point of view then if they were looking to create some capital losses I suppose its possible but that's going to be purely an investment decision. But they could do the same by selling on
From a SISU point of view I would think it would create a large amount of reputational damage
It is still better for all concerned to either sell on direct or via administration. I have a couple of quid I might make a bid !
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point. If SISU argue, and the judge agrees, that the deal has been deliberately done in a way that circumvents regulations he may then rule it be considered in a different manner.
Its not like we're saying Wasps purchased shares in ACL and then down the line negotiated a lease extension. The council minutes clearly show this was all agreed at the same time. There's also the issue of why you would sell an extended lease, far longer than the life of the building, rather than sell the freehold, it could be viewed as a deliberate tactic to avoid certain regulations.
IMO that will be where SISU go with JR2. Morally they have a very strong case. I think its clear to most people that it was all a done deal and not an open sale process designed to maximise the return for the taxpayer. But as we know what is morally right or wrong isn't necessarily reflected in legal proceedings.
The danger, from the council's perspective, is that when you are doing things close to the line you always run a danger of slipping over the line.
Its the same reason I thought the administration process and the whole moving of assets should have been looked at in more details. SISU could easily have slipped up somewhere and done something they shouldn't have. Unfortunately that was never looked into.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Don't worry, italia's spoken with Wasps and its all part of a plan for them to buy the name and reform us in non league with 20K turning up to the Ricoh every week.
Apart from the Sheff Wed bit that could apply to quite a few CCFC Directors
And TF is an avid football fan
And increase the Ricoh valuation to zillions?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
It could and it doesn't make them perfect either.
He is an avid Sheff Weds fan paid indirectly by SISU.
So his decisions will always be what's best for SISU long term first over what's best for CCFC long term.
Nothing against him just a fact of business life.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
which bit in the minutes chief, this line? "There was a proposal for the lease to be extended to a term indicated in the report"
Did we ever see the actual report?
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Its a bullshit excuse that people are buying, it has nothing to do with the legal noise, and everything to do with distressing the club and delaying negotiations in order to leave the club no choice but to agree a sustantially mlre expensive deal with worse conditions IMO, and which has been backed up by a member of the trust who said wasps tried to get is to agree a 20 year agreement but we only want another 2+2 deal.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'd argue quite the opposite...
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
How many long established professional football clubs have been completely liquidated? It would be a disaster for their reputation (I'm not talking in the football world).
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm not talking in the football world either.
Their reputation is playing hardball, not giving in, and being prepared to go high stakes for high risk.
Liquidation shows you take them seriously if they negotiate with you, with something you care about. Shuffling us on for low cost shows that ultimately you shouldn't listen to their demands, as they'll give in in the end.
They, and others like them, care little about liquidating businesses that fail. That's the collateral damage.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Didn't even get through a quarter of it before I stopped, typical of the trust to try and stick the boot in after a heavy defeat. If we'd have won Tuesday night the problems would still be around the club but I doubt we'd have heard a whisper from the trust about them.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
The lease extension could still only be offered to ACL
Can see that side of things NW certainly. On the other side their stewardship can be portrayed as amateurish, lacking direction, ill considered and their principle allowed investment in the first place on a poorly researched and reasoned assessment. A liquidation of a reasonably high profile team in the UK would damage their home financial reputation and put them in the spotlight. Would mean handling the brief media glare not something they come across as good at. But then again how big a name globally is CCFC in investment circles, I suspect that most of their investors are far from these shores and collateral damage wont bother them at all.
Can see that side of things NW certainly. On the other side their stewardship can be portrayed as amateurish, lacking direction, ill considered and their principle allowed investment in the first place on a poorly researched and reasoned assessment. A liquidation of a reasonably high profile team in the UK would damage their home financial reputation and put them in the spotlight. Would mean handling the brief media glare not something they come across as good at. But then again how big a name globally is CCFC in investment circles, I suspect that most of their investors are far from these shores and collateral damage wont bother them at all.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
The problem with outfits like SISU us they would return to investment under a new name. Whilst the name SISU would be mud they would still be trading elsewhere with little damage
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
In the main yes.
One could argue that since Seppala got more personally involved we've seen the real SISU. Ruthless, unwilling to give in, prepared to do whatever it takes.
One could argue that Seppala has got mre involved because not doing this has damaged her brand.
One could argue her brand demands either success, or making as big a negative splash as possible.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It is a bullshit excuse but lets not pretend that most people are buying it. Most people had come to the conclusion that SISU should drop the pointless legals because they're not only pointless but also hindering the club long before wasps come up with the "idea".
If anything wasps have picked up on general opinion and used it to put pressure on our owners. Nobody has brought anything wasps have said because the general opinion was already there.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So no one on here has said "drop the legals and wasps will talk"?
Nick
Administrator
And everybody is saying it is bullshit and Wasps should talk?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
CT said:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
People were already saying drop the legals. People haven't suddenly started saying drop the legals because wasps say they should. No body has bought wasps "PR", people had already made their minds up on the legals.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that and have since day one that they said it.
They didn't convince me that SISU should drop the legals. I was already of that opinion as were the vast majority of our fan base. So what did I or anyone else for that matter buy? It's not like everyone was cheering SISU on in a pointless, likely to continue to fail and probably not gain CCFC one jot of benefit regardless of the outcome of the JR(s) and then wasps pipe up and opinion changed to SISU should drop the legals is it? No one bought anything.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
There's two different things here isn't there? Most people think the legals are a waste of time and think SISU should give up but that is different from saying they are not entitled to make full use of the legal process and that they must cease any legal action before anyone will talk to the football club.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Tony has got sun stroke I think.