Sixfield attendees 2014/2015 Season (6 Viewers)

[Matty_CCFC]

To answer the opening thread.
I/we have never been inside Sixfields and never will.

 

---

[Jack Griffin]

Turnover was obviously up due to the Olympics, but how much did they have to pay to host it? It would seem to be a lot and this could be the main reason that profit was down. ACL are stating that whilst hosting the Olympics they couldn't hold other events, that makes sense.

In the early years of a long lease the fact that the term is reducing will have no material affect on the value of the company. Anyone wanting to buy the business will see a profitable company with a secure tenure, so it's entirely possible that a business can increase in value whilst a lease is reducing.

All this stuff about the deprecating value of the lease as the remaining term shortens is nonsense, if the owners are happy with the tenants they'll renegotiate an extended lease long before it expires, and there is still a long long time left, far longer than the planning horizons of most businesses.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Of course the lease has a value. But it's not the only factor in valuing a business, is it?

A business like ACL takes a lease, perhaps buys it with a commercial loan or mortgage. The lease is a vehicle to raise profits has a value as an asset. The value of the lease sits as a liability, depreciated until it's paid off.

Are you talking about the value of the lease as an asset, like the £18.8m shown in the accounts? But this isn't the sole determinant in valuing a business that holds that lease, is it?

No, you're deliberately misunderstanding the point as realisation has finally hit you.

I'm talking about the value to ACL of the lease agreement that they had with the club, that still had 40 years to run.

Think was valued at around £40million.

That hasn't been replaced.

 

[dongonzalos]

Agreed. Looking at their accounts recently posted, it is a clean audit report, with no entries from the auditor citing doubts about the business as a Going Concern. The balance sheet is decent, with cash in the bank, and an increasing net asset schedule; and the auditor has to consider not less than 12 months from when he signs the report with regards his forward prognosis; which gives the business - in effect - decent outlook to until February 2015. Again, I have no idea of how the next set of accounts will look, but this doesn't look like a business sitting on the cusp of death and destruction from it's trading position alone.

Which, for me, is perhaps why the JR has got the focus it has; as smoking ACL out of the Ricoh by starvation alone looks like it could - and again I use the word could - be a long waiting game. And played on that basis alone - who can last longer ignoring the JV; ACL or CCFC would be a difficult call to make. The latter point - in my opinion alone - being a significant misjudgement SISU made

If ACL can break even which it looks like they can then they can last as long as they like.

How long can SISU last losing 6 million a year?

They should test the water and offer twenty million to be paid over 100 years for all of ACL.

With a view if them genuinely trying to get promotion then try and get 20 million of their investment back by selling the package

 

[Grendel]

If ACL can break even which it looks like they can then they can last as long as they like.

How long can SISU last losing 6 million a year?

They should test the water and offer twenty million to be paid over 100 years for all of ACL.

With a view if them genuinely trying to get promotion then try and get 20 million of their investment back by selling the package

ACL was previously valued at £6 million what are you on about.

 

[Astute]

ACL was previously valued at £6 million what are you on about.

Higgs, which is half of ACL, is available for about 6m to our club. The same 6m that they gave our club after CCC gave our club that share. Show us where it is said that ACL is only worth 6m.

 

[stupot07]

Higgs, which is half of ACL, is available for about 6m to our club. The same 6m that they gave our club after CCC gave our club that share. Show us where it is said that ACL is only worth 6m.

IIRC Higgs share was offered to us for £10m.


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

 

[shmmeee]

I think so, but then again I've never gone on about how brilliantly ACL are doing aand are going to continue to do without the club.

Some seem able to hold two contrasting opinions at the same time.

Not sure if serious.

Do you seriously think that someone can't think they have that plan but not think it's working?

 

[chiefdave]

IIRC Higgs share was offered to us for £10m.

The formula price was believed to be around £10m however SISU made a bid to Higgs below the formula price, believed to be around half which was accepted by Higgs. After a HOT was drawn up SISU walked away and didn't complete the deal.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Not sure if serious.

Do you seriously think that someone can't think they have that plan but not think it's working?

Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.

That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".

 

[dongonzalos]

ACL was previously valued at £6 million what are you on about.

Isn't there a small matter of 14 million as well?
It would be a better investment than 30 million in what would be a genuine to coin one of your terms 'white elephant'

 

[Jack Griffin]

Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.

That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".

Exactly the same then as Grendel when he says ACL are being used by the Council as a cash cow when ACL have never paid a dividend.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.

