lewys33
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/wasps-rfc-value-ricoh-arena-10357325
While the people of Coventry sit back and accept it..........
While the people of Coventry sit back and accept it..........
Wasps Value Ricoh Arena at £48.5 million (21 Viewers)
- Thread starter lewys33
- Start date
Nick
Administrator
As I said in the thread yesterday, either their valuation is out or it was sold for millions less than what it was worth. Still, it wasn't SISU so everybody can be happy that Wasps prevented SISU from ripping off the tax payers of Coventry.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
Yh so we could be ripped off by out-of-towners.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I can't belive a single Coventry taxpayer would not want this investigated. We're not tallking about a small difference we're talking about 10s of millions at a time when local services are being cut.
Either the council have failed the taxpayers or Wasps are supplying false information, which as it was included in their bond prospectus is not on.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find that many people urged SISU to buy it, for whatever reason they didn't but Wasps did. Result CCFC is all f***ed up.
lewys33
Well-Known Member
I personally think £5(ish) mill for the stadium was shit money. I didn't want sisu to pay nothing for it, and I certainly didn't want a london rugby club to pay nothing for it. Was the same deal offered to CCFC when they offered it to Wasps?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Never defended Wasps yet. It's just people like you are stupid enough to believe Grendull, Sickboy etc when they say I do. Funny that when i challange them they never come back with anything.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Groundhog Day......
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure you can lodge a complaint as a Coventry tax payer with the european parliment/commission if it bothers you that much. Pretty sure that the Coventry MEP is a tory also so I can't imagine he'll be too fussed about having mud slung at the Labour Council. You could always use your keyboard to write him a letter and do something pro-active rather than beying a keyboard hero.
covmark
Well-Known Member
Took you longer than I thought it would.
Your posts nowadays mainly consist of Wasps defending or gushing over Letsallsingtogether and BHSB like some lovesick teenager.
It's extremely embarrassing to see.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
Nice try covmark, but your attempts to "out grendel" grendel are pathetic. He is the master, you are a very poor imitation. You should just give it up.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
400 odd posts on the other thread where you fight their corner suggests otherwise
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Correct.....already its descended into the same old bullshit.
Can we try & keep this thread on topic...ie: Wasps valuing an asset at approx. 250% higher than Coventry City council managed to sell it for only a few months ago......
Its a fucking scandal & a disgrace.....
...So If the usual handful of dullards can continue to compare their forum cock size on the other thread, that would be most helpful.....thank you.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So I'm defending Wasps (perhaps you can show me where) while gushing over the only two posters on here who actually went to the council house to protest about the Wasps takeover, something I gushingly supported them for doing.
You didn't really think that answer through did you?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Post a couple up then. Show me where I've defended them.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Worse than that, CCC sold 50% of ACL for £2.77m, that 50% is now valued at £24.25m, that's a 775% increase in the space of 6 months!
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Nah bored of this game, I'd have more success convincing devout Catholics that God doesn't exist.
Just letting you know that even if you don't think you are, that is how your posts come across to others reading them.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's interesting. On what basis would you lodge a complaint with the European parliment over the sell of a CCC asset to a private company? Might be worth pursuing. Certainly asking CCC for any information draws a blank.
Nick
Administrator
Keyboard hero? That the same as being outraged when things happen to the cLub online but hardly going to games?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You tell me. You want it investigating. I thought you'd have an idea why you'd want it investigating before making that statement.
Personally if I was a Coventry taxpayer I would have reported it the moment the prospectus came out on state aid laws but I'm not a Coventry tax payer.
Here I'll help you out. The MEP for Coventry is Malcolm Harbour apparently. Tel: 01675 530682, email [email protected]
If you google "lodge a complaint with the European commission" it's at the top of the page and there's a link to making a complaint on line. Sorry, on my phone so can't do a link otherwise I would.
As a taxpayer you pay for the right to use these resources so use them. Don't say I don't do anything to help you.
You might also want to start an online petition such as the fix football one. Michael Orton was quite vocally against the takeover but was exhausted from what he'd already done and the abuse he'd taken to take up the fight but he's very approachable and I'm sure he'd be willing to help set it up in an advisory capacity. PM him on here if his account is still open. If not I've got his private email address and if he's alright with it I'll PM it to you.
