Blue Maniac
Member
I imagine the fixture wizards would find a way round it.
Some answers to some of the many questions (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter PWKH
- Start date
- Status
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That'd be a sure fire way of getting Barton out the team at least.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Manish would tell them.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
To be honest I'd prefer St Andrews-a lot more accessible than King Pwawn Awena.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of that but I don't think it will bother SISU, looks like this is the end game at last. If they don't get what they want why would they stick around and throw more money into the club?
Blue Maniac
Member
Easier to get to, sure. But would the PL/FL/whoever want four big clubs so close to each other? I think they'll avoid allowing another club into Birmingham if they can. Not that I think they'd entertain sharing with us either - it's two trains away for those on public transport, and the above mentioned egg chasers would complicate the situation.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Public transport alone makes it better-though Blues themselves would have to approve it. Also run risks of hooliganism with either choice.
Blue Maniac
Member
In the unlikely event that Coventry play their home games at the KPS, I promise not to throw stones at anyone in a sky blue shirt.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
There's idiots who couldn't resist I'm sure.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Just a little thought - if we ground shared with anyone aren't we contractually obliged to pay ACL rent? And pay rent on a new ground. Yes it's looking a real option to me. Lets go the whole hog and hire Old Trafford. They play most games on a Sunday so looks a goer to me.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not if ACL chuck us out.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
we would still be liable for the rent but we don't know the exact details of the contract. there may be a way for SISU to put the ownership of the lease into one of the holding companies and liquidate that, ending the lease. If CCFC (as in the football club not the company) was not owned by the liquidated company they could move the club to pay somewhere else and wouldn't owe ACL a penny. If they can do that will depend on the details of the contract.
Bluegloucester
New Member
PWKH makes it sound like its all in CCFC not CCFCH in his post tonight ,I think:wave:
Only the FL golden share and player contracts are at CCFC, everything else is held at CCFCH.
Player registrations are also at CCFC
ericagradus
Member
What about the Northampton Town's stadium at sixfields as an alternative?
35 mins from Coventry and easy access straight off the m1?
35 mins from Coventry and easy access straight off the m1?
He definately states CCFC have the contract with ACL and it would be that which is wound up.
Bluegloucester
New Member
I'll check
So another rent offer is turned down - but why?
All we know is ACL have said they have made an offer that they wouldn't make to any other tennant.
That's fine then, but from what date? If the new rent was supposed to kick in from jan 2013, then I can see why it's turned down.
The club probably doesn't have the £1m+ that is owed, and their stance will be: We have paid matchday cost in all these months, and we are not prepared to pay more than the difference between the matchday payment and the new rent to settle the debt.
On the other hand, ACL seem in some kind of trouble themself. So I wonder if they can get permission from the banks who are 'restructuring' ACL's own debts to write off the £1m+.
PKWH is the only involved who gets on this forum and gives his side of the story. And he comes across as very articulate and very likeable so naturally he gets all the sympathy. He is talking the Higgs side of things mostly, and Higgs are actually ready to leave ACL if they can get their shares sold. But here may be another twist as Higgs seem to value their shares much higher than any investor/potential buyer would. If Higgs ask for £6-10m most investors would expect the ACL to produce a yearly profit at around £2-3m representing a yearly profit (or asset gain) of around £1m-1.5m for the 50% shareholding. That is very far from the profits produced in the past.
A new investor may accept a lessor profit if ACL has a considerable book value but the emergence of Deloitte to help restructuring doesn't really support that possibility.
ACL's businessplan is also somewhat tainted with the clubs refusal to pay the usual rent. If ACL and the club agree a new and much lower rent, then the profit goes out of the window. If ACL evicts the club and even succeed to get a replacement tennant, then the profit will also go out the window.
So however this whole situation evolves, ACL stand to lose a lot of profitabillity and the Higgs share value will suffer greatly. It will be a long time before any investor will be willing to buy Higgs shares for £10m or even £6m.
As it stands right now, everybody is going to lose. Nobody is gaining anything.
ACL stands to lose it's original purpose: Making sure the city's proud football club has a place to play.
Higgs stand to lose a good percentage of the book value of their shares and the their investment is locked up for years to come.
Sisu stand to lose all the money their clients have invested.
The city stand to lose it's football club.
Of course there is a morale issue in here, but in reality there's no good guys and no bad guys in business. There are only winners and losers.
If all parties at some point accept that whereever they turn they face defeat unless a deal is made, then there's a chance ccfc will live to play another game.
But it is my oppinion that to get to that point ACL will probably have to change owners for a price investors is ready to pay: 2-4 times the expected yearly profit (excluding the rent from the club) plus net asset value.
Only remaining problem will be to make sure ACL becomes part of ccfc and stays there whatever sisu or any future owner do.
All we know is ACL have said they have made an offer that they wouldn't make to any other tennant.
That's fine then, but from what date? If the new rent was supposed to kick in from jan 2013, then I can see why it's turned down.
The club probably doesn't have the £1m+ that is owed, and their stance will be: We have paid matchday cost in all these months, and we are not prepared to pay more than the difference between the matchday payment and the new rent to settle the debt.
On the other hand, ACL seem in some kind of trouble themself. So I wonder if they can get permission from the banks who are 'restructuring' ACL's own debts to write off the £1m+.
PKWH is the only involved who gets on this forum and gives his side of the story. And he comes across as very articulate and very likeable so naturally he gets all the sympathy. He is talking the Higgs side of things mostly, and Higgs are actually ready to leave ACL if they can get their shares sold. But here may be another twist as Higgs seem to value their shares much higher than any investor/potential buyer would. If Higgs ask for £6-10m most investors would expect the ACL to produce a yearly profit at around £2-3m representing a yearly profit (or asset gain) of around £1m-1.5m for the 50% shareholding. That is very far from the profits produced in the past.
