Typo 113 million
So yes 60 million would be a bargain
The majeski is an inferior stadium that cost 50 million to build.
So yes I would say to pick up the Ricoh lock stick for £60 million would be a decent deal.
How often have you been there?
Not sure what this has to do with the OP though. Or are you just trying to change the subject now the wum line failed?
Valuing a stadium ins never an exact science.
This place, for example, had a sale price 4% the cost of construction, it claims (it's late, so someone else can check it's on the cost at construction, or if they inflation adjusted!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Centre
So that'd be about, what, £5mil for the Ricoh.
Also worth noting not buying straight out allowed the price to go down a bit more, too...
Looks like the 4% reference was just for a hotel on the site, not the whole stadium.
Nope.
Stadium, excluding hotel
You are called a wum because of the many, many absurd and contradictory statements you frequently make on here. Do we really need to go through them?
Looks like the 4% bit was a later sale, it originally sold for more, and was then resold.
Indeed.
Just because Wasps buy now doesn't automatically mean they've bought sensibly in financial terms.
Only time will tell that...
Not sure what this has to do with the OP though. Or are you just trying to change the subject now the wum line failed?
It's okay; he's going to list the salient points of them both for us as I asked - I'm sure....
Negotiations for the Purchase of the Higgs Charity Share in ACL
37. It quickly became clear that SISU had unrealistic expectations for the terms on which they could purchase the Higgs Charity share in ACL; and that the Higgs Charity and they would not agree terms for the sale and purchase of that share, with negotiations between them to that end ceasing by mutual consent before the end of August 2012.
38. As I have indicated, from the outset SISU had been interested in obtaining an interest in the Arena, as a way (and, in reality, probably the only way) of obtaining a return on their investment in the Football Club. As the fortunes of the Football Club declined, from October 2011, particular discussions began. SISU needed to deal with both the Higgs Charity, and with the Council whose approval was needed for any transfer.
39. On 18 June 2012, SISU made an offer to the Higgs Charity for its share in ACL, set out in an Indicative Term Sheet, for £5.5m, in the form of £1.5m immediate cash and an additional £4m in future payments. However, there were a number of express conditions precedent, namely that completion would only take place after:
i) approval of the transaction’s commercial terms, structure and legal framework
by the Charity’s trustees, on advice from its advisors;
ii) agreement between the Bank and SISU, as to the buy out of the ACL loan;
iii) approval of the Council, under the 2003 agreements; and iv) approval of the Charity Commissioners.
40. In the event, these negotiations with the Higgs Charity were unsuccessful: and the Charity brought a claim in relation to the costs of the negotiations, heard by Leggatt J sitting in the Birmingham Mercantile Court. In his judgment (Marilyn Freda Knatchbull-Hugessen and Others as Trustees of the Alan Edward Higgs Charity v SISU Capital Limited [2014] EWHC 1195 (Comm) at [30]), he found that, before the end of August 2012:
“The negotiations between SISU and the Higgs Charity had ceased by mutual consent or acquiescence as a result of a number of irreconcilable differences”.
41. Leggatt J found (at [31]) that the Trustees did not wish to pursue the negotiations further, because they knew the Council was not prepared to consent to the sale of the shares to SISU, and was pursuing an alternative strategy which they (the Trustees) supported (a matter to which I shall return). However, he also found that the irreconcilable differences between the SISU and the Higgs Charity included:
) Following due diligence, SISU did not wish to offer the price set out in the Indicative Term Sheet, being willing to offer only closer to £2m than £5.5m. This difference between the price SISU were prepared to offer and the price the Trustees were prepared to accept was (a) irreconcilable and (b) in itself, a showstopper.
the Trustees did not wish to pursue the negotiations further, because they knew the Council was not prepared to consent to the sale of the shares to SISU, and was pursuing an alternative strategy which they (the Trustees) supported
Now, is there anything in this which couldn't have been agreed two years ago without the subsequent need for two expensive court cases, the move away to Northampton , and a London Rugby team that nobody but the council wants parachuted into The Arena on more favourable terms than for the team that the Arena was built for, and has paid an awful lot of money to stay there since it's opening?