That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".

Bloody hell - what's wrong with you? It's simply to state that SISU are probably trying; but it isn't working.

Why so obstinate?

 

[dongonzalos]

Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.

That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".

It is the definition of inconsistent.

That would be someone saying they are trying to and at the same time saying that are not trying to.

Entirely different to they are trying to and it looks like it is not working.

Pretty sure you understand that Lord

 

[lordsummerisle]

Exactly the same then as Grendel when he says ACL are being used by the Council as a cash cow when ACL have never paid a dividend.

Not really, merely preventing them from making losses.

 

[dongonzalos]

Bloody hell - what's wrong with you? It's simply to state that SISU are probably trying; but it isn't working.

Why so obstinate?

That is not the definition of obstinate

 

[dongonzalos]

Exactly the same then as Grendel when he says ACL are being used by the Council as a cash cow when ACL have never paid a dividend.

No that's just stupid

 

[lordsummerisle]

Bloody hell - what's wrong with you? It's simply to state that SISU are probably trying; but it isn't working.

Why so obstinate?

Is it not working though?

Surely the value of ACL has been distressed by around the £40million that was remaining on the clubs lease?

Do you think that the value of ACL has gone up or not since the club left?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

No, you're deliberately misunderstanding the point as realisation has finally hit you.

I'm talking about the value to ACL of the lease agreement that they had with the club, that still had 40 years to run.

Think was valued at around £40million.

That hasn't been replaced.

You're changing you stance as often as your previously held view is proven to be false. You were confusing the value of the lease on ACL's books with the value of ACL as a trading business.

I still don't understand the vagueness of your comment 'value to ACL'. Do you mean it's asset value, or it's length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Higgs, which is half of ACL, is available for about 6m to our club. The same 6m that they gave our club after CCC gave our club that share. Show us where it is said that ACL is only worth 6m.

Please understand the basic facts. The Higgs share of ACL was available, not Higgs themselves, a charity taken over by a hedge fund? Really?

 

[Jack Griffin]

Please understand the basic facts. The Higgs share of ACL was available, not Higgs themselves, a charity taken over by a hedge fund? Really?

I'm sure Astute understands that perfectly, he just didn’t describe it very well.

 

[fernandopartridge]

You're changing you stance as often as your previously held view is proven to be false. You were confusing the value of the lease on ACL's books with the value of ACL as a trading business.

I still don't understand the vagueness of your comment 'value to ACL'. Do you mean it's asset value, or it's length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?

How would you value its length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Is it not working though?

Surely the value of ACL has been distressed by around the £40million that was remaining on the clubs lease?

Do you think that the value of ACL has gone up or not since the club left?

Whether or not it's working is irrelevant. SISU may be trying to distress. ACL appear to be withstanding it. Both are opinions that can exist concurrently.

ACL's current value - again - is something I can't comment upon. As with anything in business, it's worth what someone is prepared to pay - should it ever become available. Until such time as it is, again it's conjecture. Again, lease duration will have a small influence, but the bigger drivers will be what it's earning, how and when.

However, as long as it's brining in funds from non-football related activities; be those sporting or not, there are more people likely to be interested than if it were more 'football-centric'. If it was primarily a football stadium, then there's every chance only a football team would be interested. Less competition, maybe lower price. As it becomes more of a 'multi-faceted leisure centre' (or however it's deemed), there's more likely to be interest from events businesses and the like. In which case, SISU's interest is in competition with interest from large event concerns.

But to come back again to where I started all this; the more revenues it generates from more sectors, the less likely it is that SISU will be the only show in town; and that will result in it's price going up, not down. QED, SISU's actions could well backfire, badly

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

How would you value its length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?

See above

 

[lordsummerisle]

You're changing you stance as often as your previously held view is proven to be false. You were confusing the value of the lease on ACL's books with the value of ACL as a trading business.

I still don't understand the vagueness of your comment 'value to ACL'. Do you mean it's asset value, or it's length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?

i am not.

The value of ACL as a trading business included the 40 years remaining lease between them and the club, valued at around £40million.

That has nothing to do with the duration of ACL's lease on the Ricoh, it is pertinent to their business value.

That value was wiped off with the breaking of the lease, so therefore the valuation of ACL will be lower now than it was when they had the lease in place with the club.

Anybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.

A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.

Do you think that the lease agreement broken between Sisu and ACL was worthless to both of them?

 

[chiefdave]

Surely the value of ACL has been distressed by around the £40million that was remaining on the clubs lease?

