lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That's the argument that could win the JR for Sisu right there.
Valuations of ACL (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
That's the argument that could win the JR for Sisu right there.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I feel that the way the judge reads this very point is the crux of the JR ruling.
You're right .
Of Course this appears to enable ACL to offer the Club the rental terms It demanded as the original was too onerous for the Club to bare.
Add In the SISU QC suggesting the Irrationality of saving ACL and the Disingenuousness of SISU's Standpoint/Viewpoint /Strategem is wholly exposed.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
My very same thought.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
or ccc. You could argue it opened the doors for other lenders to come in. Possible sisu's tactic thinking that ARVO would be the only option, not expecting YB to be interested in restructuring and CCC to make their own arrangement.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I'd have thought it would be looked at that if there were commercial lenders willing to lend at commercial rates then there should have been no requirement for CCC to make a loan to ACL, unless of course it was at a "non-commercial" rate, which could then be classed as State Aid I'd have thought.
Bizarrely I think that if no commercial lender would have touched ACL with a bargepole then CCC would have had a more legitimate reason for loaning the money to ACL.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
The other consideration is if SUSU acted illegally (broke contracts) aggressively tried to distress ACL and as a result CCC took the best option to protect their investment?
Then SISU try to hijack legislation for their own ends, when it is them that has tried to distort the market.
I think this is one of many options under consideration by the JR judge.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
If YB, and possibly others if they'd bothered to shop around, were willing to lend ACL the money on new terms during the time that there was a rent dispute with the club and ACL had already initiated court action to recover the debt, then the argument that CCC had to lend the money to ACL is a non-starter.
Also with turnover reportedly doubling in the absence of rent, and indeed the club, then ACL cannot be said to be distressed in the slightest.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
But SISU acting illegally by breaching a contract to try and distress them remains. Their claim they were forced to vacate the Ricoh is equally unsound, also are they still trying to hijack legislation when it was them that initiated the distortion of the market?
ACL are clear in their belief it does not constitute state aid. There are arguments for and against this. More importantly it is a test case as no clear stated cases exist. I think this is a key point with SISU's track record of chancing their arm in the court arena. They know it is worth a punt and I would agree, even if I don't agree with their stance or case.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Do you think that ACL would have let the club play at the Ricoh without paying rent at all then indefinitely?
In which case there has been no need for any court action by ACL sinc e the start of the rent dispute has there?
Astute
Well-Known Member
It was seen as an unlawful approach by the judge when they stopped paying rent as there was a legally binding contract in place. The judge isn't thick. But it doesn't exonerate ACL/CCC if he decides that they have done anything unlawfully. If the case was about SISU acting unlawfully to get what they want they would almost certainly be found guilty. But it isn't, although mitigating circumstances could come into play with his verdict.
Nobody knows what the judge will decide. There is a good chance that even he is unsure ATM. We would even be guessing what will happen next if we knew what the main ruling will be.
Cheer up all. At least most of you will be able to watch the England game whilst I am stuck at work
Have to hope we don't get any breakdowns during the game so I can watch it.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
There's always a breakdown on one side or the other on here!
Astute
Well-Known Member
As you know turnover don't mean profit. A few posters on here were in their element when they saw that during the Olympics the turnover went up but the profit didn't.
And you also say that ACL are not in a distressed state at all. This is maybe only because of the debt being restructured. And it was certainly the intent of SISU for them to end up in a distressed state. That is why we are playing in Northampton. But of course they wouldn't tell us that. They just put the blame on ACL/CCC. They may not have been paying the rent but they were not kicked out of the Ricoh. They just said all trust was gone. I suppose this was true, but the trust was lost a lot more from the side of ACL/CCC.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
% of profit against turnover is a key measure of any business success in a normal industry. Why out of interest was the profit margin in the Olympic year less? What are you suggesting there.
profit was down because your beloved Shitzu failed to live up to their contractual agreements.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Not that year they didn't.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That's a false statement isn't it?
simple_simon
New Member
Why is it a false statement?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Because that year ACL received the rental money.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Having a part in the Olympics is all about kudos. Even the athletes taking part don't do it for the money, although winning an event is good for getting sponsorship. It put the Ricoh and Coventry in the spotlight.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So what are the details of the arrangement then? As ACL I assume had the turnover paid to them what did they then pay back to the Olympic Committee. It seems odd they get the turnover anyway and don't just rent the premises for a fixed fee as they do for concerts. So out if interest what's the arrangement?