If you do set it up I'll even sign it. You can't say fairer than that.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Wrong end of the stick, it is up to the purchaser to make an offer, there is no way a vendor is going to disclose details of another prospective purchasers offer (protected by a confidentiality agreement no doubt).
SISU's offer wasn't accepted, if it was better it might have been accepted, if it was better and refused then maybe there is a legal case for SISU to pursue in the unlikely event proof can be obtained.
All in all I think the issue hinged on taking over the £14M loan in full without strings, SISU didn't want to do that but Wasps did, therefore Wasps succeeded, SISU failed.
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What are you on about the European parliament for?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Aside from the state aid issue, it's an issue of a council appropriately managing public assets and achieving best value for the taxpayer. It looks like they have failed on both counts to me.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Furthermore Toni, you don't complain to Europe about State Aid, it's done through the British courts. Another one of your Gareth Keenan moments.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The only laws that I could see that have been broken are European state aid laws so I'd imagine that the European commission is the best place to start. They certainly have an online complaint procedure for individuals as well as organisations. I guess that means that the club could put a complaint in also.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
not seen the accounts as yet....... so cant comment too much on them
Can we clear something up though. The long Leasehold interest of 250years is valued at £48.5m in line with valuation report in the prospectus. That is not the same as valuing the shares of ACL when they were sold to Wasps. Nor is it what ACL is currently valued at
for instance
- the long lease came into existence because of the purchase of the shares not before the purchase of the shares and as such formed no part of the share sale price in Oct/Nov 2014
- the long lease valuation includes all of the fittings and equipment
- the value of the shares was based on the original lease but also included the creditors, loans and liabilities at the date of the share sale
- it is highly likely that the share sale price included revaluation of the major assets so that the original lease & fixtures were discounted to reflect an agreed market value
- in share valuations the price is often discounted to reflect the element of control an individual block of shares has in this case neither block of shares had simple control and there fore they could argue a discounted price
- the valuation done in the prospectus and included in the accounts was done April 2015 not Oct/Nov 2014 when they bought in. It has nothing to do with the share price when CCC & AEHC sold
- the valuation is a professional opinion and a for sale value may well differ. Certainly a forced sale would be much lower
- The valuation will reflect the 4 year deal (2+2) for CCFC but it will also reflect the 50 year lease the Wasps RFC have to play first team matches there.
- it would also include a reflection of the new sponsorship/commercial deals being done April 2015 because of the change in ACL plus arrival of Wasps
- linking the long lease valuation (with Wasps in place for 250 years) to the value of the shares in Oct/ Nov 2014 is inaccurate.
- a new valuation has to be included because of the bond issue and security. Next valuation is due by June 2016
That all said I, along with many others was surprised at the share sale price. Had expected it would be higher
The sale deal did involve some other aspects though
- full term interest apparently paid to CCC. That means CCC get front loaded income in their revenue budgets
- the lease extension paid to CCC £1m - was that full/fair value? why wasn't such a lease in place previously instead of the short term one ACL had?
- agreement to pay AEHC so much per ticket in the AEHC stand subject to an annual minimum (£40k ?) not sure how long that lasts
Can we clear something up though. The long Leasehold interest of 250years is valued at £48.5m in line with valuation report in the prospectus. That is not the same as valuing the shares of ACL when they were sold to Wasps. Nor is it what ACL is currently valued at
for instance
- the long lease came into existence because of the purchase of the shares not before the purchase of the shares and as such formed no part of the share sale price in Oct/Nov 2014
- the long lease valuation includes all of the fittings and equipment
- the value of the shares was based on the original lease but also included the creditors, loans and liabilities at the date of the share sale
- it is highly likely that the share sale price included revaluation of the major assets so that the original lease & fixtures were discounted to reflect an agreed market value
- in share valuations the price is often discounted to reflect the element of control an individual block of shares has in this case neither block of shares had simple control and there fore they could argue a discounted price
- the valuation done in the prospectus and included in the accounts was done April 2015 not Oct/Nov 2014 when they bought in. It has nothing to do with the share price when CCC & AEHC sold
- the valuation is a professional opinion and a for sale value may well differ. Certainly a forced sale would be much lower
- The valuation will reflect the 4 year deal (2+2) for CCFC but it will also reflect the 50 year lease the Wasps RFC have to play first team matches there.
