Charity Value of its share (11 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

So I guess you're saying that the charity don't do any good works in or around Coventry where £6.5m might be better spent. Interesting.

However on one thing here I entirely agree - the charity shouldn't be helping out helping out millionaire owners and players.

On that basis I think the charity are quite right to either sell their share for whatever they think is a fair return, or hold on to it until it suits them if no such offer is forthcoming, even if it doesn't suit the current owners of the club.

I'm sure both you and Nick would agree, since it seems you're all in favour of the charity taking a cold, hard business approach to financial matters and the club.

Unless, that is, you're saying that the charity should be obliged to sell way below what they want, just to help out the club - but you can't be saying that because it's an obvious contradiction, right?

I certainly do think that the £6.5million might have been better spent.

Higgs can sell it or not at whatever price they like, may end up with an asset worth billions or something that ends up costing them money, which it already has of course, as they have taken nothing out and £6.5million would have earned a fair whack of interest by now I'd have thought.

Selling below what they want is one thing, they should be maybe trying to sell it for what it's worth.

 

---

[skybluetony176]

No. I'm asking how you validate things.

The fact that they bought the shares of the club with a formula for the club to buy them back at a later date has to be a pretty good indicator.

 

[dongonzalos]

While of course I think it would be unfair for them to get nothing, people seem to say that the high rent is all SISU's fault because they agreed to it. If the Higgs have bought something that is now actually worthless, who's fault is that?

(just putting it out there)

Not sure whose fault it is?
How has it became worthless?

 

[duffer]

I certainly do think that the £6.5million might have been better spent.

Higgs can sell it or not at whatever price they like, may end up with an asset worth billions or something that ends up costing them money, which it already has of course, as they have taken nothing out and £6.5million would have earned a fair whack of interest by now I'd have thought.

Selling below what they want is one thing, they should be maybe trying to sell it for what it's worth.

They think it's worth £6.5m - who's to say it isn't. All the money that they've lost on this was as a result of a desire to help the club, remember.

So, what you (and I think Nick) are really saying is that you'd like them to sell it for what SISU want to pay for it, aren't you? If not, what's the issue. SISU don't want to pay the asking price, the Higgs are acting as cold, hard businessmen, as you'd like them to.

Or do you object to them holding onto it until they can sell it for what they think it's worth, for some reason?

 

[stupot07]

No one really knows how much it's worth as it's never been properly valued.


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

 

[dongonzalos]

I heard a story the other day

A ruthless man wanted to buy a mobile home site. He agreed a price of around 1.8 million with the owner. Over time before the deal was completed homes on the site were set on fire.

The people buying the site then said the site was not worth as much due to the recent crime wave.

The owner was forced to agree a new price of around 800k.

This scenario of course is illegal. I am in no way suggesting SISU have done anything illegal.
However the same principles apply but in a legal ruthless business world.

Higgs paid 6.5 million for its shares.

They agree to sell it for around 4 million ( taking a hit)

SISU have a relegation to division 3
Withhold rent
Then remove the anchor tenant for the business.

Then the shares according to SISU are now worth nothing.

Once bought for 2 million or less. The anchor tenant returns and bobs your uncle the value will return.

What would you as the Higgs Charity, just take it where it hurts?

 

[lordsummerisle]

They think it's worth £6.5m - who's to say it isn't. All the money that they've lost on this was as a result of a desire to help the club, remember.

So, what you (and I think Nick) are really saying is that you'd like them to sell it for what SISU want to pay for it, aren't you? If not, what's the issue. SISU don't want to pay the asking price, the Higgs are acting as cold, hard businessmen, as you'd like them to.

Or do you object to them holding onto it until they can sell it for what they think it's worth, for some reason?

They can hang on to sell it for what they think it's worth if they so wish.

Anyway I'm just off to call the car breakers, they had offered me £100 for my old car, but I value it at £2000, so going to hold it til they match my valuation.


They'll be crawling back to me in no time I expect.

 

[Grendel]

Not sure whose fault it is?
How has it became worthless?

Given the outstanding mortgage value its obvious to everyone that these shares are pretty worthless. To even suggest they are worth £6.5 million is totally deranged. Its half of a company that in a normal year generated very modest turnover.

As I've been attacked today on my earnings which I still regret revealing I may as well go the whole hog. The reason is I have two jobs. The main job and also I am a director in a company and receive gaurenteed dividends. The company is cash rich and it has a turnover of around £2 million. Profit as a percent of turnover is much higher than ACL. We had it independently valued recently and its valuation is as a percentage of ACL's "valuation" tiny. In good years this company made 40% of the profit that ACL made last year off £12 million less turnover.