Wow.......Shitzu did actually pay SOME rent!!!!!
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh dear.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I like the way that you constantly go on about the Olympics at the Ricoh but then admit that you don't have a clue how well or bad they did out of it
It is a good job that you don't try and find fault with everything that SISU do like you do with ACL / CCC otherwise you would never have any time to sleep.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I like the way that you constantly go on about the Olympics at the Ricoh but then admit that you don't have a clue how well or bad they did out of it
It is a good job that you don't try and find fault with everything that SISU do like you do with ACL / CCC otherwise you would never have any time to sleep.
To be fair he knows that profits were down on doubled turnover so ACL probably didn't do that well out of it.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I like the way that you constantly go on about the Olympics at the Ricoh but then admit that you don't have a clue how well or bad they did out of it
It is a good job that you don't try and find fault with everything that SISU do like you do with ACL / CCC otherwise you would never have any time to sleep.
Sorry? You raised the issue of the Olympics not me and stated it had a lower profit ratio. As usual you just made up a comment with no clue as to its validity.
Astute fact number 568.
Astute
Well-Known Member
We all know this but don't know why. Could be any of a few reasons why or even a few. Like security costs, extra staff, payment made to hold the events or many more.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Correct. I mentioned it. And I suppose you don't always have a go about it when you get the chance. So are you trying to blame ACL / CCC for not making lots of money out of the Olympics? If not I don't understand why you think it is a genuine reason to keep having a go about. Is it to change the subject, try and put posters on the back foot or try and take some of the heat off SISU?
Como
Well-Known Member
The problem for the Ricoh/whoever owns it is the only potential main tenant is a 1st Division Team with limited prospects and no matter how you look at it will only generate minimal revenues for the foreseeable future.
I do not know the potential from other activities, but from Football it will be minimal.
I do not know the potential from other activities, but from Football it will be minimal.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I do find it odd that we were only renting the place for at most 30 days a year and yet we were the anchor tenant. Is this awarded on space rented, profile of the tenant, length of lease? I suppose we were also renting the 'dingey' offices as well but even then we would hardly be using as much space as say the hotel per year. I'm guessing length of lease.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Most like level of rent and length of lease.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Specs WT-R75
Well-Known Member
If ACL is worth net 6m now (20m Gross, less mortgage), and worth 19m with the club (33m, less mortgage).. you could argue that CCC (or ACL) should be paying the club to play at the Ricoh, or be given a stake in ACL to return. Access to revenue streams shouldn't even be a discussion it's just obvious.
There is no other anchor tenant that can add value to the company... just a shame all the parties involved can't do business with each other
There is no other anchor tenant that can add value to the company... just a shame all the parties involved can't do business with each other
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If ACL is worth net 6m now (20m Gross, less mortgage), and worth 19m with the club (33m, less mortgage).. you could argue that CCC (or ACL) should be paying the club to play at the Ricoh, or be given a stake in ACL to return. Access to revenue streams shouldn't even be a discussion it's just obvious.
There is no other anchor tenant that can add value to the company... just a shame all the parties involved can't do business with each other
You would have thought that a hedge fund full of intellectual financial whizzes would have thought of this already and used this to convince its paying customers to get on board with them. Unfortunately we got purchased by sisu.
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
People wouldn't be convinced would they? The stumbling block is ACL. Without ccfc it is worth very little as the profit as a % of ratio is poor and the biggest land mass (I.e. the ground) is valueless. Its the council and ACL who need pragmatism and offer shares to return. They won't of course. The council if it really believes the Higgs share is worth over £6 million alone (something OSB has no issue with though I would gues he wouldn't buy on that basis) should buy them out and then deal alone with the club.
I am sure PWKH would confirm they would sell at that value. If its worth it why doesn't the council buy it?