Astute
Well-Known Member
Notice the major word here? Profits.
After all of the SISU plans it looks as though the arena will still be making a profit. Which could very well mean that we are playing in Northampton for no reason.
Turnover doubled, profits down by 30%.
Additional costs increase turnover?
Your really are a baffoon at times.
What is more surprising, somebody is dumb enough to pay him a 100k a year.
The valuation refers to the whole business Higgs will never in a million years get £6.5 million - why would they be worth that? Does that mean a councils share is the same? Hardly - the council valued it at zero - its zero.
Would you recommend buying it for £20 million?
Look at transcript for day 2 - the questioning of PWKH. From about p. 60 (my copy) and forward is a lot about the loan, the discharge and how it is connected to the extension of the ACL lease.
I know PWKH does his best to not understand the questions put to him, or remember the right context or know which document to look at etc (quite funny actually), but sisu barrister is very patient and make sure the concept is made clear for the judge.
Thanks Godiva. Point taken. Yes it does go on about the intention for SISU to discharge the loan. Yes it does say that in return for SISU discharging the loan CCC would grant ACL 125 lease. It also mentions this would leave ACL "debt free" with no loan payments.
Questions though (not specifically for your self but things it raises in my mind)
It says SISU to discharge the loan. That to me means the Yorkshire Bank loan is settled by SISU. But what position would that leave ACL in? No finance creditor at all? £14m of debt written off its books? or would the amount paid by SISU to settle the loan be owed by ACL to SISU ? (in much the same way as SBS&L owe SISU investors and SBS&L has often been referred to as "debt free" by its directors) or even £14m still owed but not by formal loan?
The simple journals to remove the loan are Debit Yorkshire Bank £14m Credit ????? £14m. Is that all an addition to ACL reserves or split some other manner?
What do SISU get for their loan discharge payment? what is the accounting entry?
The transcript refers to SISU discharging the loan not SISU & CCC why is that? Then it turns out it was apparently not to be just SISU - what was actually on the HoT's?
Reference is made to ACL not CCFC having a 125 year lease. Clearly anyone would place a value on the grant of a 125 year lease what is that value to CCC? How was that value to be reflected in the ACL or CCC accounts?
That's some of the questions I think that section of the transcripts raises. I certainly do not see it as clear cut (what is in this dispute?). I also do not think that it is clear that ACL would have been left with no liabilities to pay SISU or CCC but looks like there was to be no formal loan agreement. (just as an aside between 2007 and 2011 the SISU investors in SBS&L did not charge any interest 2012 & 2013 they did - how often have there been assertions that the club is debt free we only owe the owners during that time?)
btw I think PWKH was making the point that he was there on behalf of the Charity not ACL. He also made the point that whilst the Charity may have been aware of the proposed deal they were not actually part of that deal and never agreed to it. (In which case was there any sort of deal in December 2012? certainly the attempt at a deal for the shares owned by the Charity had failed long before then - in August 2012 per the Judge- yet the share purchase was key to any later agreement surely? )
Like I said there is still no clarity of what was actually proposed and how it would have worked - but plenty of unanswered questions
Grendel was right though, everybody else seems to be a buffoon.
some of the extra turnover was due to the Olympics.
Grendel was right though, everybody else seems to be a buffoon.
The extra turnover was due to the Olympics.
Except BFR was clearly talking about the profits being down.... this buffoon thing seems to be catching
I'm assuming you mean the Isle of Capri and I'm also assuming you don't know the reasons why they left. After a couple of devastating hurricanes had seriously damaged their businesses (both financially and physically) in the US they decided to essentially retreat from operating casinos overseas. Can't remember how long it took for the space to be acquired by Grosvenor after that.ACL's assets are essentially the lease it has, a diminishing asset. Assuming of course the lease makes money.
ACL has already had one sub tenant pay them to get out of their lease so the value of its lease has to be open for debate.
And you've reviewed the last set of accounts for both ACL and our club have you? Because sadly ACL is doing better than our club based on those - not having 'lost' £7m being a good indicator.The lease comes with costs, maintaining the structure and paying off loans being the obvious one.
It has a sizable loan to the Council, that has to be paid off out of its not very large net income.
They thought it was solid enough to reject lowball offers from the council, and only offer a smaller discount.I see why CCC do not see their shares holding has much or any value, more interestingly is how secure the loan is. The Bank did not think the loan was that solid, things have got worse since then.