Go figure.

 

[Nick]

They think it's worth £6.5m - who's to say it isn't. All the money that they've lost on this was as a result of a desire to help the club, remember.

So, what you (and I think Nick) are really saying is that you'd like them to sell it for what SISU want to pay for it, aren't you? If not, what's the issue. SISU don't want to pay the asking price, the Higgs are acting as cold, hard businessmen, as you'd like them to.

Or do you object to them holding onto it until they can sell it for what they think it's worth, for some reason?

I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!

 

[duffer]

Caveat emptor

Which might apply if the charity had bought the share to make some sort of massive profit out of it, as oppose to rescue the club. I think what you actually meant to put in here wasn't 'caveat emptor' as much as 'tough shit', because I appreciate that you don't really care too much about the charity getting stiffed by the club.

The problem is that this cuts two ways. Tough shit on SISU and the club too, because the chance of getting a much needed share of the income streams was key to being able to do a deal on this share. As it stands the charity don't want to sell it for the amount offered, and SISU don't want to buy it. I know where I'm putting the blame, personally.

 

[James Smith]

Well carrying the anology on the mortgage is £2 million so actually I have just increased the valuation to £4 million

Higgs will never get the money back -- the end and also his dumbass comment at the end tells me all I need to know about him

Quite right, if ACL fails and they lose all the money they invested then that's their bad luck - same goes for CCFC failing and SISU & their investors losing all their money - although obviously that's not necessarily great for our club.

In the same way if there comes a time where ACL make enough to pay dividends (if it can under any agreement) to the Higgs then lucky them.

There's no obligation on either side to sell and if the Higgs or Sisu don't want to then so be it, we can't change anything.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!

Ah that old one.

Let's have a few independent valuations of Ccfc then, and force sisu to sell to the fans or any new owner at the average value.

Does that sound like a decent compromise?

 

[Nick]

Ah that old one.

Let's have a few independent valuations of Ccfc then, and force sisu to sell to the fans or any new owner at the average value.

Does that sound like a decent compromise?

So what is so unfair about that?

Of course, if somebody can come in and buy the club and has the money to run the club properly I would be up for that too. Sell to the fans is out though, we would be worse off than we are now in my opinion.

However if it is worth zero, you will pay all of SISU's debts won't you? As well as their asking fee?

 

[lordsummerisle]

Ah that old one.

Let's have a few independent valuations of Ccfc then, and force sisu to sell to the fans or any new owner at the average value.

Does that sound like a decent compromise?

Imagine that a valuation of Nil would be given for the club, but rather like ACL and it's £14million loan to be repaid, would have to take on all the debts.


You can buy it if you like.

 

[bigfatronssba]

So what is so unfair about that?

Of course, if somebody can come in and buy the club and has the money to run the club properly I would be up for that too. Sell to the fans is out though, we would be worse off than we are now in my opinion.

Nothing unfair about it, but Joy has said she wants a return on her investment.

I'm not talking about practicalities here, just principles.

 

[duffer]

I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!

There is no 'fair value' here Nick. The charity put £6.5m in and the asking price was (briefly) £5.5m.

I think most people agree that the charity shouldn't be forced to help out the club - so why should they now, when SISU are attempting to distress ACL, sell for an average 'independent valuation'?

There was a deal in place for a set formula, which SISU didn't care for, and then another deal which SISU couldn't pull off because of the buy-now, pay later stuff.

What you're saying isn't fair at all - SISU can pay the asking price, or not. If they don't want to then we're going to have to accept that Higgs have got every right to hold on to the share. Otherwise you're back to asking a charity to bail out the club, something which most here seem to regard as unacceptable.

 

[dongonzalos]

I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!

I would hope the independent valuation is a projected one that includes CCFC been at the Ricoh.It can't be right that SISU are to be financially rewarded for taking us to Northampton having the knock on effect of lowering the value.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Imagine that a valuation of Nil would be given for the club, but rather like ACL and it's £14million loan to be repaid, would have to take on all the debts.


You can buy it if you like.

Let's assume a businessman starts looking at investment opportunities in the "Coventry area".

Acl a value of nil with £14m debt.

Ccfc a value of nil with £60m debt.

Immediately acl is looking the more desirable company to take over.

That being the case acl is more valuable than Ccfc, despite both being valued at nil.

