PKWH on CWR Shane O'Connor 23/10/2013 (40 Viewers)

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Apologies if this has been discussed on another thread- did anyone hear this earlier today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p01htx7d

Commences at 00:09:45 if link doesnt take you directly to it.

 

---

[SkyBlueScottie]

What did he say?

 

[jesus-wept]

He speaks well but seems to get short shrift now on these websites. The main thing he says and always does is we are open to talk and it seems it is Joy Sepalla who won't, so I fail to see what that demo yesterday will achieve, even if the council were willing to negotiate short of kidnap how do they get Sepalla to any discussions ?

 

[shmmeee]

What did he say?

"Lucas is serious, genuine & sincere"
"Very few people don't want CCFC at the Ricoh"
"It's within Otium's Gift to come back"
"3 courses of action: rental deal (Sisu turned down, but ACL are up to talk), buy the whole thing (need to talk to CCC, not for me to say but thinks it's very difficult, and not best option, even though that's what Joy wants. Wouldn't give them income unless they buy ACL too). " - Didn't say third, got interrupted.
"I don't think it's wise to say publicly what the price is, for CCC's ACL share, Higgs have veto over any side's share sale and at the moment would refuse to talk to any Sisu company until debts to them are paid (didn't say what debt: Alan Higgs, perhaps? - see below regarding legal costs)"
Q: What does the future look like without club for Ricoh?
A: "total income for 2012/13 around £12m with football, 2013/14 projected £13,5m with no football"
Q: How confident are you, does that take into account things like weddings not happening cos it's not CCFC"
A: "This isn't just guess work, we monitor this and are confident. You have to understand Ricoh business is national, not local. Most business comes from outside Coventry, around Europe. Around 55% of business is that. That expands with or without club. Of course ACL would love to have club, and are open to discussion, but the place isn't empty and doing nothing. Some events are totally secret (e.g. car manufacturer), no-one sees them."

"Joy said 'Trust me, I will not let you down' promised to pay £28k (Higgs legal fees accrued during neogotiations) if deal for Higgs share didn't go through, that money is still owed. Any deal needs to see money paid back that is owed"

"Hopeful academy back shortly, still negotiating"

"When you have a job to do you do the job, not about personality. If approach is made, ACL are more than up for it."

Sorry, typing as I listened.

 

[covcity4life]

He speaks well but seems to get short shrift now on these websites. The main thing he says and always does is we are open to talk and it seems it is Joy Sepalla who won't, so I fail to see what that demo yesterday will achieve, even if the council were willing to negotiate short of kidnap how do they get Sepalla to any discussions ?

their willing to open talks about rent not ownership last i heard.

 

[Nick]

Did he say who is doing the talking for Academy?

 

[shmmeee]

Did he say who is doing the talking for Academy?

I think he said he's talking to Fisher, but may have misheard, hard to type and listen

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

What did he say?

Amongst many things -he mentioned the power of veto that ACL hold over any potential freehold deal that the council might strike with Otium for the Ricoh unless Otium pay their debt. He also referenced an upaid bill of £28,000- a fee that Joy Sepalla had personally committed to the charity that she would meet- (I missed what for?). He was very specific with his buisness reckoning suggesting that only 7% comes from CCFC- albeit did concede(I think) that associated sales were diffiicult to calculate. He also stated that circa 55% of revenue was in conferences etc and that the attraction of the Ricoh was global for such events.
He closed by saying that the door was open for talks, and that ACL wanted the football club at the Ricoh.

 

[bezzer]

their willing to open talks about rent not ownership last i heard.

And there lies the first obstacle.

SISU aren't going back to the Ricoh as tenants.

 

[shmmeee]

their willing to open talks about rent not ownership last i heard.

See my post, he says they'd still have to buy ACL to get access to any income, so doesn't understand why they need the freehold. But he did say "any talks like that wouldn't be public" so maybe a hint of possibility?

 

[lordsummerisle]

A: "total income for 2012/13 around £12m with football, 2013/14 projected £13,5m with no football"

Really?

 

[Nick]

You can't argue if they have managed to get that much business.

 

[lordsummerisle]

What happened to the "Board and Finance" board on here?

 

[shmmeee]

Really?

That's what he said.

To be fair, if you're in charge of ACL and have seen football related footfall at the complex fall by 50% in 5 years with no signs of stopping, you'd have been looking to get away from a reliance on football too.

 

[lordsummerisle]

That's what he said.

To be fair, if you're in charge of ACL and have seen football related footfall at the complex fall by 50% in 5 years with no signs of stopping, you'd have been looking to get away from a reliance on football too.

