So what do you get for £6.5 million? (3 Viewers)

[letsallsingtogether]

Funny that you must have taught them well that is one of your tactics.:thinking about:

Anyway the way I see it they get nothing bar the privilege of playing at the Ricoh as any profits made are used to pay off the mortgage ( But I thought you knew that)

As for what ACL make/take out wouldn't make a difference as SISU will only replace them with AEG who will ask for bigger cut in profits and larger management fees.

Again asking questions to what you believe you know the answers to so please enlighten us.

By the way Gren met an old colleague of yours at the match........

What a nice chap.

I fail to see why the need to dodge a legitimate question.

After all if it is worth £6.5 million now that is without even the club being there.

It is nothing to do with £40 million debt is it? Odd certain posters are trying to sidetrack these legitimate questions. I don't know why.

 

---

[letsallsingtogether]

Anyway will ask Tim at my next meeting with him will let you know then.

 

[James Smith]

OSB answered this question some time ago so anyone who wants to search for it can. I recall we would not get access to the revenue streams by buying back the shares. Perhaps someone can dig out the post? I'd say it was perhaps a year ago almost..

Do you mean this post?

A dividend if distributed is payable to all shareholders..... however in ACL's case one cant be voted because the profits since 2006 do not exceed the losses prior to 2006 - a dividend would be illegal. But in any case no dividends will be paid until loans are paid off.

50% does not give you control and therefore decisions at shareholders meetings must be carried 100%

I think CCFC would be allowed to bring in any dividend as it could argue it is football related but it is academic ...... it isnt going to happen any time soon

http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/27394-Buying-the-Higgs-Share?p=378917&viewfull=1#post378917

 

[Hobo]

I fail to see why the need to dodge a legitimate question.

After all if it is worth £6.5 million now that is without even the club being there.

It is nothing to do with £40 million debt is it? Odd certain posters are trying to sidetrack these legitimate questions. I don't know why.

I am not dodging nothing, the question can't be answered can it? Without a deal there are no terms!

Another thread full of guesswork, with people like you trying to claim you are some sort of authority.

 

[skybluefred]

Its an interesting question Grendel. Does it give you access to the land around the stadium for development as well?

The 6.5m just buys a half share in ACL--the CCC owns the other half. CCC would still own the Freehold which would allow access to the building land.

By owning a half share in ACL the Club would receive the same return as the CCC. But there would still be the Mortgage to pay.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Aside from playing in Coventry you mean. Out of interest how much do you estimate the club has lost in revenue at suxfields this season?

Suxfields?

F*&king hell....they're getting worse....

 

[skybluetony176]

Suxfields?

F*&king hell....they're getting worse....

Well, it certainly sucks.

 

[shmmeee]

Suxfields?

F*&king hell....they're getting worse....

Go look up gallows humour. Come back and apologise. FFS there's plenty of shitheads to moan at without turning on fans.

To OP: I know nothing for sure, but I remember reading somewhere the original deal before Higgs took over was 50% of revenue and 100% of football revenue (however you define that).

I'd assume that as it's basically a pawn deal, that's what you'd get back.

Sorry can't remember my source and as always I stand to be corrected.

If that's not what's on offer IMO I should be and seems fair when linked with no or low rent.

 

[The Gentleman]

So you is think the club should be held to hostage and pay £6.5 million just for the privelege of playing in Coventry.

Jesus Christ.

As opposed to the fans being held hostage by our owners and getting into at least £20 million more debt and playing near Coventry, which one would you prefer?

 

[The Gentleman]

Sisu plant is so lame and ridiculous.

Are you seriously telling me any potential buyer would just write a cheque for £6.5 million with no business justification?

Wouldn't that hold directors of that company to account from their shareholders. That's where the primary duty lies isn't it?

In that case and by your reckoning Sisu will be held to account by their shareholders for the terrible business decision to move us to Sixfields?

 

[Grendel]

In that case and by your reckoning Sisu will be held to account by their shareholders for the terrible business decision to move us to Sixfields?

I don't think they have shareholders as such do they?

 

[The Gentleman]

I don't think they have shareholders as such do they?

Investors then, but you know what I meant. Thanks for noticing though.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Suxfields?

F*&king hell....they're getting worse....

