Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Funny how certain people are worried about the poor old taxpayer but not concerned about companies who are based in tax havens such as The Cayman Islands wonder how much tax they are paying?
Grounds for the Judicial Review (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
is that sisu's offer then? please provide your source.
No, ccc paid the outstanding amount. That's different to its 'true' value.
If ACL at that time were in distress (no matter the reason), then the mortgage would be worth much less than the outsanding value.
If CCC paid more than the mortgage was worth, then it's unfair business practice by a public entity and not legal under the EU legislation.
sisu - a company in the financial sector - may prove that the 'market value' was half the outstanding amount and may even document they had agreed with CCC that sisu would try to buy the mortgage at a cut-down price. If they can show that kind of documentation then I believe sisu will win.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
That's an investment in infrastructure they v own.
CCC have paid a bad debt in this case.
It's not about the taxpayers - it's about the use or mis-use of public funds.
But - paying £6-8m above market value for the mortgage only served the interests of shareholders of YB.
Do you think that money could have been used for better purposes in the public sector?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
so let me get this straight.
sisu are paying rent to someone who is paying rent to a local authority (after telling us for as long as i can remember that a football team cant operate on this basis) 34miles away to record low crowds costing them and the club money hand over fist while their is an offer to rent a local stadium at a good rate from someone who is renting from a local authority where they could be playing to half decent crowds with the opportunity to earn money for the club and themselves!
sorry what was your point again?
blueflint
Well-Known Member
wasn't the "bail out" a loan to be paid back with interest so it shouldn't matter how much as it will be returned
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Just like the 59 million the council got from Tesco for the sale of the land you mean?
blueflint
Well-Known Member
if its a loan with interest then its good business as a profit will be shown at the end of the loan wheres the bad debt
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What's yours? I am not talking about the merits of the Northampton move. Do you believe I think it's a good thing? I answered your point about the big difference between the two examples you mentioned.
blueflint
Well-Known Member
you seem to forget the council have by law to get the market value.they also have by law the right to defend attacks on their assets of which the ricoh is one.lets not pre judge the jr as SISU haven't won it yet
None of that can be argued at the JR. It may or may not be 'good business' - but the issue is: Did CCC buy out the mortgage at a price unfair to other interested private parties?
If sisu can prove that is the case, then they will win
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Because the loan wasn't worth that. The suggestion is that the loan would be distressed to significantly less than £14m.
Would another bank have bought the debt for £14m I wonder?
Northampton Council don't own Sixfields. After it lost money for a number of years they sold it to the a Cobblers for £1. Gave the club ownership and control of their own destiny and took a money losing burden off the councils books. A win:win for both sides...
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Interesting. I didn't realise that. It sounds like a pretty novel idea.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The market value is £6 million. The council borrowed £14 million against £6 million worth of assets. They did it to protect a company where council members are on the board. Well, that's my assumption that this is what the review will try and claim.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
This is interesting: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/distressed-debt.asp
Both sides have attempted to do this in their own way. SISU in trying to distress the mortgage and ACL in trying to claim the value of the rental agreement as being the entire term rather than to date.
Both sides have attempted to do this in their own way. SISU in trying to distress the mortgage and ACL in trying to claim the value of the rental agreement as being the entire term rather than to date.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Point of order, but isn't it a 150 year lease agreed with the club, at peppercorn rent?
This is what I believed. Having a play on google. Will come back and apologise if I've misled anyone
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
its just that you seem more concerned with the bailout than the fact we are being held hostage in Northampton. plus see below VVVV
i guess this means Northampton council can expect JR from sisu as they were denied the commercial opportunity and as Tim has already explained sisu are a moral compass of justice.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It is leasehold. Please see the following document from Northampton Council's website:
http://www.northamptonboroughcounci...s19053/Cabinet Report - Sixfields Stadium.pdf
My memory must be playing up as I was sure the Coblers were sold the stadium. This is from around the time I was thinking of. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2664375.stm
I know they suddenly became better off as when under the Council's control there was a stipulation that every game was policed that cost the club loads and after the 'sale? New lease?' Lots of games became police free.
What is apparent, peppercorn rent or cheap sale, the club were a lot better off afterwards.
This is really helpful, thank you. I got it wrong earlier.
But look at what can be achieved when a council and football club work together rather hand trying to eliminate each other.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Indeed. The language used in the council's press releases is completely different to that used by Coventry Council.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Ok, after what you have said in this thread and previous ones about this situation surrounding the loan and it's validity from CCC. What do you see as being the outcome of it all and who will benefit in the end.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What is the benefit of the loan?
If sisu win the JR one outcome will be that ACL will have to repay the loan.
This mean they would have to get a replacement loan from a bank. If ACL have really improved their business and is capable of making a profit without the football club then it will be possible but more expensive. If they can't get a replacemnt loan they will go bust.
On top of that sisu will likely sue CCC for damages. God knows what they will demand in compensation, but knowing JS is american I don't think she will ask for pennies.
Finally- maybe those responsible for the decision to pay OTT for the loan could be personally liable.
