skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The strategy failed as the major part off that strategy was securing the Ricoh for themselves. That didn't happen.
Acl (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
The strategy failed as the major part off that strategy was securing the Ricoh for themselves. That didn't happen.
I don't know - and neither do you.
But it was a much better deal than they both wanted to do in 2012, so why wouldn't they?
Because I wasn't sure on the exact figures.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
They had to sell because of the club/Sisu and there were indications the Sisu would not even buy at that price.
It was an easy decision really !!
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Didn't Wasps have a veto of some sort?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
I haven't got the resources though I will try but I'm sure David Conn stated ccfc was offered for the same deal but it wasn't taken. It was on David Conn Twitter page.
I may be wrong so I will sit corrected.
All to do with the debt. Sisu didn't want the £14m debt which is fair enough I don't really know how debt works but the fact is it got sold to wasps and we have in my opinion a very good and cheap rental deal with revenues I believe. Well some anyway. It's good for us at this moment in time.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Wasn't is more due to a lack of clarity as to where 'the option' sat?
'Further the question of ownership of the Option agreement has been made ambiguous by the Joint Liquidators. They claim both that it is the right of the liquidators of CCFC Ltd exclusively to exercise their option to buy and also that the Option was sold to Otium in 2013 out of the Administration of CCFC Ltd. Further, the Option has been reported in the annual accounts of the Sisu company that owns Otium, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as an asset (valued at £1m). To be absolutely clear the Option was expressly stated to be non-assignable without the express consent of the Trustees, which consent has not been asked for or given. The Trustees were reluctant to enter this morass of conflicting spurious claims'
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Wasps would have just veto'd it. intheknow confirmed it on here. It was always about 100% for Wasps wasn't it?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
It was a much better deal yes. Sisu wanted it for nothing. Or they didn't want the debt. Or both.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The strategy failed as there was a set of owners with even more contempt for the local fanbase than SISU.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
So, what you're saying is, some posters could be getting their knickers in a twist over the writing down of say, some goodwill ?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
What about this bit - added to LS's reply too? So, who owned 'the option' to exercise it?
'Further the question of ownership of the Option agreement has been made ambiguous by the Joint Liquidators. They claim both that it is the right of the liquidators of CCFC Ltd exclusively to exercise their option to buy and also that the Option was sold to Otium in 2013 out of the Administration of CCFC Ltd. Further, the Option has been reported in the annual accounts of the Sisu company that owns Otium, Sky Blue Sports and Leisure, in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as an asset (valued at £1m). To be absolutely clear the Option was expressly stated to be non-assignable without the express consent of the Trustees, which consent has not been asked for or given. The Trustees were reluctant to enter this morass of conflicting spurious claims'
Nick
Administrator
So why were they going to the CET to invite an offer? Bit naughty isn't it?
Wasps would have known full well that a bid would never happen anyway because of that "option" and it being in hiding with the Golden Share, but if it did they had the veto didn't they?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry - you've lost me. The above is a concise answer though, isn't it? The ownership question arising from the Join Liquidators, no?
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Are we saying the rent strike and the strategy involving this is ethically or legally correct?
Read this I dug up:
By 2012, the judge found: “Sisu had no strategy for maintaining a sustainable football club, except one which involved the purchase, at a knockdown price, of at least a 50% share in ACL and thus the Arena” and the purchase of ACL’s bank loan, also “at a knockdown price”. Trying to secure those aims at the lowest cost, Sisu stopped paying the rent, doing so for the last time in March 2012.
“Sisu distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee,” the judge found. “... It had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that Sisu coveted. Sisu’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position ... was quite deliberate.”
The 49-page judgment is shot through with references to this “rent-strike”. It says: “CCFC [owned by Sisu], fallen into a parlous state as a result of mismanagement, had unilaterally refused to pay the contractual rent it was legally obliged to pay to ACL.
Read this I dug up:
By 2012, the judge found: “Sisu had no strategy for maintaining a sustainable football club, except one which involved the purchase, at a knockdown price, of at least a 50% share in ACL and thus the Arena” and the purchase of ACL’s bank loan, also “at a knockdown price”. Trying to secure those aims at the lowest cost, Sisu stopped paying the rent, doing so for the last time in March 2012.
“Sisu distressed the financial position of ACL by refusing to pay ACL any rent or licence fee,” the judge found. “... It had the effect of reducing the value of the share in ACL that Sisu coveted. Sisu’s strategy of distressing ACL’s financial position ... was quite deliberate.”
The 49-page judgment is shot through with references to this “rent-strike”. It says: “CCFC [owned by Sisu], fallen into a parlous state as a result of mismanagement, had unilaterally refused to pay the contractual rent it was legally obliged to pay to ACL.