Do you see now how one company valued at nil can be worth more than another valued at nil?

 

[skybluetony176]

I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!

If it was only valued at £1.50 why would CCC & Higgs even consider selling? That valuation suggest that ACL is at the bottom of the cycle and you never sell at the bottom of the cycle. TF said so.

 

[duffer]

Imagine that a valuation of Nil would be given for the club, but rather like ACL and it's £14million loan to be repaid, would have to take on all the debts.


You can buy it if you like.

I'll buy it for a quid, and then I'll roll over on all of the debts, take admin and start again afresh. Since the debtors are primarily SISU of course they may not wish to sell it. Such is life. Caveat emptor.

 

[dongonzalos]

So what is so unfair about that?

Of course, if somebody can come in and buy the club and has the money to run the club properly I would be up for that too. Sell to the fans is out though, we would be worse off than we are now in my opinion.

However if it is worth zero, you will pay all of SISU's debts won't you? As well as their asking fee?

Unfortunately if we follow your logic SISU would need to sell for the value of the club and walk away with 45 million debt.

They are unlikely to do that as I can't imagine the council would sell their share of ACL and keep the loan

 

[Nick]

There is no 'fair value' here Nick. The charity put £6.5m in and the asking price was (briefly) £5.5m.

I think most people agree that the charity shouldn't be forced to help out the club - so why should they now, when SISU are attempting to distress ACL, sell for an average 'independent valuation'?

There was a deal in place for a set formula, which SISU didn't care for, and then another deal which SISU couldn't pull off because of the buy-now, pay later stuff.

What you're saying isn't fair at all - SISU can pay the asking price, or not. If they don't want to then we're going to have to accept that Higgs have got every right to hold on to the share. Otherwise you're back to asking a charity to bail out the club, something which most here seem to regard as unacceptable.

I am not saying that by rights anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do or sell if they don't want to.

What I mean is if these valuations come out and say that their share is only worth £2.50 but they won't sell for less than £6.5 million then it surely means they are the stumbling block? If it comes out and says they are worth £2.50 but SISU did make a cash offer of 2 million then they would be generous wouldn't they? If it did come out they are pretty much worth pennies but they demand £6.5 million then are they not trying to rip the club off?

People keep going on about what the charity put in, who is to blame if they put the money in but it turns out to be worth nothing?

 

[Nick]

Unfortunately if we follow your logic SISU would need to sell for the value of the club and walk away with 45 million debt.

They are unlikely to do that as I can't imagine the council would sell their share of ACL and keep the loan

Exactly, so if the club is worth nothing but has shit loads of debt. It is like SISU then trying to charge a buyer loads of money for the club and also have the debt there.

 

[bigfatronssba]

I am not saying that by rights anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do or sell if they don't want to.

What I mean is if these valuations come out and say that their share is only worth £2.50 but they won't sell for less than £6.5 million then it surely means they are the stumbling block? If it comes out and says they are worth £2.50 but SISU did make a cash offer of 2 million then they would be generous wouldn't they? If it did come out they are pretty much worth pennies but they demand £6.5 million then are they not trying to rip the club off?

People keep going on about what the charity put in, who is to blame if they put the money in but it turns out to be worth nothing?

Your right of course.

But that exact same argument also applies to the club.

Sisu put money into something that is now worthless, yet they wouldn't take Hoffman's £1.

If your saying Higgs are wrong to not sell at the actual value, then so are sisu.

 

[dongonzalos]

Exactly, so if the club is worth nothing but has shit loads of debt. It is like SISU then trying to charge a buyer loads of money for the club and also have the debt there.

So the charity can't sell
SISU can't sell

Only one solution

 

[duffer]

They can hang on to sell it for what they think it's worth if they so wish.

Anyway I'm just off to call the car breakers, they had offered me £100 for my old car, but I value it at £2000, so going to hold it til they match my valuation.


They'll be crawling back to me in no time I expect.

Your contention here is that ACL has no value to Higgs, which is an opinion and not one that stacks up particularly well in the face of the facts.

You don't think the charity should bail out millionaire owners, but you would have Higgs sell to SISU at below the value they wish to receive. It seems to me that the truth is that actually you want the Higgs to bail out the club again, in effect.

With regard to cars, well if we're going to use bullshit metaphors can we can stick to house purchase ones, please. It's more consistent.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Given the outstanding mortgage value its obvious to everyone that these shares are pretty worthless. To even suggest they are worth £6.5 million is totally deranged. Its half of a company that in a normal year generated very modest turnover.