A new investor may accept a lessor profit if ACL has a considerable book value but the emergence of Deloitte to help restructuring doesn't really support that possibility.
ACL's businessplan is also somewhat tainted with the clubs refusal to pay the usual rent. If ACL and the club agree a new and much lower rent, then the profit goes out of the window. If ACL evicts the club and even succeed to get a replacement tennant, then the profit will also go out the window.
So however this whole situation evolves, ACL stand to lose a lot of profitabillity and the Higgs share value will suffer greatly. It will be a long time before any investor will be willing to buy Higgs shares for £10m or even £6m.
As it stands right now, everybody is going to lose. Nobody is gaining anything.
ACL stands to lose it's original purpose: Making sure the city's proud football club has a place to play.
Higgs stand to lose a good percentage of the book value of their shares and the their investment is locked up for years to come.
Sisu stand to lose all the money their clients have invested.
The city stand to lose it's football club.
Of course there is a morale issue in here, but in reality there's no good guys and no bad guys in business. There are only winners and losers.
If all parties at some point accept that whereever they turn they face defeat unless a deal is made, then there's a chance ccfc will live to play another game.
But it is my oppinion that to get to that point ACL will probably have to change owners for a price investors is ready to pay: 2-4 times the expected yearly profit (excluding the rent from the club) plus net asset value.
Only remaining problem will be to make sure ACL becomes part of ccfc and stays there whatever sisu or any future owner do.
katzenjammer
New Member
PKWH, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you sit on ACL's board of directors. Could some of the stuff you are saying here be classed as a breach of the non disclosure agreement we've heard so much about?
Don't get me wrong it's nice to hear the counterpoint to Fisher/SISU but it is likely you're here just pushing your own agenda, as part of the Higgs Charity, and the truth probably still lies somewhere in the middle.
Don't get me wrong it's nice to hear the counterpoint to Fisher/SISU but it is likely you're here just pushing your own agenda, as part of the Higgs Charity, and the truth probably still lies somewhere in the middle.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
The Higgs Charity is a longstanding coventry centred charity, employing local people. It is coventry through and through.
Sisu are a 5th rate hedge fund.
I know who I trust.
Sisu are a 5th rate hedge fund.
I know who I trust.
TrakiaPlovdiv
New Member
I think we are all missing a point here.
If the Club leave the Stadium, the Council and the Higgs Trust won't let the taxpayer down as once all contractual obligation to 3rd parties are fulfilled they would
re-coup their investment by selling of the Stadium and associated land for redevelopment.
Lets not be under any illusion that ACL, Council or Higgs Trust need a Football Club in the City. However, they do have a committment to the people of Coventry
to protect their investment and preferably with a successful Football Club representative of the city.
If the Club leave the Stadium, the Council and the Higgs Trust won't let the taxpayer down as once all contractual obligation to 3rd parties are fulfilled they would
re-coup their investment by selling of the Stadium and associated land for redevelopment.
Lets not be under any illusion that ACL, Council or Higgs Trust need a Football Club in the City. However, they do have a committment to the people of Coventry
to protect their investment and preferably with a successful Football Club representative of the city.
I guess he's come to understand the dissengenous bastards from Mayfair have been toying with his charities 50% stake ,meaning he does'nt have to
be confidential on any aspect of arrangements ,especially given CWRs pushing of Sisus PR excercise.
coundonskyblue
New Member
CCFC offered it to them at that price, as if they hadn't the club would have gone bust.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Yes I get that... Higgs helped to form ACL to run the Ricoh. So what I am failing to understand is why it was OK for Higgs to have the club over a barrel and pay them a pittance for their share, yet when the club want to have their rent to be manageable for League 1 - this becomes unacceptable. So it's ok for Higgs and ultimately ACL to profit massively from the clubs perilous position, but the same club is not afforded the opportunity to break even with a realistic rent???
Smacks of some serious double standards...
Smacks of some serious double standards...
I'm sure he can ,I'll have a go for him. Firstly they did'nt get a 50% stake of the Arena,the freehold to that belongs to the Council,they actually took a
50% stake of the stadium management company set up to facilitate the mortgage for the shortfall of the construction costs £21M. which had to be
done as the Club lost control of its own finances along with control of the project .
Quite a risk for them given that most people value it at somewhere under its mortgage value currently ,Maybe if they had'nt we would'nt be going
through what we are now,it may have been preferable.
mattylad
Member
Higgs money saved this club at a time when the Co-op wanted to close the doors, and Higgs have not made one penny out of the Ricoh so far.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
ACL have profited... Higgs helped to create it... So where exactly do you expect those profits to have gone?
ampthill_sba
New Member
Better still: Stadium MK....
mattylad
Member
Any profit made by ACL is used to pay off the Yorkshire bank loan sooner which is the deal agreed with the Council. Once that mortgage/loan is paid off then a dividend will be paid but only then and that is years away.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I'm sure he can ,I'll have a go for him. Firstly they did'nt get a 50% stake of the Arena,the freehold to that belongs to the Council,they actually took a
50% stake of the stadium management company set up to facilitate the mortgage for the shortfall of the construction costs £21M. which had to be
done as the Club lost control of its own finances along with control of the project .
Quite a risk for them given that most people value it at somewhere under its mortgage value currently ,Maybe if they had'nt we would'nt be going
through what we are now,it may have been preferable.
Yep the council got an arena that cost £113m to building (excluding the purchase of the land) for £20m pounds because they bailed the club.
ACL then paid £20m upfront for a 50 year lease ( that paid off the £20m the council contributed to the build.
Do essentially the council got a £113m build arena for nothing.
- Status