covcity4life
Well-Known Member
no .
Get someone else to read it too you.
The CCC valuation is of the entirety of ACL.
I'll take that as a compliment!!! Thanks! LOL!
Why do CCC have a valuation for 100% of ACL in their accounts when they only own 50%? That seems an odd thing to do.
The CCC valuation is of the entirety of ACL, they give it a nett value of nil, which would value ACL at £14million minus mortgage of £14million.
Therfore if somebody took on the mortgage and paid "full value" for ACL as a business then the only cost would be the mortgage.
You are basically saying that ACL is worth £28million, adding the "value" of ACL to the cost of the mortgage.
All a little confusing
CCC....... own 100% of North Coventry Holdings Limited (NCH)....... which owns 100% of North Coventry Regeneration Limited (NCR)and 50% of ACL
Principal activity of NCR is described as the build of the Ricoh Arena
Principal activity of NCH is described as holding shares in NCR & ACL
The shares in ACL were purchased by NCH on 27/02/2004 for £1,758,056 at £1 per share. In the NCH accounts to 31/03/2005 the value of these shares were written down to £nil. Similarly the investment in NCR was written down by 31/03/08 to nil. So it looks to me that the value of the CCC investment has always been £nil as far as the CCC accounts are concerned (even before the current dispute)
That does not mean that the value of ACL as a going concern business is nil, only that CCC & NCH accounts do not carry a value because they have adopted a very prudent view of £1.758m investment, that is agreed by their auditors. (key is that the value of assets is not overstated) Can the Charity carry a value based on a different set of criteria - yes. Does that make it all confusing yes.
So the last CCC figures to 31/03/13 took the view that their investment, the loan and the uncertainties kept the net value of the investment at nil. Well that was straight after the refinance of ACL with £14m loan and in the middle of the CCFC dispute. Even without the loan or dispute the investment in ACL had been written down to nil so the new factors were never going to improve that.
Going on the comments made it seems to imply that the value is netted down by the loan to arrive at nil. Not sure how that works in terms of valuation and disclosure as they are two separate things - an investment and loan debtor. Take it at face value of what was said and that implies that 50% of ACL is worth £14m but has been netted off against the £14m loan owed by ACL (100%) to achieve nil value in the CCC accounts. The charity values its investment in 50% are more than £nil but that has no impact at all on the CCC accounts at all.
As a long term unquoted investment in a joint venture do they actually have to include a current value of ACL every year? They do have to include a statement to give details of net assets and profits of ACL - and do in the NCH accounts
The question I have in the CCC not valuing NCH and thereby the share in ACL is the following
Is the nil valuation an indication that the CCC have no interest in selling its 50% share interest in the project at all? ......... No expectation of sale or a return or income, then you might just say the value of investment in the CCC accounts should be disclosed as £nil.
Talk of independent valuations and averaging etc are a little pointless if there is no expectation or no need to sell is felt.
The disclosure was also based on a valuation report that was done prior to the CCC 2012/13 accounts being signed off ...... have things changed since then?
So before we get all excited that ACL is worth nil, that is not what was actually said. What is actually said is that the value of the investment in NCH which owns 50% of ACL is in the opinion of CCC and its auditors written down to nil in the CCC annual financial reports. This does not give a sale value of ACL
Ah, OK, see what you're saying. So you're saying that ACL free and clear of the mortgage is worth £14million, but with the mortgage is worth nothing, right?
I'm not sure I'd agree with that, especially given that the Higgs value their share at £6.5m, but I can see how you came to it.