I saw it called dick fields earlier...although I think it was a typo

 

[mds]

I dont get the legally cant make a profit argument about charities!
Charities dont just survive on donations alone, they have the to make profit, like any other business they have to pay wages, overheads, insurances, anything left over goes towards the charities goals/aims, redevelopment whatever. Business is business, making money is what they are there for, maybe not for shareholders but for the cause.
They can invest their money pretty much anywhere they see fit, just the money made is for the charities use not shareholders pockets.

 

[Como]

In an ideal world the Club would want to 'own; what is now ACL. I think that was what was intended.

The revenues would then be part of its total income for fair play rules.

I have no idea what ACL is worth, the Council/Higgs seem to hold it in their books at about 14m.

I believe the last accounts included the 2012 income, a one off unlikely to be repeated. Can not imagine they look very good now. All the comments on here suggest the Ricoh with all its bits is pretty dead.

 

[Jim]

I dont get the legally cant make a profit argument about charities!
Charities dont just survive on donations alone, they have the to make profit, like any other business they have to pay wages, overheads, insurances, anything left over goes towards the charities goals/aims, redevelopment whatever. Business is business, making money is what they are there for, maybe not for shareholders but for the cause.
They can invest their money pretty much anywhere they see fit, just the money made is for the charities use not shareholders pockets.

A charity can't make a profit because a profit is essentially monies that are to be eventually distributed to the owners of the organisation.

Instead excess income over the top of expenses is an addition to budgeted available charitable expenditure.

 

[rupert_bear]

Lets get things clear SISU that being Joy Seppala who remember admitted not that long ago she didn't even know Cov City FC were part of her empire, have no interest at all in CCFC, that being the team on the pitch and lets be honest if that was better and had some hope most fans wouldn't give a stuff about the internal politics of SISU/ACL/CCC or whether the Ricoh is run by AEG or Dick and Dora. If SISU were interested in the team and it's on-field performance they would have acted ages ago and at the very least employed proper football expertise to run it.

 

[Hobo]

A charity can't make a profit because a profit is essentially monies that are to be eventually distributed to the owners of the organisation.

Instead excess income over the top of expenses is an addition to budgeted available charitable expenditure.

Charities can trade and make a profit for the furtherance of their cause. They are subject to VAT and tax like other companies. There are guidelines but they can make a profit basically.

 

[Grendel]

Charities can trade and make a profit for the furtherance of their cause. They are subject to VAT and tax like other companies. There are guidelines but they can make a profit basically.

On their investments of course they can. As they can also make losses on investments.

 

[Astute]

On their investments of course they can. As they can also make losses on investments.

Yes they can make a loss sometimes. Just the same as SISU can. They offered their share to SISU which would have lost them 1m.

A lot of charities make money other than donations. Charity shops for instance. But they are not allowed to give things away to hedge funds as a few would like or the charities commission would get involved.

SISU should pay up, rent or build. Or at least try negotiating for once.

 

[Grendel]

Yes they can make a loss sometimes. Just the same as SISU can. They offered their share to SISU which would have lost them 1m.

A lot of charities make money other than donations. Charity shops for instance. But they are not allowed to give things away to hedge funds as a few would like or the charities commission would get involved.

SISU should pay up, rent or build. Or at least try negotiating for once.

How many instances in the last have the charity commission become involved and to what effect.

Do you think the citizens of Coventry care if Higgs get the money back?

 

[Astute]

How many instances in the last have the charity commission become involved and to what effect.

Do you think the citizens of Coventry care if Higgs get the money back?

Just because you don't care about anything other than SISU getting what they want for their investors. Higgs do a lot of good in Coventry and the Coventry area. A lot more people are interested in the good of Higgs and what they do than a hedge fund that has fooked our club up.

 

[chiefdave]

How many instances in the last have the charity commission become involved and to what effect.

Do you think the citizens of Coventry care if Higgs get the money back?

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...eporting-our-regulatory-work/inquiry-reports/

My personal opinion is that most people in Coventry do not want the charity to be 'ripped off' however you will most likely find many different definitions of ripped off. I would prefer not to see the charity lose out as I feel they were trying to assist the club. However if it is a choice between the charity losing out or securing the future of our club then the club wins every time for me. I would want to be certain that it was actually the club benefitting and not SISU and their investors.

 

[Grendel]

Just because you don't care about anything other than SISU getting what they want for their investors. Higgs do a lot of good in Coventry and the Coventry area. A lot more people are interested in the good of Higgs and what they do than a hedge fund that has fooked our club up.