Nick
Administrator
No I agree with you, sorry! There was always the mess about the "option" so that is another reason why it wouldn't happen.
So that's 2 good reasons why the invite for CCFC to make a bid on the Higgs share could never have happened isn't it? Yet CCC seemed to be goading CCFC into making a bit and spinning it out in the media at the time.
I'm not saying Wasps were at fault either if they did Veto it, it was their right after they purchased the CCC shares wasn't it and they wanted the full 100%.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Well, I kind of see it in less inflammatory terms. There was 'an option'; and Higgs gave the company with the option - as it hadn't been wound up by then - it's lawful right to bid.
The fact that this non-transferable option had seemingly already been shuffled off somewhere in the haystack that also housed the Golden Share somewhere isn't of Higgs' making.
Indeed if they hadn't given them the right, they'd be seen as reneging on a lawful agreement. And if they do follow the letter of the law they've condemned as goading the club
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Are you thinking of when Conn said after the sale to Wasps that he'd asked Fisher if he would have purchased on the same terms and he said no. I don't think we can read too much into that as a) it means believing something Fisher has said and b) if he had said yes he would be admitting he had massively messed up.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just a few points but will have to be brief because it is self assessment season and got a stack of client tax returns to do.
Firstly clearly Wasps were fully aware of the financials before they purchased. That after all is part of the due diligence process. Not only that but the signatory to the accounts is N Eastwood. So Wasps have taken ownership of these audited figures
The audit reports of ACL & IEC do not carry any qualification in terms of going concern. There is a note describing why the directors feel each is a going concern but the auditors do not draw attention to that note and therefore must agree.
This is the period where most of the costs of the dispute will have hit both in time and money. I would also expect that such PR costs as expected were dumped on ACL not either of the shareholders. These costs will not reoccur.
Turnover of the group dropped from 14.5m to 12.2m. Of that turnover 8.6m (2014) and 9m in 2013 related to IEC which operates the events, conferencing , hospitality etc. Do not get the impression from that when I say it that the fall in turnover related solely CCFC rents & matchday expenses because you can not tell from the accounts - some of the drop was but it will depend on how incomes are allocated, whether events lost or gained between the two years etc.
included in the costs of IEC (and therefore ACL group) are payments made to Compass Group 6.4m for supply of staff, services and management
In 2013 accounts there was included 475k exceptional gain on the refinancing of the loans. Exclude that from 2013 and over the two years and ACL about broke even. (which is what Robertson/Eastwood from Wasps alluded to I believe)
Interest was paid in 2014 of 708K and in 2013 817k. A total of 111k was paid off the outstanding loans in 2014. So payments were being made on the loans. Interest rate on council loan was 5%. Council holds a charge over the lease and all assets of the group
There may have been an increase in operating cash flow (before tax exceptional items and interest) in 2014 of £828K but by the end of the year cash available to the group had decreased by £160k. Still meant they had nearly 700k in the bank 31/05/14
The net assets did decrease by nearly 400k on the balance sheet but this reflects the loss made in the year
ACL employed 17 people 1 less than in 2013. Staff costs were 702k 2014 and 960k in 2013 with 22k being paid to a director, which I suspect covers the start of Chris Robinson employment as CEO
Fixed assets include the old lease at a written down value of 18.3m. the rest 5.3m is fixtures and fittings, equipment etc
Net assets on the balance sheet were 6.9m. but that includes the lease. That lease has now morphed in to a new one of 250 years the terms of which we do not know. So was 5.5m a fair value to sell the total shares at ? ...... your guess is as good as mine
A good part of the reason for disposal is that the Ricoh will need substantial monies spent on it over next few years to keep it up to the competition standard and in order to increase turnovers. to not do so would court a downturn in the turnovers etc. CCC and AEHC simply did not have the money to do it
The Ricoh attracted over 1.2m people even without CCFC. Just as a thought at something like £6k a game in rent just how much money do you think CCFC attracts with crowds of 7000 to benefit ACL and does the rent and 2nd spend actually cover the costs of CCFC being there for ACL. Because if it doesn't then there are problems looming
Otium and SBS&L accounts are due to be filed on or before 28/02/15
sorry its brief- ish but work beckons
Firstly clearly Wasps were fully aware of the financials before they purchased. That after all is part of the due diligence process. Not only that but the signatory to the accounts is N Eastwood. So Wasps have taken ownership of these audited figures
The audit reports of ACL & IEC do not carry any qualification in terms of going concern. There is a note describing why the directors feel each is a going concern but the auditors do not draw attention to that note and therefore must agree.
This is the period where most of the costs of the dispute will have hit both in time and money. I would also expect that such PR costs as expected were dumped on ACL not either of the shareholders. These costs will not reoccur.