All a little confusing
CCC....... own 100% of North Coventry Holdings Limited (NCH)....... which owns 100% of North Coventry Regeneration Limited (NCR)and 50% of ACL
Principal activity of NCR is described as the build of the Ricoh Arena
Principal activity of NCH is described as holding shares in NCR & ACL
The shares in ACL were purchased by NCH on 27/02/2004 for £1,758,056 at £1 per share. In the NCH accounts to 31/03/2005 the value of these shares were written down to £nil. Similarly the investment in NCR was written down by 31/03/08 to nil. So it looks to me that the value of the CCC investment has always been £nil as far as the CCC accounts are concerned (even before the current dispute)
That does not mean that the value of ACL as a going concern business is nil, only that CCC & NCH accounts do not carry a value because they have adopted a very prudent view of £1.758m investment, that is agreed by their auditors. (key is that the value of assets is not overstated) Can the Charity carry a value based on a different set of criteria - yes. Does that make it all confusing yes.
So the last CCC figures to 31/03/13 took the view that their investment, the loan and the uncertainties kept the net value of the investment at nil. Well that was straight after the refinance of ACL with £14m loan and in the middle of the CCFC dispute. Even without the loan or dispute the investment in ACL had been written down to nil so the new factors were never going to improve that.
Going on the comments made it seems to imply that the value is netted down by the loan to arrive at nil. Not sure how that works in terms of valuation and disclosure as they are two separate things - an investment and loan debtor. Take it at face value of what was said and that implies that 50% of ACL is worth £14m but has been netted off against the £14m loan owed by ACL (100%) to achieve nil value in the CCC accounts. The charity values its investment in 50% are more than £nil but that has no impact at all on the CCC accounts at all.
As a long term unquoted investment in a joint venture do they actually have to include a current value of ACL every year? They do have to include a statement to give details of net assets and profits of ACL - and do in the NCH accounts
The question I have in the CCC not valuing NCH and thereby the share in ACL is the following
Is the nil valuation an indication that the CCC have no interest in selling its 50% share interest in the project at all? ......... No expectation of sale or a return or income, then you might just say the value of investment in the CCC accounts should be disclosed as £nil.
Talk of independent valuations and averaging etc are a little pointless if there is no expectation or no need to sell is felt.
The disclosure was also based on a valuation report that was done prior to the CCC 2012/13 accounts being signed off ...... have things changed since then?
So before we get all excited that ACL is worth nil, that is not what was actually said. What is actually said is that the value of the investment in NCH which owns 50% of ACL is in the opinion of CCC and its auditors written down to nil in the CCC annual financial reports. This does not give a sale value of ACL
.....bloody hell....this is almost as complex as the sisu web of companies....
...where's the "my heads exploding" smiley nick
For a buyer, in a standard business how would a "value" be worked out from things like that? Obviously there are lots of variables though.
Think that's what the CCC valuation is saying to be honest.
Higgs of course can value their share at whatver level they like, like I could my house if I wanted to sell it, doesn't mean I would sell it at the price I would like of course.
People like domestic house sale/rental analogies on here!
So basically any offer for ACL will have to be at least the cost of settling any outstanding debt as ACL by all accounts can afford it's bills in it's current state meaning the owners don't need to sell as they currently have a viable business.
Would that be about right?
So basically any offer for ACL will have to be at least the cost of settling any outstanding debt as ACL by all accounts can afford it's bills in it's current state meaning the owners don't need to sell as they currently have a viable business.
Would that be about right?
So basically any offer for ACL will have to be at least the cost of settling any outstanding debt as ACL by all accounts can afford it's bills in it's current state meaning the owners don't need to sell as they currently have a viable business.
Would that be about right?
People like domestic house sale/rental analogies on here!
All a little confusing
The disclosure was also based on a valuation report that was done prior to the CCC 2012/13 accounts being signed off ...... have things changed since then?
Whereas some people just like being anal
For a buyer, in a standard business how would a "value" be worked out from things like that? Obviously there are lots of variables though.
For a buyer, in a standard business how would a "value" be worked out from things like that? Obviously there are lots of variables though.
The problem around the valuation of a business is that it's an art as much as a science - if you got 10 accountants to value a business you'd probably get at least 20 valuations and most of those would be ranges rather than figures!