If that is the case why doesn't the council buy the shares at full market value of £6.5 million?

 

[skybluetony176]

If that is the case why doesn't the council buy the shares at full market value of £6.5 million?

Are Higgs looking to offload their shares? That's not the impression Marion gave in her CET interview.

 

[Astute]

If that is the case why doesn't the council buy the shares at full market value of £6.5 million?

So it is OK to use taxpayers money to help a hedge fund but not OK to secure the future of a property that belongs to them?

When the mortgage/loan is paid off I would love the arena to be given to our club. But only in a way that someone like SISU couldn't get their hands on it. It should be for our clubs future and not personal gain.

 

[Grendel]

So it is OK to use taxpayers money to help a hedge fund but not OK to secure the future of a property that belongs to them?

When the mortgage/loan is paid off I would love the arena to be given to our club. But only in a way that someone like SISU couldn't get their hands on it. It should be for our clubs future and not personal gain.

Hold on cant have it both ways.

If the taxpayer is that interested in the charity I would imagine they will be more than happy to contribute. The share as I see it offers no ownership benefit. The council have not lost money on the arena - only CCFC and Higgs have. Who would object to such a buyout and why?

 

[skybluetony176]

Hold on cant have it both ways.

If the taxpayer is that interested in the charity I would imagine they will be more than happy to contribute. The share as I see it offers no ownership benefit. The council have not lost money on the arena - only CCFC and Higgs have. Who would object to such and why?

As one of the aims of the charity is to assist in the regeneration of Coventry isn't it fair to say that they haven't lost anything. If you're saying they've lost on this then they've lost on every regeneration project they've ever been involved in. I guess they measure gains in terms of the effect it has on the community and not how much they've lined their pockets. I guess that's the difference between a charity and a hedge fund.

 

[Astute]

Hold on cant have it both ways.

If the taxpayer is that interested in the charity I would imagine they will be more than happy to contribute. The share as I see it offers no ownership benefit. The council have not lost money on the arena - only CCFC and Higgs have. Who would object to such a buyout and why?

Can't have it both ways? So you agree then. Just remind me who is bringing the JR to court and who is after the unencumbered freehold.

 

[James Smith]

In an ideal world the Club would want to 'own; what is now ACL. I think that was what was intended.

The revenues would then be part of its total income for fair play rules.

I have no idea what ACL is worth, the Council/Higgs seem to hold it in their books at about 14m.

I believe the last accounts included the 2012 income, a one off unlikely to be repeated. Can not imagine they look very good now. All the comments on here suggest the Ricoh with all its bits is pretty dead.

We don't know how well ACL are doing at the moment and they may be doing a roaring trade in private corporate events as well as the Grendel favourite Psychic Sally or only have Psychic Sally and are praying for business. We'll have to wait for the next set of accounts to know for sure.

 

[Astute]

We don't know how well ACL are doing at the moment and they may be doing a roaring trade in private corporate events as well as the Grendel favourite Psychic Sally or only have Psychic Sally and are praying for business. We'll have to wait for the next set of accounts to know for sure.

Do you mean that Grendel isn't Psychic Sally?

 

[James Smith]

Still can't see what you get for £6.5 million - other than ££7 million more debt - can you?

So no point in Sisu buying it or being gifted it, better to save the money for building our new stadium.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I've asked a few times but if CCFC purchase the share what do they get?

Food revenues - do they get these revenues? I thought that ACL own only a percentage and compass the rest. Do they just get half of less than 50%?

ACL own 80% of IEC so you get half of this. If we wanted full access we would have to negotiate a price with ACL for their shareholding in it and Compass for theirs.

Do they get half the revenue from all non football related events?

See above.

Will they have equal say with the council on future policy decisions?

Decisions for ACL, yes.

Will they take on and be responsible for half of the outstanding mortgage?

At the moment any profits made by ACL go into servicing the mortgage. Once this is paid off in full then the club could draw dividends, I would assume half and half with CCC.

Happy to be corrected for any errors.

 

[chiefdave]

Grendel, what would your solution be? It seems renting doesn't work, you seem to be saying ownership doesn't work and building a new stadium certainly isn't the answer so what do you suggest?

 

[Hobo]

Grendel, what would your solution be? It seems renting doesn't work, you seem to be saying ownership doesn't work and building a new stadium certainly isn't the answer so what do you suggest?

Keep playing at Northampton? He doesn't have to leave his Meridan home till 2pm apparently.