No, there isn't.
It didn't help that SISU didn't want to pursue the deal.
You cut and paste well, but you need to read everything for a full picture. I have selected a small part here, again I suggest a full read of everything though. I like this bit because you could take number 29 and draw conclusions, but then 30 and 31 dismiss it.
29. Mr Thompson submitted that early August 2012 was a pivotal time. Until then, he
said, the parties had been proceeding cooperatively with a view to a commercial
compromise involving SISU discharging the Bank debt in return for the Council’s
consent to SISU buying into the Arena by purchasing the Higgs Charity’s share of
ACL. In particular, he relied upon the fact that the parties signed off the Heads of
Terms on 2 August. However, from that time, he submitted, whilst SISU
endeavoured in good faith to progress a compromise on the basis of the Heads of
Terms, the Council pursued an alternative strategy, involving secret negotiations with
the Bank with the intent of the Council purchasing the Bank’s debt. This strategy of
the Council (suggested Mr Thompson) not only involved conduct irrational and
contrary to EU law relating to State aid, but it was also underhand and reprehensible.
In the course of his submissions, he only just refrained from expressly describing the
Council’s actions as “dishonest”.
30. The extent to which the history of the relations between the Council and SISU is
relevant to the Council’s 15 January 2013 decision now challenged is, in my view,
limited; but, given Mr Thompson’sparticular emphasis upon it, I should make clear
that I do not consider the picture he paints is fair or accurate.
31. First, I do not accept that, prior to August 2012, the parties had been cooperating,
intent only on a commercial solution for the benefit of all. Rather, whilst there had
been discussions, each party (but particularly SISU) had, understandably, been intent
on protecting its own commercial interests.
Pretty much the same cash price on offer now, or more with £1.5million down, and £4million to be paid over 10 years.
On 18 June 2012, SISU made an offer to the Higgs Charity for its share in ACL, set out in an Indicative Term Sheet, for £5.5m, in the form of £1.5m immediate cash and an additional £4m in future payments. However, there were a number of express conditions precedent, namely that completion would only take place after:
i) approval of the transaction’s commercial terms, structure and legal framework
by the Charity’s trustees, on advice from its advisors;
ii) agreement between the Bank and SISU, as to the buy out of the ACL loan;
Why keep banging on about the SISU offer?
I just cannot see how this offer can be used as a comparison when it was worthless. SISU would never have got the YB to agree to the figure they were willing to pay. hence, it's meaningless in any discussion about the wasps deal, isn't it?
Stop saying 'always' because it isn't true. The freehold thing only came out late in the day after the attempts at securing half the leasehold ended.CCC always said that the freehold was not for sale. Joy always said it was the freehold or nothing. CCC still have the freehold. And now our club is left with nothing. Pissed off with CCC. Can't describe my feelings for SISU though.
I'd say why are people still banging on about why haven't Sisu made an offer, when it is obvious they haven't been given the opportunity to continue with any offers in the face of council hostility.
Think the "bleating" of "why didn't Sisu put in a bid for the Ricoh" can be seen as pretty pointless when they obviously were willing to do a deal, but the council would veto it and Higgs also didn't want to do a deal.
We can forget all the "ripping a Childrens Charity" crap as well, when Higgs would have got more from a local team that the Stadium wss built for than they are willing to take from a London Rugby team.
What deals have been offered by SISU, that you think should have been acceptable to the bank and to ACL shareholders?
I don't recall using a phrase about ripping off a childrens charity, so I assume that's a general point. How would Higgs get more from a SISU offer than from the Wasps offer? The only figures I recall that are more than the reported £2.77m from Wasps is the offer of £1.5m up front with another £4m in the future but with no security offered, and that was also dependant on agreeing a reduction on the bank loan, which was not agreed.