In short - if sisu look likely to win the scene is set for a settlement out of court which would mean the club returned home as owners.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
A few questions:
OSB58 said that the YB and the council wouldn't have just got one valuation but several based on different scenarios for the future of ACL. So if there was a lower valuation could the council not just point to the higher one? Also are we saying that the fact that the failure of Sisu to negotiate and pay rent which caused the valuations of ACL to allegedly be less than the amount owed can't be mentioned in court used as evidence? Because if that's the case then the law is seriously out of joint (for want of a better word).
What I think people are saying is that the council overpaid for the mortgage from the YB. That taxpayers money was used and the money could have been better used elsewhere. So on the back of that are Sisu going to go after Swansea Council as well as it's the Moral Principle at stake? They should if it really is a Moral Principle a stake, as Swansea Council made a loan of over £2.5million to the Liberty Stadium Management Company that the auditors
"were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H
And the loan was eventually written off. At least at the moment ACL are paying off their loan.
Whatever happens someone has to pay the Higgs for their share in ACL don't they?
OSB58 said that the YB and the council wouldn't have just got one valuation but several based on different scenarios for the future of ACL. So if there was a lower valuation could the council not just point to the higher one? Also are we saying that the fact that the failure of Sisu to negotiate and pay rent which caused the valuations of ACL to allegedly be less than the amount owed can't be mentioned in court used as evidence? Because if that's the case then the law is seriously out of joint (for want of a better word).
What I think people are saying is that the council overpaid for the mortgage from the YB. That taxpayers money was used and the money could have been better used elsewhere. So on the back of that are Sisu going to go after Swansea Council as well as it's the Moral Principle at stake? They should if it really is a Moral Principle a stake, as Swansea Council made a loan of over £2.5million to the Liberty Stadium Management Company that the auditors
"were not aware of any reason why such a loan could not have been sought from a commercial lender".
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/C...tory-12754243-detail/story.html#axzz2Z8FAOl3H
And the loan was eventually written off. At least at the moment ACL are paying off their loan.
Whatever happens someone has to pay the Higgs for their share in ACL don't they?
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
If Sisu did win and they went after CCC for damages, how would that impact on ACL. If ACL are now financially viable and making a profit and the portfolio from now on is looking rosy, I would think it fairly easy to get a commercial loan, especially now as the economic climate has changed and is improving month on month. Would it not be the people of Coventry that feels the impact from Sisu (again). If this does happen, how do the words morally right and principles (I think that is words they used for the reason for the JR) sound true when, would it not be money that would directly affect the people of Coventry (yet again) they are looking to take ?
sisu going after ccc for damags wouldn't impact on ACL. But if ACL will have to replace the £14m loan the increased interest rate will have an impact on their profitability.
Forget the morality phrases - it's just spin. They are after the Ricoh, not moral satisfaction.
blueflint
Well-Known Member
when it all comes out properly and it hasn't yet the ricoh will be considerably more valuable than six mill
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Think you will find the valuation is part of the decision process ................not the only factor in the decision process
The 6.4m was the valuation carried out for Yorkshire Bank on the terms they set for their own purpose and a worse case scenario excluding a tenant in the stadium bowl. It should not be seen as a valuation that the Council must stick to or even use, it might indicate to the Council the worst case ie if ACL were to go into administration. In administration all assets tend to suffer significant discounts.
CCC will also have considered the plans going forwards, budgets forecasts etc prepared by external accountants. Those plans would have factored in such things as the effect of a change of loan finance. Did the business case show that the value was substantially higher than £6.4m as a going concern not a company in administration. Did the business case show affordability, could ACL survive on lower finance and therefore the loan of £14.4m was a good risk?. Did the business case add value? What was the basis required to value the security, was it worst case or something other? Is the value to other institutions worst case or the value of ACL as a going concern? None of us have seen that business case or the accountants reports on it. What we have seen since is a set of accounts filed March 2013 that signed ACL off as a going concern.
I think when looking at ACL or CCFC it pays to look at the broader picture. Often we the fans/observers are directed to specific items by one party or another and we really should step back and question why, who is directing our studies?
Also need to bear in mind that in all this discussion of the JR we have only heard from or been given information by one side ........... until we hear both sides of the case it is almost impossible to make judgements or to decide one side or the other will win.
The 6.4m was the valuation carried out for Yorkshire Bank on the terms they set for their own purpose and a worse case scenario excluding a tenant in the stadium bowl. It should not be seen as a valuation that the Council must stick to or even use, it might indicate to the Council the worst case ie if ACL were to go into administration. In administration all assets tend to suffer significant discounts.
CCC will also have considered the plans going forwards, budgets forecasts etc prepared by external accountants. Those plans would have factored in such things as the effect of a change of loan finance. Did the business case show that the value was substantially higher than £6.4m as a going concern not a company in administration. Did the business case show affordability, could ACL survive on lower finance and therefore the loan of £14.4m was a good risk?. Did the business case add value? What was the basis required to value the security, was it worst case or something other? Is the value to other institutions worst case or the value of ACL as a going concern? None of us have seen that business case or the accountants reports on it. What we have seen since is a set of accounts filed March 2013 that signed ACL off as a going concern.
I think when looking at ACL or CCFC it pays to look at the broader picture. Often we the fans/observers are directed to specific items by one party or another and we really should step back and question why, who is directing our studies?
Also need to bear in mind that in all this discussion of the JR we have only heard from or been given information by one side ........... until we hear both sides of the case it is almost impossible to make judgements or to decide one side or the other will win.
Last edited: