Higgs statement (9 Viewers)

[lordsummerisle]

Do anybody know what the yearly rent is for the new lease yet ?
Also what did ACL pay yearly for the old lease ?

No yearly fee for the old lease, was about £21million for the 50 year lease(which is what the loan was for)

Then became £14million last year for the remainder of the lease(43 years?).

Now has become whatever remains of the £14million council loan for 250 years.

Great business by the council.

 

---

[Grendel]

Do anybody know what the yearly rent is for the new lease yet ?
Also what did ACL pay yearly for the old lease ?

There was no payment before - it was the discharge of the loan.

There was a suggestion that £1 million of the loan would be paid as a lease which works out at £4,000 a year.

 

[oldskyblue58]

What happened was

CCC took out some prudential borrowing totalling 21m to help pay for the construction.

To repay that borrowing the CCC gave ACL the option of paying £1.9m annual rent or to pay a one off Lease premium of £21m

ACL chose to pay the one off premium £21m and took out a loan with Yorkshire Bank to do so which included a hedge against interest rate.

By 15 January 2013 that original loan had been repaid down to approx. 14m plus the interest rates hedging charge.

The CCC on 15th January 2013 settled all liabilities to Yorkshire Bank by buying out the loan and interest hedge for 14.4m. The CCC loan replaced the YB loan.

Since then payments I assume will have been made.

The loan is a liability of ACL not AEHC or CCC as shareholders in ACL. That is the meaning of Limited liability - pay for your shares in full and as a shareholder you have no further liability for the debts of the company (unless you give a separate guarantee which neither AEHC nor CCC have done)

So unless Wasps have bought out the CCC loan it still remains and ACL not CCC/AEHC/Wasps owes it. If Wasps bought out the loan then ACL now owe Wasps the sum outstanding.

There are no in depth details of the contracts for the sale available - only details are those released by CCC & Wasps which give a broad outline of the deal, although more details were given to Councillors to make their decision.

 

[Hobo]

Higgs and the Council were mad not to accept the offer on the table from Sisu before could also be said.

It could have been a good deal but broke down. SISU adopted a distress model to drive the value down further it would seem.

Why would they do that? Greed or hadn't got the finances for the original deal?

Then we have Wasps on the scene. SISU were informed but chose not to interfere. Why no counter bid? Still no finances available? Or have they another plan?

Have we a potential No deal between CCC and SISU to save face, yet CCC deal with Wasps and Higgs deal with SISU, ending in Wasps and CCFC sharing costs and benefits of the Ricoh?

Or do SISU genuinely have other plans?

If it is the case of SISU have other plans aren't we due a detailed press release. Other than the franchise angle it is fruitless arguing over something SISU don't want.

I really do think they have missed an opportunity here, over the last seven years and even in the last two weeks. As much as I dislike their business practice, I don't think they are that greedy to miss the opportunity? That leaves me wondering is it finances or was the freehold key after all?

If it is finances, I would actually have some sympathy. If it was a freehold issue I think it was to shaft us long term as many feared.

My own preferred option would have been the long lease Wasps deal but agreed between SSU and CCC. Both parties have let the fans down here and why it could not be done is the biggest question non of us can answer?

A lot of ? Marks in here but genuinely trying to get an overview.

 

[James Smith]

Well James I seem to remember that we had this debate some time ago and I did question the viability long term of the stadium. but you assured everyone the conferences and especially weddings were more profitable that the club renting the pitch.

As I've never seen the ACL accounts and know nothing about the relative margins of different events I can't believe I ever said that. I may well have prefaced a statement like that with the something like "IF they can get more" because as I said I don't have any factual information to prove or disprove it.

When you say offered something you seem to conveniently forget they have offered far more back. A 180 year extension to the lease this of course has significant value.

Well that's great for Wasps then isn't it, not so good for us in fact that was the second main point of my post. You said that we're not going to build our own stadium, so that means we'll be tenants at the Ricoh for ever. Now as we all know thanks to Tim

"We need to own our own stadium it needs to be a normal football club with control of all the revenues like all our competitors."

Quote from Coventry Telegraph June 30th this year (when he also said Judge got it wrong.)

So we're not going to build a new stadium and we're not going to own the Ricoh lease (or even half of it) and are for all intents and purposes going by what Tim said therefore fecked. How did it get to the stage where we have made enough dismissive statements and pissed off enough people that the council even considered selling our home to Wasps.

Another thing you frequently stated is that the charity could be subject to an audit from the charity commission if it sold for less than the initial amount. Hogwash as we thought .

Well I'm sure that the Higgs will be grateful of your ability to see into the future and the fact that despite the fact that they haven't sold anything yet, they won't be investigated for any sale of their shares in the future. As you said above I've only ever said that they "could" be subject to an investigation not that they definitely would or wouldn't be, my crystal balls clearly aren't as big as yours.

In fact if you look at the construct of the deal out together that the council blocked (see LS) it was arguably better and certainly no worse - remember we know nothing of the payment terms of the present deal and probably never will.

The council said at the start of the year that they would listen to any reasonable and sensible offers, so did we put a bid in or did we continue with the claims of a new stadium and that we were happy (and I don't include our supporters in that) at Sixfields. Did we ever put a bid in for either the Higgs or the council shares before going on the rent boycott? I don't think that we did (but as ever am happy to be corrected) and that doesn't strike me as a very good way to do business. If it was my flat would make me far less likely to want to sell it to the tenants that owed me money and I'd more than likely have kicked them out for non payment of rent.

As for good deal for the taxpayer what does that mean. £9 per head is hardly good for 9 years into a project is it. If you are referring to discharging the loan then I would draw your attention to the fact the council said it would make a profit from that loan - something you and the many posters on here supporting the move were eager to point out.

Where are you getting £9/head and what for? Also are Wasps going to be continuing the loan repayments? I think from reading the informed post from OSB58 that they will but not 100% certain.

Anne Lucas says ACL was washing its face.

Well she's washed her hands of the supporters of Coventry based sport.

Hurrah for the Great Leader

I assume you're being sarcastic here. As I have said before I don't agree with Wasps coming in and think it is highly hypocritical of the council.

I made a post last November where I said in it:

what if they are approached by someone else who wants to buy the ACL lease and the board recommends the deal to the shareholders? The Higgs are apparently keen to sell and the council might decide that the financial position would be better if they sold their shares (or even the freehold if a sensible offer comes in). What if the buyer has deeper pockets than Sisu, where does that leave the club apart from in Northampton hoping that plan A wasn't BS?

Http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-a-new-Stadium?p=586854&viewfull=1#post586854

Well that worked out well for us at least we're back in Coventry. :facepalm:

 

[Astute]

No it wasn't.

Still at least you give me fond memories of vinyl and record players and the stylus getting stuck on the same bit, over and over and over again.

Do you mean like you still going on about CCC going behind the backs of SISU to refinance the mortgage instead of SISU attempting it when it was nothing to do with SISU?

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

'CCC took out some prudential borrowing totalling 21m to help pay for the construction.'

This was the total amount that CCC put into the construction of the Ricoh ? if so, How on earth did they get to be in such a powerful position by putting in less that 1/5 of the capital to build the stadium?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

'CCC took out some prudential borrowing totalling 21m to help pay for the construction.'

This was the total amount that CCC put into the construction of the Ricoh ? if so, How on earth did they get to be in such a powerful position by putting in less that 1/5 of the capital to build the stadium?

It wasn't all they put in.

CCFC put in very little but were given an equally powerful position.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Do you mean like you still going on about CCC going behind the backs of SISU to refinance the mortgage instead of SISU attempting it when it was nothing to do with SISU?

The council were aware of SISU's plan to distress the mortgage. It has never been denied. As such they sought the alternative. Got cold feet or whatever.

 

[Grendel]

It wasn't all they put in.

CCFC put in very little but were given an equally powerful position.

I think you'll find they only put £2.7 million in.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Do you mean like you still going on about CCC going behind the backs of SISU to refinance the mortgage instead of SISU attempting it when it was nothing to do with SISU?

At least I go on about things that actually happened, not just in your head.

 

[Astute]

At least I go on about things that actually happened, not just in your head.

And twisting the truth to make out as though CCC were wrong to do what they did. Or trying to put an excuse together for SISU.

SISU have fucked up big time whatever way you try to word it.

 

[covcity4life]

astute you have been shown up alongside your precious council. dont make it worse.

 

[torchomatic]

And the stadium doesn't belong to Wasps but for the next 250 years it'll be in control of a company based in Malta. And yes, if CCFC ever get hold of the stadium, maybe in the year 2264 then it would't belong to us either but another company based overseas somewhere.

You are missing the point. The Ricoh would belong to sisu not CCFC and the Club would be paying rent at whatever level sisu chose to implement.

 

[eastwoodsdustman]

It wasn't all they put in.

CCFC put in very little but were given an equally powerful position.

Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!

 

[Nick]

And twisting the truth to make out as though CCC were wrong to do what they did. Or trying to put an excuse together for SISU.

SISU have fucked up big time whatever way you try to word it.

So CCC and Wasps aren't wrong for moving a team?

I don't think anybody doubts SISU have been fuck ups do they? Just that the council have been bellends too that some people don't seem to want to accept.

 

[Limey]

Does anyone think theres a remote possibility that wasps could have been given the right to veto on higgs share by CCC UNLESS a bid of set criteria comes from ccfc eg sharing of loan, set figure?

Therby forcing sisu to not play usual games if they want it?

One chance, this is how it is take it or leave it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!

CCFC had the option to buy which expired. CCFC never actually owned it the land purchase of £24m was eventually done by CCC

CCFC contracted for a lot of expenses for the project yes but also ended up owing for most of it. CCFC were allowed to net the costs against creditors and to have that net figure included as their initial investment in the build project. That in the end totalled a net £6.8m. When they ran out of money CCFC sold that investment to the AEHC for £6.5m taking a loss on investment of £300k - that is the amount if any that CCFC has "invested" in the build.

CCC sold some of the land to Tescos who paid CCC £42m and took over the decontamination costs etc £17m. The £42m was invested by CCC in the build cost of the stadium. CCFC never owned the land

Total build cost £115m including original land purchase £24m and decontamination £17m.

Main elements of Funding were Tesco sale for cash £42m, decontamination and other cost taken on by Tesco £17m, Council equity £10m, Prudential loan (that was repaid by lease granted to ACL for same amount ) £21m, various other grants etc were the balance.

It is a myth that CCFC actually paid net cash in to the project in the end................. other than £300k that they did not get back when they sold their interest to the Charity

Source council docs and CCFC ltd & CCFCH accounts

there is also info here
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...c-ltd-holdings-ricoh-build-years-1993-to-2007

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!

Thanks OSB58 for explaining the detail, once again.

The short answer is no isn't it, no doubt you won't believe the answer.

 

[Rusty Trombone]

I think you'll find they only put £2.7 million in.

Who did?

 

[Astute]

CCFC had the option to buy which expired. CCFC never actually owned it the land purchase of £24m was eventually done by CCC

CCFC contracted for a lot of expenses for the project yes but also ended up owing for most of it. CCFC were allowed to net the costs against creditors and to have that net figure included as their initial investment in the build project. That in the end totalled a net £6.8m. When they ran out of money CCFC sold that investment to the AEHC for £6.5m taking a loss on investment of £300k - that is the amount if any that CCFC has "invested" in the build.

CCC sold some of the land to Tescos who paid CCC £42m and took over the decontamination costs etc £17m. The £42m was invested by CCC in the build cost of the stadium. CCFC never owned the land

Total build cost £115m including original land purchase £24m and decontamination £17m.

Main elements of Funding were Tesco sale for cash £42m, decontamination and other cost taken on by Tesco £17m, Council equity £10m, Prudential loan (that was repaid by lease granted to ACL for same amount ) £21m, various other grants etc were the balance.

It is a myth that CCFC actually paid net cash in to the project in the end................. other than £300k that they did not get back when they sold their interest to the Charity

Source council docs and CCFC ltd & CCFCH accounts

there is also info here
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...c-ltd-holdings-ricoh-build-years-1993-to-2007

IIRC CCFC put a total of 1.7m into the build, but the rest I agree with. And for the 1.7m they got the 50% share.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Except when the Charity paid CCFC the £6.5 they were basically refunded because the £1.7m formed part of the total £6.8m spent on the project by CCFC through Football Investors.

From the CCFC point of view when you take the amounts they contracted for or paid out less the creditors/loans they netted off less the money they received from the Charity the net cost/loss to CCFC was £300k

 

[Jack Griffin]

Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!

No

 

[skybluefred]

Just listened to the PWKH interview for the first time. I don’t pretend to be an expert, so apologies if I’ve got any of this wrong (and especially if I’m sowing false seeds of hope).