All a little confusing
CCC....... own 100% of North Coventry Holdings Limited (NCH)....... which owns 100% of North Coventry Regeneration Limited (NCR)and 50% of ACL
Principal activity of NCR is described as the build of the Ricoh Arena
Principal activity of NCH is described as holding shares in NCR & ACL
The shares in ACL were purchased by NCH on 27/02/2004 for £1,758,056 at £1 per share. In the NCH accounts to 31/03/2005 the value of these shares were written down to £nil. Similarly the investment in NCR was written down by 31/03/08 to nil. So it looks to me that the value of the CCC investment has always been £nil as far as the CCC accounts are concerned (even before the current dispute)
That does not mean that the value of ACL as a going concern business is nil, only that CCC & NCH accounts do not carry a value because they have adopted a very prudent view of £1.758m investment, that is agreed by their auditors. (key is that the value of assets is not overstated) Can the Charity carry a value based on a different set of criteria - yes. Does that make it all confusing yes.
So the last CCC figures to 31/03/13 took the view that their investment, the loan and the uncertainties kept the net value of the investment at nil. Well that was straight after the refinance of ACL with £14m loan and in the middle of the CCFC dispute. Even without the loan or dispute the investment in ACL had been written down to nil so the new factors were never going to improve that.
Going on the comments made it seems to imply that the value is netted down by the loan to arrive at nil. Not sure how that works in terms of valuation and disclosure as they are two separate things - an investment and loan debtor. Take it at face value of what was said and that implies that 50% of ACL is worth £14m but has been netted off against the £14m loan owed by ACL (100%) to achieve nil value in the CCC accounts. The charity values its investment in 50% are more than £nil but that has no impact at all on the CCC accounts at all.
As a long term unquoted investment in a joint venture do they actually have to include a current value of ACL every year? They do have to include a statement to give details of net assets and profits of ACL - and do in the NCH accounts
The question I have in the CCC not valuing NCH and thereby the share in ACL is the following
Is the nil valuation an indication that the CCC have no interest in selling its 50% share interest in the project at all? ......... No expectation of sale or a return or income, then you might just say the value of investment in the CCC accounts should be disclosed as £nil.
Talk of independent valuations and averaging etc are a little pointless if there is no expectation or no need to sell is felt.
The disclosure was also based on a valuation report that was done prior to the CCC 2012/13 accounts being signed off ...... have things changed since then?
So before we get all excited that ACL is worth nil, that is not what was actually said. What is actually said is that the value of the investment in NCH which owns 50% of ACL is in the opinion of CCC and its auditors written down to nil in the CCC annual financial reports. This does not give a sale value of ACL
If they were able to offer this sort of deal does that not prove they are not reliant on CCFC anymore ?
Think this is a point that's often overlooked. We see lots of talk of ACL needing to replace a huge amount of lost revenue yet if they can now offer a much better deal to the club it would indicate they don't need as much revenue. It also means they can more than likely replace the revenue with a couple of events like the games thing and the music fest they had.
The streakers and spiders arena
may sound crap events but as long as the people putting it on pay their fee and people turn up and spend their money it's all good from an ACL standpoint.
Pretty much, you either settle the debt or take over repayments (as long as the lender is happy with that).T
hink of it in terms of the club, anyone who buys it will pay nothing (or the mythical pound as you have to actually make a payment) but the key thing is what happens with the money SISU are saying they are owed. If they are prepared to write everything off the value of the club is zero, if they want their £30m back then someone will need to pay them that much hence the value is £30m even though the accounts and future projections don't really support that.
Apologies if already covered, but if the council valued ACL as 'zero net value' then surely a £14m loan to a business with no value makes no sense?
It is even more complicated/confusing because ACL have no assets other than a long term lease...
Apologies if already covered, but if the council valued ACL as 'zero net value' then surely a £14m loan to a business with no value makes no sense?
It is even more complicated/confusing because ACL have no assets other than a long term lease...
Do the Club/sisu own the ryton complex? Surely that has a value of something Between £5m & £10m. Therefore a sale of the Club would need to take that into
consideration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?