/what is your opinion on how sisu have run the football side of things since they took over ?There is also the bit where it was said that the council wanted to keep their 50% of ACL as "they saw it as a long term community investement
.
/what is your opinion on how sisu have run the football side of things since they took over ?
The £2million was what Higgs wanted cash rather than the £5.5million over an amount of time.
The offer by Sisu for the Higgs share was considered by CCC to be above market value for their share, proved by the £2.77million from Wasps over 250 year lease rather than the 150 year lease requested by Sisu, and also taking over the loan.
Though, as shown above, whatever the offer, it seems that CCC would veto it anyway, due to their perhaps understandable desire to keep hold of an asset for long-term community good.
That argumernt however lasted barely two years.
If there have been two, very similar offers on the table, one from a long term tenant that has been the main source of income for ACL since it's inception, and an integral part of the fabric of the local community, and one from a London Based Rugby Club with no ties whatsover to the area, with possible ramifications for already established and historic local sports teams, which do you think should be the preferred bidder?
Just read this whole thread and it was long. Now my pennies worth.
Sisu are the complete fault of ccfc and its demise. They are the owners and that's the top and bottom of it. They hold full responsibility of our club. They have failed us and badly.
The council had not much choice to sell and wasps have done what sisu couldn't in 7 years. I hate the fact wasps have got it and it seems the 100% is certain until confirmation but ccc and Higgs wanted out and wasps was their only card to play. Sisu have never wanted or do want the Ricoh unless it's free. They have had several opportunities to buy and not done so as its market rate.
Let's quote the judge" sisu have seriously mis manged the club and purchasing the Ricoh at a knock down price was the only plausible way to get back its investment" this sentence tells you everything about the last 7 years and a high court judge got it in a 3 day trial. He doesn't have a clue about us ccfc but he knows from the black and white evidence we have been shafted.
Sisu have seriously mis manged our football club. That's it. He said it. It's true. The evidence is black and white. We have a company who know nothing about football what should be expect. Ccc/Higgs wanted out and they got it and for a good deal for the Coventry taxpayer meaning they will always be justified by this action.
The council now will veto any attempt at sisu buying the other 50% I'm sure and the council aren't with out blame hear. Make no mistake but they have to look after Coventry citizens by law so I side with them yes over a greedy Caymen islands unknown hedge fund. People say ccc have a vendetta or whatever against ccfc but that's sisu for you. Created a massive untrust and if ccc have a vendetta I dont fucking blame them. These people are scum. They are hard nosed business people who look after number 1. Their investors. That's fair enough but number 1 isn't ccfc and that's a problem for me.
Sisu have claimed even back on the new rental deal that a new stadium is ready to go and will be built. Why keep saying this lie? I don't know. Maybe to not lose face or whatever it's irrelevant we ALL know a new stadium is bollocks and luckily I only know 1 fan a ST holder who funnily enough went to sixfields and ST this year but he is deluded as fuck and funnily enough he blames the council also even though he says he votes labour so he is unbiased. Ok mate. He says sisu aren't all to blame. Bless.
They are still the owners of our club and that's worrying. Tim has basically admitted we can't get promoted as this would harm the club which sickens me to my core and they have no ambition or knowledge and I assure you all league 2 is only a matter of time in the same way coming down to league 1 was. Within 5 years we will be playing league 2 football I'm certain of it. It's common sense. We have average players and when the average ones go we will have poor players and we will go down. More and more cuts and relegation will happen.
We are in trouble and we need fixing. I've lost my magic wand so for now we just hope but that's got us no where in 15 years of hoping. We are a badly run club still run badly. We can't go up as that will cripple us again. Pathetic.
All in all sisu hold all blame for me as they are owners and will take responsibility in my opinion. I hold them 100% accountable for the last 7 years and our status of a major almost all time low.
For the record I am not a council lover in any shape or form but I am a realist and see things at face value and nothing else. Sisu knew the deal when they signed up for the gig in 07 and if they didn't then no surprise and you get what you deserve. Manage like a bunch of pricks then you will get the results to back it up. Already proved.