As I've been attacked today on my earnings which I still regret revealing I may as well go the whole hog. The reason is I have two jobs. The main job and also I am a director in a company and receive gaurenteed dividends. The company is cash rich and it has a turnover of around £2 million. Profit as a percent of turnover is much higher than ACL. We had it independently valued recently and its valuation is as a percentage of ACL's "valuation" tiny. In good years this company made 40% of the profit that ACL made last year off £12 million less turnover.

Go figure.

In the early years of the business where you are a Director, were your shares worth as much as they are now? If someone had said they were worthless would you have kept hold of them in the belief they may be worth something later?

 

[duffer]

I am not saying that by rights anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do or sell if they don't want to.

What I mean is if these valuations come out and say that their share is only worth £2.50 but they won't sell for less than £6.5 million then it surely means they are the stumbling block? If it comes out and says they are worth £2.50 but SISU did make a cash offer of 2 million then they would be generous wouldn't they? If it did come out they are pretty much worth pennies but they demand £6.5 million then are they not trying to rip the club off?

People keep going on about what the charity put in, who is to blame if they put the money in but it turns out to be worth nothing?

Once again Nick, the people to blame for the decrease in value of the charity's investment are exactly the same as those trying to purchase it for less than the charity want to accept!

The charity want a set amount for their share, and they think with or without the club it's worth it. Why should they have to sell right now and for less than that, other than to suit SISU?

Edit: With the point of course that SISU aren't even trying to purchase the share any more, making most of this argument redundant in any case!

 

[stupot07]

So the charity can't sell
SISU can't sell

Only one solution

Fight? .


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

 

[dongonzalos]

Fight? .


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

What comedy characters would he pick for them two

 

[stupot07]

Your contention here is that ACL has no value to Higgs, which is an opinion and not one that stacks up particularly well in the face of the facts.

You don't think the charity should bail out millionaire owners, but you would have Higgs sell to SISU at below the value they wish to receive. It seems to me that the truth is that actually you want the Higgs to bail out the club again, in effect.

With regard to cars, well if we're going to use bullshit metaphors can we can stick to house purchase ones, please. It's more consistent.

So stalemate. If Higgs believe the shares are above their true market value, then sisu should pay more than they are worth? This is why some independent valuations would be beneficial at least fans and tax payers would know if anyone side is being ripped off rather than the current guess work and conjecture...

Hmmm perhaps a new ground is the way forward....


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

 

[Nick]

Once again Nick, the people to blame for the decrease in value of the charity's investment are exactly the same as those trying to purchase it for less than the charity want to accept!

The charity want a set amount for their share, and they think with or without the club it's worth it. Why should they have to sell right now and for less than that, other than to suit SISU?

Edit: With the point of course that SISU aren't even trying to purchase the share any more, making most of this argument redundant in any case!

I am not saying they do have to do anything, but it would make things clearer as what is stopping us from returning to the ricoh wouldn't it?

I might be wrong, but wasn't that council net valuation done before any rent "strike"?

 

[dongonzalos]

So stalemate. If Higgs believe the shares are above their true market value, then sisu should pay more than they are worth? This is why some independent valuations would be beneficial at least fans and tax payers would know if anyone side is being ripped off rather than the current guess work and conjecture...

Hmmm perhaps a new ground is the way forward....


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

Any comment on whether a valuation should include the club been at the ground or not?

 

[Grendel]

Once again Nick, the people to blame for the decrease in value of the charity's investment are exactly the same as those trying to purchase it for less than the charity want to accept!

The charity want a set amount for their share, and they think with or without the club it's worth it. Why should they have to sell right now and for less than that, other than to suit SISU?

Edit: With the point of course that SISU aren't even trying to purchase the share any more, making most of this argument redundant in any case!

So the club is the only reason the shares are worth anything? Peter thinks they are worth as much with no club. Are you saying Peter is telling porkies? Tut tut.

 

[duffer]

I am not saying they do have to do anything, but it would make things clearer as what is stopping us from returning to the ricoh wouldn't it?

I might be wrong, but wasn't that council net valuation done before any rent "strike"?

What's stopping us returning to the Ricoh mate, is SISU. They could come back tomorrow and make more than they ever would at NTFC, even under the £1.2m agreement. And they could still build their new stadium too, if they wanted to.

The fact that they won't should tell you everything you need to know about who's being intransigent here.