You're now being Judge Judy and executioner - we haven't had the Judicial Review and you've already determined the result. At the moment ACL don't have to pay back the whole loan to the council and find the money from somewhere else. If the JR goes against the council then maybe they will but at the moment they don't.ACL do not have 14m to pay of the loan, I seriously wonder if anybody else would step in.
there has been no breakdown of the turnover LS so we do not actually know how much extra was due to the Olympics, equally there has been no breakdown of the cost of that Olympic turnover or any increased associated costs
Turnover is now at around £14m and growing. There will continue to be changes and developments which will further grow the Company and bring more business into the city.
Thanks Godiva. Point taken. Yes it does go on about the intention for SISU to discharge the loan. Yes it does say that in return for SISU discharging the loan CCC would grant ACL 125 lease. It also mentions this would leave ACL "debt free" with no loan payments.
Questions though (not specifically for your self but things it raises in my mind)
It says SISU to discharge the loan. That to me means the Yorkshire Bank loan is settled by SISU. But what position would that leave ACL in? No finance creditor at all? £14m of debt written off its books? or would the amount paid by SISU to settle the loan be owed by ACL to SISU ? (in much the same way as SBS&L owe SISU investors and SBS&L has often been referred to as "debt free" by its directors) or even £14m still owed but not by formal loan?
The simple journals to remove the loan are Debit Yorkshire Bank £14m Credit ????? £14m. Is that all an addition to ACL reserves or split some other manner?
What do SISU get for their loan discharge payment? what is the accounting entry?
The transcript refers to SISU discharging the loan not SISU & CCC why is that? Then it turns out it was apparently not to be just SISU - what was actually on the HoT's?
Reference is made to ACL not CCFC having a 125 year lease. Clearly anyone would place a value on the grant of a 125 year lease what is that value to CCC? How was that value to be reflected in the ACL or CCC accounts?
That's some of the questions I think that section of the transcripts raises. I certainly do not see it as clear cut (what is in this dispute?). I also do not think that it is clear that ACL would have been left with no liabilities to pay SISU or CCC but looks like there was to be no formal loan agreement. (just as an aside between 2007 and 2011 the SISU investors in SBS&L did not charge any interest 2012 & 2013 they did - how often have there been assertions that the club is debt free we only owe the owners during that time?)
btw I think PWKH was making the point that he was there on behalf of the Charity not ACL. He also made the point that whilst the Charity may have been aware of the proposed deal they were not actually part of that deal and never agreed to it. (In which case was there any sort of deal in December 2012? certainly the attempt at a deal for the shares owned by the Charity had failed long before then - in August 2012 per the Judge- yet the share purchase was key to any later agreement surely? )
Like I said there is still no clarity of what was actually proposed and how it would have worked - but plenty of unanswered questions
Grendel was right though, everybody else seems to be a buffoon.
I think there is plenty of information out now to suggest the club and stadium could have been united a year ago. We could avoided the 10 point penalty, have played at the Ricoh with 10.000 people and we could have mounted a real promotion push.
There is certainly an effect caused by the Olympics no one can argue otherwise
In terms of current turnover I can only refer you to comments made by PWKH in the press and on radio some time ago and to quote his wife (Trustee of AEHC).
"Turnover is now at around £14m and growing. There will continue to be changes and developments which will further grow the Company and bring more business into the city." interview in CT 25/04/14
They have access to more information than I do and seem to insist that current turnover is £14+ without the Olympics or CCFC. Wont know for sure until we see the 2014 accounts of course.
Ther is no way in the World that current turnover is £14million and growing.
Think a bit of semantics there, saying that "current" turnover is £14million would be referring to the "current" publlically released accounts.
Can see no way in the World that the turnover has doubled from previous levels on an ongoing basis.
I agree.
It's spin.
But we lick it up and will have forgotten it in two years when accounts show it untrue.
Well, I am not 100% daft then (but who is 100% anyway?).
That is too technical for me - I have no idea how to do the bookkeeping. I would go to someone like you and ask you to find the solution taking into account the purpose and the law. the point is nothing was set in stone and we have not seen the HoT's only heard verbal assurances or rejections depending which side of the fence
Remember the whole purpose of the exercise is for CCFC to own 50% of ACL. CCFC and CCC would be joint owners of ACL. So sisu's part was to buy out the loan and discharge it which would lead to a value increase of ACL. CCC's part was to extend the lease to ACL to 125 yr which would also lead to an increase in value of ACL.