Turnover of the group dropped from 14.5m to 12.2m. Of that turnover 8.6m (2014) and 9m in 2013 related to IEC which operates the events, conferencing , hospitality etc. Do not get the impression from that when I say it that the fall in turnover related solely CCFC rents & matchday expenses because you can not tell from the accounts - some of the drop was but it will depend on how incomes are allocated, whether events lost or gained between the two years etc.
included in the costs of IEC (and therefore ACL group) are payments made to Compass Group 6.4m for supply of staff, services and management
In 2013 accounts there was included 475k exceptional gain on the refinancing of the loans. Exclude that from 2013 and over the two years and ACL about broke even. (which is what Robertson/Eastwood from Wasps alluded to I believe)
Interest was paid in 2014 of 708K and in 2013 817k. A total of 111k was paid off the outstanding loans in 2014. So payments were being made on the loans. Interest rate on council loan was 5%. Council holds a charge over the lease and all assets of the group
There may have been an increase in operating cash flow (before tax exceptional items and interest) in 2014 of £828K but by the end of the year cash available to the group had decreased by £160k. Still meant they had nearly 700k in the bank 31/05/14
The net assets did decrease by nearly 400k on the balance sheet but this reflects the loss made in the year
ACL employed 17 people 1 less than in 2013. Staff costs were 702k 2014 and 960k in 2013 with 22k being paid to a director, which I suspect covers the start of Chris Robinson employment as CEO
Fixed assets include the old lease at a written down value of 18.3m. the rest 5.3m is fixtures and fittings, equipment etc
Net assets on the balance sheet were 6.9m. but that includes the lease. That lease has now morphed in to a new one of 250 years the terms of which we do not know. So was 5.5m a fair value to sell the total shares at ? ...... your guess is as good as mine
A good part of the reason for disposal is that the Ricoh will need substantial monies spent on it over next few years to keep it up to the competition standard and in order to increase turnovers. to not do so would court a downturn in the turnovers etc. CCC and AEHC simply did not have the money to do it
The Ricoh attracted over 1.2m people even without CCFC. Just as a thought at something like £6k a game in rent just how much money do you think CCFC attracts with crowds of 7000 to benefit ACL and does the rent and 2nd spend actually cover the costs of CCFC being there for ACL. Because if it doesn't then there are problems looming
Otium and SBS&L accounts are due to be filed on or before 28/02/15
sorry its brief- ish but work beckons
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58;844844 Turnover of the group dropped from 14.5m to 12.2m. Of that turnover 8.6m (2014) and 9m in 2013 related to IEC which operates the events said:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
no the turnover doubled ish from 2012 to 2013 accounts, which was the period to which that claim was made
2014 is the first full period without any CCFC income whatsoever. Rent strike having started 01/04/13
2014 is the first full period without any CCFC income whatsoever. Rent strike having started 01/04/13
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
The claim was that it was growing though after we left, which was never going to be the case.
Maybe, but I would start looking at interests figures.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Do you think the sale of car park c which always seemed a bit random was strategic by the council to ensure that there was sufficient cash flow to keep the business operational?
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Did the judge not also say that the rent was unaffordable and unsustainable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
2012?
Anyway, the club paid some £10k per game, so that must be reported as income.
Plus what they were getting from the administration - isn't that in the report there as well (even if not paid at that point)?
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but it shows how easily, reactions to financial figure's can be altered, with just a simple write down of an intangible figure, despite profitability being the same.
I will give you that it happens a lot when new CEO comes in. Kind of makes it easier for him to produce a reasonable result in his first year.
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Did the judge not also say that the rent was unaffordable and unsustainable?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Well I haven't seen it but if he did say that the judge would be right it was unaffordable and unsustainable.
Although my response would be to that as was also said in court. Rent of 100k a month was only around 5-10% of the clubs actual outgoings or turn over forget which one so actually the problems were elsewhere not the rent.
The rent strike was the easy quick way to save a sinking ship that hedge funds do. Actually the way they gave players big contracts we couldn't afford and relegation was the big factors.
The rent although high at 100K a month was never and has been the problem. So we can blame ACL at the time all we want or the council but really the people who ran our club created this mess. Selling our best players with non knowledgable people in charge getting relegated was when it all started to turn for the worse.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I'm surprised he hasn't been on here recently. I genuinely thought he cared about transparency with the fans- maybe his internet has been cut off.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
So are you saying he makes the previous year look a bit shit so his first full year looks good in comparison.. I presume?
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
Yes i believe it is what he's saying.
I didn't say it has happened in this case, all I say is that it does happen. Especially in companies in trouble.
Cheshire Sky Blue
New Member
three weeks