Doesn't seem like ACL could have made much money from the Olympics either in 2012/13 though if those figures correct.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just to clarify a few things

The Charity can veto any deal that sees the CCC sell its shares in ACL. Equally the CCC can veto any deal that sees the Charity sell its shares in ACL

Neither ACL nor Charity could veto any sale of the freehold which is owned 100% by the CCC. However as it stands selling the freehold would not give the buyer any rights to income at all

the £29K owed by SISU to the Alan Higgs Charity. As part of the deal to buy 50% of the Charity shares in ACL SISU apparently guaranteed to pay the Charity legal costs whether or not the deal went ahead. SISU have yet to pay those costs that the Charity has been charged

Going from what PWKH said and the accounts already filed the ACL turnovers were/will be

year ending 31st May
2010 £6.6m
2011 £6.7m
2012 £7.8m (includes 2months draw down of escrow to get full year rent etc)
2013 £ 12.5m (would be based on management figures available to ACL directors) - would include draw down of Escrow account £336k, approx £240k match day fees plus F&B on match days. Turnover increased by 4.7m would include Olympics
2014 £ 13.4m (based on budgets, current orders and equiries and 5 months actual trade) - includes no income from football at all. Seems to suggest higher level of income is being maintained without any football at all

CCFC accounted for approx 7% of turnover in 2012/13 = thats approx 900k

In addition to the increase in the turnovers there have been significant cost and efficiency savings. Would estimate a £600k saving on loan interest (which is a saving every year going forward compared to the old bank loan) They have not replaced senior staff eg Gidney estimate an ongoing saving £400k per year. There have been utility savings also. On the opposite side they now employ the groundsman and his staff plus stadium bowl costs with no cost offset to ccfc. They have also taken on the stewards etc but they are hired out so create income too.

That is the core business considerations against which there are the exceptional items - legal & PR fees. Although ACL seem to be shutting off that drain on resources by closing down the various actions.

So given the increase in turnover and cost savings are ACL reliant on the CCC keep dipping in its pocket to support it as some claim to be happening?
Should SISU be worried that they have miscalculated and ACL is not a lame duck? Is the "white Elephant" title accurate ?

The comments by the independent expert just after 8am were quite telling really

Good news is CCFC can still come back and ACL want them back, the CCC want them back ........... the bad news is that it wont be possible for ever because other things will be booked

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Thanks OSB, great summary.

The longer this goes on the clearer it becomes that SISU have backed themselves into a corner with no way out, or at least no way out that they're prepared to take. An utter shambles on their part and for the football club.

 

[stupot07]

year ending 31st May
2010 £6.6m
2011 £6.7m
2012 £7.8m (includes 2months draw down of escrow to get full year rent etc)
2013 £ 12.5m (would be based on management figures available to ACL directors) - would include draw down of Escrow account £336k, approx £240k match day fees plus F&B on match days. Turnover increased by 4.7m would include Olympics
2014 £ 13.4m (based on budgets, current orders and equiries and 5 months actual trade) - includes no income from football at all. Seems to suggest higher level of income is being maintained without any football at all

Still seems awfully high to me for 2013/14


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

 

[torchomatic]

So why did CCC have to bail out ACL if things are so healthy?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Still seems awfully high to me)

But what if it's right? What if the venue isn't as reliant on the football club as many asserted?

Do SISU deserve to pick up a venue they contribute circa 10% of the turnover for at such an advantageous rate?

And if so; why?

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

So why did CCC have to bail out ACL if things are so healthy?

Cashflow I guess- a £1.2m shortfall?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Cashflow I guess- a £1.2m shortfall?

Agreed. And induced nervousness from their prime lender. Read Fishers comments at the time to understand the game in hand. Even used the CCFC website; which I find deplorable

 

[torchomatic]

Too right. The club can fuck off. We demand a Physic Sally event every two weeks.

But what if it's right? What if the venue isn't as reliant on the football club as many asserted?

Do SISU deserve to pick up a venue they contribute circa 10% of the turnover for at such an advantageous rate?

And if so; why?

 

[Godiva]

So given the increase in turnover and cost savings are ACL reliant on the CCC keep dipping in its pocket to support it?

You can look at the ACL in many ways, but to me it seem they 'have woken up'. Didn't Fisher say at some point after the due dilligence that the business was run ineffectively? Well, it looks like he was right - especially as all the improvements to their core business is done in a way where the club may still return.
At least that is one positive that has come out of this sad story.

