I think, taken in isolation, the value paid and the value of extension aren't unreasonable. I think the argument being made in The EU complaint is that they can't be taken in isolation, and that the lease extension was agreed prior to the sale and therefore should've formed part of the valuation.
It's hard to argue, from my point of view, that CCC maximised the value when Wasps had it value so soon afterwards at double what they'd paid.
Also have to remember that they haven't bought bricks & mortar, they've bought a company that operates a stadium. Does that make it harder to put a set value on it?
Agree with some of that but as with all things it wasnt entirely like that. There was a plan I think that sought to break that link.
Ccc sold their share first subject to a deal being done with the charity for wasps to acquire their shares.
That made the lease extension subject to the same requirement. If sale by charity didn't happen then the extension didn't either
The charity shares were then acquired after they were offered to sisu, on a slightly different contract and separately to the council. That creates an indication at least of market value of the shares which included a lease value of 18.4m.
Sisu offered a similar value for the charity shares so that would indicate the share sale price was about right or are sisu saying they should have offered more?
I assume that ccc would be able to show documentation that details of discussion of the terms of the extended lease after the share purchase (guess on my part but I don't think its unreasonable)
The extended lease could only be offered to acl as that company owned the original lease. It isnt legally owned by wasps holdings but it is controlled by that company. There was no open market for the lease because the original still had nearly 40 years still to run
Acl acquired the lease January 2015. The intention might exist before that and be linked but the lease had no legal standing until January 2015
Acl gave wasps rugby a 50 year lease as I understand it
The lease valued around May 2015 including the new anchor tenant wasps rugby at 48m just before the bond issued and the lease charged to the bond.
ccc loan repaid may 2015
Seems to me the whole thing was carefully planned and structured to counter any legal claim or eu complaint. Given what has gone on it is hard to think that the eu implications were not fully considered
Had said for years before the sale to wasps that
- the original lease was too short ... that was the ccc doing
- that acl lease should have been extended to create extra value ..... by time of sale to wasps acl didnt have the funds to do that and were almost bust. But also it would have allowed different finance options and the possibility of a long lease for ccfc
There is no link between what wasps valued it at and what the pre- sale value to ccc was. The acl lease value under wasps included a sub lease to wasps rugby as anchor tenant. The value to ccc pre-sale was without anchor tenant. The sale values of lease and extension to ccc are for eu to sort out.
Would the extension alone add 28m ? No idea.
One thing I am not sure of is are sisu claiming ccc are due an extra 28m or 50% of 28m ..... i assume the latter but if the argument is that the extension added 28m and was linked at date of sale it could be the full amount.
But then if the sisu argument is correct that must mean the valuations done since are incorrect because they ignore the intrinsic value of the extension and rely only on the cash flows of the tenants the biggest of which wasn't a tenant when ccc sold it