1) He said that Higgs “would like to accept” the Wasps offer for their shares – that suggests to me that no formal or enforceable deal has been done. Anyone know?
2) He said that the offer from Wasps had triggered a contract clause to give the liquidator of CCFC Ltd. “an opportunity make the purchase” (presumably by at least matching the Wasps offer?). I believe that within ACL each party has the right to veto any sale of the other party’s shares, and that the Council’s right of veto has now passed to Wasps. But does that really extend to vetoing the company which has a contractual option to purchase? What I’m asking is – could Wasps actually veto a sale of the Higgs shares to CCFC Ltd? Has anyone got access to the contract documents for a definitive answer to that?
3) He said that the liquidator can “pretty much do what he likes” if it benefits the creditors of CCFC Ltd. If correct, that seems to provide quite a lot of leeway and room for manoeuvre.
4) The 30 days is just an interpretation of the legal requirement for a “reasonable time”. Higgs wouldn’t expect a deal to be completed within that time – in fact if I got it correctly, all they need within 30 days is an indication of whether CCFC Ltd. INTEND to make an offer. If that’s right, the time frame isn’t as impossible as some people have said on this thread (or has been reported by the Telegraph). Again – can anyone clarify this?
5) The option still rests with CCFC Ltd. because no-one asked Higgs to reassign it when SISU set up the new company structure for the club. WHAT?!
6) A final thought, nothing to do with anything said by PWKH. Just supposing a far bigger bid came in for the Higgs shares from a completely new party – would Wasps really veto it at the expense of the charity? I believe the charity is bound to do the best thing for itself financially, and under those circumstances, might they not just refuse to sell their shares to Wasps?

The Council and the Higgs have both basically said that the ball is now in SISU’s court, to decide whether they want to bid for the shares or not. Even by the standards of this sickening and bitter dispute, if that turns out to be a piss-take (of the fans as well as SISU) they will have plumbed new depths. And if there really is still a way for the club to get a half share in the Arena, and SISU pass it up in favour of their new stadium, they can stuff it. I’ve had enough of these games now.

I still remember the stunning goal scored by Norman Lockhart in the 6-1 thrashing of Blackburn Rovers at Highfield Rd.

 

[Calista]

Sadly Fred, I don’t – I came along just a few years too late! But I have it on good authority (the very best authority in fact) that Norman was a fine player, and it’s great that his playing days are still remembered.
Thanks for the response.

 

[oldfiver]

Can sell the shares to a liquidated company if it benefits the creditor.

It is not liquidated - once liquidated it has gone. In liquidation the liquidator is charged with selling the assets - he can sell to anyone who makes best offer for the benefit of creditors ( ahem )

 

[Limey]

Was there an interview on Sky Sports where Ann Lucas mentioned higgs share?

 

[Samo]

Was there an interview on Sky Sports where Ann Lucas mentioned higgs share?

Yes I saw that, she said it was for sale and that the club could purchase it if they wished.

 

[skybluefred]

Sadly Fred, I don’t – I came along just a few years too late! But I have it on good authority (the very best authority in fact) that Norman was a fine player, and it’s great that his playing days are still remembered.
Thanks for the response.

Goalkeeper Alf Wood rolled the ball out to Norman on the edge of the penalty area--he set off down the left wing leaving a string of
Blackburn players in his wake before crashing an unstoppable shot into the far corner of the net.Like Keith Houchen's Wembley header
it will never die.

 

[Limey]

Yes I saw that, she said it was for sale and that the club could purchase it if they wished.

I missed it and cant find online...
Surely she must know this is now practically impossible unless either 1. She knows something we don't re veto or 2. She completely misunderstands sale??

 

[Nick]

I missed it and cant find online...
Surely she must know this is now practically impossible unless either 1. She knows something we don't re veto or 2. She completely misunderstands sale??

The councillors don't seem to know this the way they have been tweeting, I wonder what their advisor actually told them when they were told how to vote.

 

[stupot07]

The councillors don't seem to know this the way they have been tweeting, I wonder what their advisor actually told them when they were told how to vote.

What have they said?


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

 

[Nick]

Does this work?

https://twitter.com/SkyBluesTalk/status/520638718072594432

He was asked:

what's stopping the club from buying the other half?

He replied:

Nothing at all. It's a decision for the club.

 

[Samo]

I missed it and cant find online...
Surely she must know this is now practically impossible unless either 1. She knows something we don't re veto or 2. She completely misunderstands sale??

I posted this on another thread:

It is interesting that Anne Lucas was quite open on Sky TV about CCFC having an option to buy the Higgs share, why would she do that if it were not possible? Pointing it out as she did would piss off Wasps you would have thought, and surely she would want to avoid that. So why say it?
Because it is possible and she wants it happen?
Because it is possible and was part of the plan all along?
Because she doesn't understand that its not possible?
Because she knows its not possible and is giving SISU the finger?
Any other suggestions?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Any other suggestions?

Politicking, and winning hearts and minds.