Taking that into account it could suggest the club could retun at the price of pure matchday cost. Forget the rounded offers at £400k or £150k per year ... it could happen at the actual match day costs without worsening the ACL business case. In fact it would probably add extra income as the businesses at the Ricoh would gain extra revenue.
And the club could still get ACL's share of F/B on match days without weakening ACL profit.

But that is not what Otium wants as the club would still be tennants.
Maybe this sort of deal plus CCC selling the freehold for the sum CCC has actually put into the stadium and the surroundings over time would be acceptable?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Too right. The club can fuck off. We demand a Physic Sally event every two weeks.

Unless you haven't noticed, the club has fucked off. And you've been - and as above continue to be - dismissive of the venues other options; despite all evidence to the contrary

 

[lifelongcityfan]

So why did CCC have to bail out ACL if things are so healthy?

They didnt bail ACL out they renegotiated on a loan on a cheaper basis- they have not had to put money in.

Its no different to an individual changing mortgage lender, or car loan- doesnt mean you in trouble, simply making the cost of an existing loan cheaper

 

[King of the Lesbians]

2014 £ 13.4m (based on budgets, current orders and equiries and 5 months actual trade) - includes no income from football at all. Seems to suggest higher level of income is being maintained without any football at all

I don't get it. Does this imply that ACL were...

1) losing money by opening the arena on matchdays
b) if they were making money from matchdays then turnover is better than 6m if you exclude matchday profits from previous years
iii) none of the above
4) I just don't really get all this financial bollocks

?

 

[torchomatic]

Oh yes, sorry. It was not a bail out. Definitely. Absolutely. No way was it a bail out. Huh. Bail out, my arse.

Think I've got the hang it now.

They didnt bail ACL out they renegotiated on a loan on a cheaper basis- they have not had to put money in

 

[torchomatic]

So, the city of Coventry has ended up with a £120M events hall with a massive green hole in the middle?

Unless you haven't noticed, the club has fucked off. And you've been - and as above continue to be - dismissive of the venues other options; despite all evidence to the contrary

 

[lifelongcityfan]

Oh yes, sorry. It was not a bail out. Definitely. Absolutely. No way was it a bail out. Huh. Bail out, my arse.

Think I've got the hang it now.

I am an accountant- if you want a bsaic lesson just ask.. in the meantime keep showing off your financial ignorance.

The council did not put money in- they had access to money on cheaper terms

 

[oldskyblue58]

So why did CCC have to bail out ACL if things are so healthy?

were they that healthy then? Turnover for 2012 was only 7.8m they were making bank repayments of £1.7m, and had a delinquent major tenant.

They could have folded yes but they chose a different route

It is interesting that it is seen as a "bail out" which tends to imply the money wont be got back where as the reality is that it is a switch of a loan to a cheaper lender. Any business would seek to reduce its finance costs.

In making the new loan the council made a net gain in income, provided a stable lender at lower rates at a time where banks were/are volatile, ensured a lower cost base in the company it had invested in, stability and reduced costs tend to increase value of investment, added value to its property portfolio .......... all valid reasons for any investor/lender the problem some people seem to have is that it was the Council that did it (leaving aside the effect it had on SISU's plans)

 

[stupot07]

But what if it's right? What if the venue isn't as reliant on the football club as many asserted?

Do SISU deserve to pick up a venue they contribute circa 10% of the turnover for at such an advantageous rate?

And if so; why?

But then we contributed 33% of turnover for 2009,2010 and 2011, when you consider rent, F&B's and match day costs ~ £2.35m

2009 35.7%
2010 35.1%
2011 30.2%


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

 

[torchomatic]

Can I have a basic lesson please?

I am an accountant- if you want a bsaic lesson just ask.. in the meantime keep showing off your finacial ignorance.

The council did not put money in- they had access to money on cheaper terms

 

[lifelongcityfan]

Can I have a basic lesson please?

Read OSB's response as well... thats two accountants saying the same!

 

[lordsummerisle]

I don't get it. Does this imply that ACL were...

1) losing money by opening the arena on matchdays
b) if they were making money from matchdays then turnover is better than 6m if you exclude matchday profits from previous years
iii) none of the above
4) I just don't really get all this financial bollocks

?

Figures can be manipulated whichever way people want them I suppose.

Need to show a profit, show a profit, need to show a loss for tax reasons, show a loss, need to show that you only make 5% profit from energy sales, don't mention that the energy generators owned by the energy companies make 24% profit overcharging their own companies to therefore show a lesser headline profit margin.

If it was simple then anybody with O'level maths could do somebody's accounts(as long as no trigonometry involved, was shite at that).