Again, I would leave the bookkeeping to experts like yourself. the deal was with a sisu company so do CCFC partner CCC? But what do SISU get for their money CCFC doesn't have any. Neither SISU nor CCC are in the habit of giving away value. The value of ACL would also depend on what became owing to SISU or CCC
If there's no evidence to say if any loan agreement was to be implemented - formal or informal - then suggesting there could be is purely speculation. Sisu would benefit greatly from the purposed deal even without any loan agreement with in ACL. The increase in ACL value alone would justify the deal. The club would have a great home with a great FFP count and have a greater chance of future success = increased value for the club. Sisu would have a package to sell on to a future buyer. That's the point there is no real evidence one way or the other as to what would have been the outcome, yes it is me speculating on a premise but you are making assumptions about face value of what is said and taking that as fact - how often have things not been quite what they seemed. Plus it was HoT's not a deal the exact terms had yet to be agreed
PWKH is like TF - holding positions in more companies making it difficult to know if he speaks on behalf of ACL or Higgs. He also made a point coming on here a few weeks ago stating he only speaks for the charity, but browse through his posting history and you will find he speaks just as much on ACL specific issues. But I have the feeling there's a rift between the charity and CCC over the way the deal went sour and he may feel a need to distance the charity to avoid future implications. hard to prove conspiracy between CCC and Charity isn't it in those circumstances
I think there is plenty of information out now to suggest the club and stadium could have been united a year ago. We could avoided the 10 point penalty, have played at the Ricoh with 10.000 people and we could have mounted a real promotion push.as you say could have but we have yet to see proper details of exactly would have
The Olympics were not last year so they should have an idea by now. And the arena isn't just a bit of grass in the middle. It is so much more. Which is why SISU are willing to risk so much to get their hands on it.
I agree.
It's spin.
But we lick it up and will have forgotten it in two years when accounts show it untrue.
Yes, they should have a pretty good idea now. But they are not going to tell us, are they?
Take out the Olympics and the club and you still believe they have a 'normal operational revenue' of £14m?
I don't believe it for a second.
Am just trying to keep an open mind as to what would really have been the outcome ....... something caused the deals to break down. As so often has happened in this dispute what we thought was clear quite often is not. Still comes back to the different definitions of debt free and where things like leases, benefits of loan discounts and where funds are paid in to if you ask me and I have seen nothing that makes that absolutely clear and unambiguous
I have every faith, that if it is untrue you'll have it on the forum within minutes of its release
If there is a forum by then?
It kind of depends if there is a club.
As it is now a legal dispute and with no solution in sight, I guess there is no way we will ever know all the details.
The main point is that there really was a deal to be made. One that would have put the club in a much better place that it is now.
Who's at fault? In my book they all are. There are no innocent parties.
So if there was a deal once, can it be revived?
What would it take? That's the interesting question to put forward to sisu and CCC.
The revenue has gone up each year. This is what happens with a new start up. How many Olympic events occurred at the Ricoh? Who did the money go to? If not ACL it wasn't their income. It would have been great advertising for the arena though.
I am not saying that the income has or hasn't gone up that much. We can't see the figures yet. But there is no evidence either way. The arena is big enough and diverse enough to be able to do so though.
Take out the Olympics and the club and you still believe they have a 'normal operational revenue' of £14m?
He was also saying about the turnover being up, which was entirely due to the Olympics.
Doubled turnover, reduced profits, luckily they only come round every 80 years or so!
I was saying that the reason profits were down must have been due to the one off cost of hosting the Olympics.
If turnover goes up but profits go down, then then the only reason for that to happen is increased costs.
The leap to £14m was around double the previous year wasn't it?
rom memory the Rioch staged 12 matches in the Olympics but 8 of those were double headers so in reality 8 event days. Seem to recall the total attendance was in the region of 150K. If you average it out you're talking about the best part of £1m per event day with an average attendance of around 19K. Seems a lot to me which would suggest a chunk of that additional income came from non Olympic events and if that's true then the following year not having Olympic matches isn't such a big factor.
I now await OSB showing me how I've got that totally wrong!
Revenue has gone up incrementally each year, generally on a very gentle climb.
2012 accounts showed it doubling from the previous year.
If they have maintained the same as that for the last two years then what the fuck were they doing before?
I will place a bet with you now for £100(save it in your favourites for later reference!), that the turnover for last year is not more than it was in the last set of accounts.
I like to bet on what I see as certainties or big oddsI wouldn't like to bet which way that the income will have gone. Could have gone up or down.
One question. You say that the 2012 accounts have been filed. Is this the 2012/2013 where the Olympics would have been included?
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?