I am so sorry for wasps fans and its wrong from our council. Sadly they didn't have a choice. When you don't have a choice you have to do the only option and stand by it. Is Ann Lucas proud to bring wasps to Coventry. Deep down away from the media I bet she fucking hates it but she done the best deal for Coventry and that's the only thing she can do.
I will always support the club and I love ccfc to death but we are still going down further in this spiral and the future looks very bleak.
Sorry for going on I know it's late. I felt it right to say my piece as a genuine fan and lover of ccfc. I will always hope.
Once again you then mix up an argument between selling a management company versus selling the freehold (the community asset), I assume this is done in an attempt to confuse and mislead.
.
That was in relation to the Council share of ACL, nothing to do with the Freehold.
Think that somebody else may be trying to muddy the waters here.
Are you suggesting that when people refer to a community asset, that they are talking about the 50% share in the Ricoh management company? I would suggest that the arena and it's land is the thing that is referred to as the community asset, as also that is what the Council say was not for sale. I would also suggest that most people would see it that way.
No muddying of the waters by me, I think you are misunderstanding the term, either genuinely or not.
"The Council was driven by the need to protect it's comercial interest in ACL. It saw that interest as long term"
Ah but the community asset line came off the back of discussions about buying half of ACL. The £14m loan was safeguarding a community asset. Now we're told the asset is safe despite council relinquishing control of ACL.Are you suggesting that when people refer to a community asset, that they are talking about the 50% share in the Ricoh management company? I would suggest that the arena and it's land is the thing that is referred to as the community asset, as also that is what the Council say was not for sale. I would also suggest that most people would see it that way.
No muddying of the waters by me, I think you are misunderstanding the term, either genuinely or not.
Are you suggesting that when people refer to a community asset, that they are talking about the 50% share in the Ricoh management company? I would suggest that the arena and it's land is the thing that is referred to as the community asset, as also that is what the Council say was not for sale. I would also suggest that most people would see it that way.
No muddying of the waters by me, I think you are misunderstanding the term, either genuinely or not.
That's nonsense - a 250 year lease is as good as any freehold. Explain what you don't get from a 250 year lease that you do with freehold.
So why didn't Joy go for a long lease I'm baffled? A deal was there to be done as has been proved!
She went for 125 year lease.
Pay off the loan.
Give Higgs either £5.5million or £2million
Rejected.
rejected? On what date? Was this an offer or something that was discussed and then revised? There is a difference.
9. On 18 June 2012, SISU made an offer to the Higgs Charity for its share in ACL, set out in an Indicative Term Sheet, for £5.5m, in the form of £1.5m immediate cash and an additional £4m in future payments. However, there were a number of express conditions precedent, namely that completion would only take place after:
i) approval of the transaction’s commercial terms, structure and legal framework
by the Charity’s trustees, on advice from its advisors;
ii) agreement between the Bank and SISU, as to the buy out of the ACL loan;
iii) approval of the Council, under the 2003 agreements; and iv) approval of the Charity Commissioners.
40. In the event, these negotiations with the Higgs Charity were unsuccessful: and the Charity brought a claim in relation to the costs of the negotiations, heard by Leggatt J sitting in the Birmingham Mercantile Court. In his judgment (Marilyn Freda Knatchbull-Hugessen and Others as Trustees of the Alan Edward Higgs Charity v SISU Capital Limited [2014] EWHC 1195 (Comm) at [30]), he found that, before the end of August 2012:
“The negotiations between SISU and the Higgs Charity had ceased by mutual consent or acquiescence as a result of a number of irreconcilable differences”.
41. Leggatt J found (at [31]) that the Trustees did not wish to pursue the negotiations further, because they knew the Council was not prepared to consent to the sale of the shares to SISU, and was pursuing an alternative strategy which they (the Trustees) supported
She went for 125 year lease.
Pay off the loan.
Give Higgs either £5.5million or £2million
Rejected.
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?