- it would also include a reflection of the new sponsorship/commercial deals being done April 2015 because of the change in ACL plus arrival of Wasps
- linking the long lease valuation (with Wasps in place for 250 years) to the value of the shares in Oct/ Nov 2014 is inaccurate.
- a new valuation has to be included because of the bond issue and security. Next valuation is due by June 2016
That all said I, along with many others was surprised at the share sale price. Had expected it would be higher
The sale deal did involve some other aspects though
- full term interest apparently paid to CCC. That means CCC get front loaded income in their revenue budgets
- the lease extension paid to CCC £1m - was that full/fair value? why wasn't such a lease in place previously instead of the short term one ACL had?
- agreement to pay AEHC so much per ticket in the AEHC stand subject to an annual minimum (£40k ?) not sure how long that lasts
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Most likely. Do you think that there might be a separate mechanism for lodging a complaint at a more local level. Local MP being the obvious one. Would probably help if it's not a labour one but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't express your view anyway. If you send your MP an email I'm pretty sure his office has to reply so your concerns / complaint is officially lodged / noted. Not saying anything will come of it but the more they receive the harder it is for them to ignore. The one certainty is that if no one write's to their Coventry councillors, MP and MEP you're making it very easier for them to ignore it and brush it under the carpet.
I've wrote to both my councillors and MP in the past and always got a response of some sort.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Two things. One) I'm only Toni at the weekends and Two) if you know better (which you clearly believe you do) why don't you put the petty remarks to one side and do something constructive and help out Coventry tax payers who want to take it up with the appropriate bodies and advise the likes of chief Dave how to do it.
Or are you just fishing for a few likes?
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
State aid wouldn't cover the sale of ACL to Wasps would it? Not sure where that would come in until the sale had been shown to be undervalue?
Would have thought the more relevant area would be the councils responsibility to achieve best value under section 123 of the 1972 Local Government Act
Although I think the requirement to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State has since been removed.
It generally seems to be accepted, from other cases that have gone to court, that the process to obtain best price requires a market valuation being obtain, it being placed on the market for an adequate length of time (no exact time is stated anywhere but 3 months seems to be the accepted minimum) and the sale advertised in the appropriate publications.
The only way I can see state aid coming in to it if is it was shown to be sold undervalue then CCC would in effect be subsidising Wasps with public money. Interestingly the European Commission guidance on how to avoid any problems with state aid state include the following requirement for a sale to be publicised
There are cases where councils have tried to defend an undervalue sale on non-financial grounds, for example regeneration, there is not a single example I can find of this succeeding. However this defense has been used successfully when defending on a local level, ie: to the Local Government Ombudsman. In those cases specific benefits
have to be shown.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So would it be correct that Wasps purchased 50% of ACL from CCC with a 50 year Ricoh lease for £2.77. They then purchased a 200 year lease extension for £1m?
If thats right the same point still broadly stands. How can a 200 year extension be worth £1m given the cost of the origianl lease and the value of ACL. Something doesn't seem to add it and it makes me wonder if things have been done a particular way so that technically it is legal & correct where morally it may be more questionable. Similar to the manner in which the whole administration process and moving of assets was carried out.
Given the lease and not ACL is valued at £48.5m and that the lease lies with ACL under Wasps ownership would it not follow that the £48.5m forms part of the value of ACL?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well I suggest that you form an argument based on your initial concerns that led you to state that you can't believe that no Coventry taxpayer wants this investigating and what you've uncovered above put it in a letter/email and start sending it to Coventry councillors, MP's, MEP's, local media etc.
You may also want to consider setting it up as a template to put up on here so others can copy and paste and send also. The louder the voice the harder it is to ignore.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Just to add Dave. Although OSB's post seems to throw some doubt on what the valuation means it doesn't mean that you shouldn't start proactively ask questions. If you want an explanation of the events you should still be writing. It's your right as a tax payer and voter to ask. I would only ever encourage people to use that right.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
yes it does but you must also take all the positives and negatives together to get to an opinion as to current value it will be a lot less than 48.5m