That's not really distressed though is it, that's a loss of future revenues which may or may not be replaced by other revenues (doesn't necessarily have to be a replacement anchor tenant).

Of course that also assumes the rent was always going to stay at the £1.2m pa level, we know that vastly reduced rent has been offered so that's not really the caes. The very fact that it's been offered would give some indication that ACL are in a position where they don't need that amount every year to survive.

 

[RoboCCFC90]

It a crock of rubbish even if Sisu were trying to distress ACL, according to most on this forum ACL will be sustainable without the Club.

ACL won't be valued at anymore than £15m.

 

[chiefdave]

iAnybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.

A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.

Yet SISU are only interested in the Ricoh if all existing contracts are cancelled and there is no future income guaranteed.

 

[lordsummerisle]

That's not really distressed though is it, that's a loss of future revenues which may or may not be replaced by other revenues (doesn't necessarily have to be a replacement anchor tenant).

Of course that also assumes the rent was always going to stay at the £1.2m pa level, we know that vastly reduced rent has been offered so that's not really the caes. The very fact that it's been offered would give some indication that ACL are in a position where they don't need that amount every year to survive.

I think it was the value that ACL gave themselves for the remainder of the lease.

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

i am not.

The value of ACL as a trading business included the 40 years remaining lease between them and the club, valued at around £40million.

That has nothing to do with the duration of ACL's lease on the Ricoh, it is pertinent to their business value.

That value was wiped off with the breaking of the lease, so therefore the valuation of ACL will be lower now than it was when they had the lease in place with the club.

Anybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.

A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.

Do you think that the lease agreement broken between Sisu and ACL was worthless to both of them?

The classic way of valuing a business is that it is the sum of it's discounted expected future cash flows.

So it depends what those expectations are.

If the cash flows are expected to be lower without the lease, the value will be lower.

If it is expected that other larger revenue streams will replace the lease, the value will be higher.

It's probably too soon to say, but the clean audit report certainly suggests that ACL's future is not as awful as some have predicted.

 

[thaiskyblue]

Whatever the value was or is , sisu would never pay it . They want it all buckshee with jam on top, sisu out.

 

[lordsummerisle]

That's not really distressed though is it, that's a loss of future revenues which may or may not be replaced by other revenues (doesn't necessarily have to be a replacement anchor tenant).



It will still affect the value of ACL to any potential buyer, whether that be Sisu or A.N. Other(who has been seen in Varsity having a drink with Elliott and Hoffman).

 

[chiefdave]

I think it was the value that ACL gave themselves for the remainder of the lease.

I would assume that they gave it that value before the lower rent offers. It stands to reason if you have a lease stating £1.2m a year over the next 40 years you would calculate that it's going to give you more revenue than a 10 year lease at £150K. The point I'm making is the change in revenue projection does not mean ACL are distressed, the very fact that they have offered the lower rent is the clearest indication we have that they are in a financial position to withstand the loss of revenue associated with club moving elsewhere..

 

[Covlad65]

To answer the opening thread.
I/we have never been inside Sixfields and never will.

That doesn't answer the opening thread then does it :thinking about:

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

i am not.

The value of ACL as a trading business included the 40 years remaining lease between them and the club, valued at around £40million.

That has nothing to do with the duration of ACL's lease on the Ricoh, it is pertinent to their business value.

That value was wiped off with the breaking of the lease, so therefore the valuation of ACL will be lower now than it was when they had the lease in place with the club.

Anybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.

A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.

Do you think that the lease agreement broken between Sisu and ACL was worthless to both of them?

Whatever they paid for the lease has little to do with the value of the business. It could be an asset; but their primary valuation would come from how they were trading and their forward projections.

Let me give you an example. Let's say they'd got it for £20m instead of £40m. That wouldn't make their business suddenly worth less!?! Conversely, if they'd paid over-the-odds and paid £80m - that doesn't then increase the 'value' of the business?!?

What the value of the lease does is to give them a figure they need to cover, month-by-month and year-by-year. A £40m value with a 20 year term gives a different overhead to cover than a £80m value with a 20 year term; insomuch as that the latter would have a larger loan repayment annually - which would depress bottom line. Yes, it might also show as an asset if the auditor believed the value to be true-and-fair, so would help balance sheet but depress P&L.

Whereas you seem to be claiming that the higher value paid, meaning the book value would be higher is the only driver in valuing the business. Do I read that correctly? Surely not