Back to the future (1 Viewer)

chiefdave · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Wasps purchased ACL without ACL owning a 250 year lease

Suspect a big part of JR2 will be the fact that, according to CCC minutes, the lease extension was agreed at the same time as the sale of the share in ACL. SISU will likely make the argument that by selling ACL with an agreement to extend the lease past the lifetime of the building they have to all intents and purposes sold the freehold and disposal of asset regulations should apply.

No idea if they will get the judge to agree with them but I think if they do the council could be in trouble.

Nick · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Wasps purchased ACL without ACL owning a 250 year lease and as Dave points out was loss making and in debt. That's what Grendull (and others) was calling a worthless ugly concrete white elephant that no one would be interested in and SISU are the only show in town during and quite possibly before we were in Northampton and continued to say this right up until the time (and shooting anyone like myself who had an apposing view on ACL and The Ricoh down the whole time) that it became apparent that SISU weren't the only show in town (again, something myself and others were repeatedly mocked for suggesting) and not only that were willing to hand over money for said worthless white elephant. At which point it suddenly had worth, CCC had ripped off the taxpayer and let's all champion JR2 became the mantra. Duality on a grand scale. Possibly the biggest juxtaposition of opinion ever demonstrated on this site.

Don't get me wrong. Everyone is entitled to change their mind, I don't have an issue with that. But when you're continually using both positions as "fact" simultaneously depending which way the wind is blowing and which argument you're trying to win you can't really take that person seriously can you?

Isn't it fact that the lease extension was signed off at the same time as the sale to Wasps, in the same meeting?

Do you really think Wasps bought the council share on the gamble they "might" get the Higgs too and that they "might" get the lease extension?

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Nick said:
Isn't it fact that the lease extension was signed off at the same time as the sale to Wasps?

From memory ACL was sold in September the lease extension was signed of the following January.

It may well have been agreed in principle earlier in fact you'd think that would have been part of Wasps due diligence but the extension was worthless unless you owned the current lease holder first and the current (apparently worthless) lease holder was ACL and that was sold based on the companies current assets including the existing lease, which wasn't 250years.

Nick · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
From memory ACL was sold in September the lease extension was signed of the following January.

It may well have been agreed in principle earlier in fact you'd think that would have been part of Wasps due diligence but the extension was worthless unless you owned the current lease holder first and the current (apparently worthless) lease holder was ACL and that was sold based on the companies current assets including the existing lease, which wasn't 250years.

So it was sold with an agreed lease extension to 250 years wasn't it? It was said the same day it was approved they would be getting a 250 year lease.

The same as selling land with planning permission. It was already a done deal before they had signed it in the first place about the extension.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
Suspect a big part of JR2 will be the fact that, according to CCC minutes, the lease extension was agreed at the same time as the sale of the share in ACL. SISU will likely make the argument that by selling ACL with an agreement to extend the lease past the lifetime of the building they have to all intents and purposes sold the freehold and disposal of asset regulations should apply.

No idea if they will get the judge to agree with them but I think if they do the council could be in trouble.

The regulation you talk about IIRC is specifically about the disposal of freehold on brown and greenfield for development. All the council have done is sold it's share in a loss making company and extended a lease on an existing development. Can't see it Dave. On that basis JR2 to my layman eyes look even weaker than JR1.

IMO I think JR2 will be about the value of the 250 year lease nothing else. Was it sold on commercial terms? Did it have to be? Haven't the council gifted buildings to Higgs for redevelopment in the town centre? Isn't this common practice with councils because the value is in regeneration? Isn't this well within UK and EU law? I struggle to see where JR2 is going myself. I guess time will tell.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Nick said:
So it was sold with an agreed lease extension to 250 years wasn't it? It was said the same day it was approved they would be getting a 250 year lease.

The same as selling land with planning permission. It was already a done deal before they had signed it in the first place about the extension.

Whether it was agreed or not is irrelevant. It wasn't in ACL when it was sold. The fact that a 250 year lease was possible to agree is a negotiation. The thing our owners refused to do preferring to play silly buggers in the court. It would have been cheaper to negotiate wouldn't you agree? Would have had something to show for it also m

Nick · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Whether it was agreed or not is irrelevant. It wasn't in ACL when it was sold. The fact that a 250 year lease was possible to agree is a negotiation. The thing our owners refused to do preferring to play silly buggers in the court. It would have been cheaper to negotiate wouldn't you agree? Would have had something to show for it also m

If it was going to be added the day after it was sold and it was 100% going to be added, then it was included in the sale wasn't it? The same as the Higgs share.

Let's not pretend to be naive.

You would have a point if it was approved a month or two afterwards... The fact it was said the same day sort of shows that's how it was sold.

chiefdave · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
All the council have done is sold it's share in a loss making company and extended a lease on an existing development.

And that will be the councils defence.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Nick said:
If it was going to be added the day after it was sold and it was 100% going to be added, then it was included in the sale wasn't it? The same as the Higgs share.

Let's not pretend to be naive.

It's not about being naive it's about what the paper trail says and the paper trail says that on the day ACL was sold it didn't own a 250 year lease on the Ricoh. It was only going to be added if the sale of ACL was completed so no it wasn't included. That's why it's a separate transaction. Don't be naive Nick.

Nick · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
It's not about being naive it's about what the paper trail says and the paper trail says that on the day ACL was sold it didn't own a 250 year lease on the Ricoh. It was only going to be added if the sale of ACL was completed so no it wasn't included. That's why it's a separate transaction. Don't be naive Nick.

Wasn't it 6-7m including the extension?

Of course it was included, it isn't being naive is it?

Grendel · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Yes they did. Although that does depend on which version of Grendull fact you believe.

No they didn't you're hopelessly confused.

They had to change the lease and extend by 200 years to get a value which was only 50% of price they wanted us to pay. A price I always said was a gross over valuation.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
And that will be the councils defence.

If it gets to that point.

Grendel · Sep 19, 2016

The extension if the lease was intrinsic to the deal. The council extended the lease in order to make the same happen.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Nick said:
Wasn't it 6-7m including the extension?

Of course it was included, it isn't being naive is it?

Don't believe so. The sale of ACL and the lease extension are separate transactions as far as I'm aware. Pretty sure OSB has done a timescale on this in the past. ACL sold in September, lease extension sold the following January IIRC.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
No they didn't you're hopelessly confused.

They had to change the lease and extend by 200 years to get a value which was only 50% of price they wanted us to pay. A price I always said was a gross over valuation.

So when Wasps bought ACL the council had already furnished ACL with a 250 year lease? It was sitting on ACL's books was it?

oldskyblue58 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
So;

We've a good team
We dominate possession
A win is just around the corner
We have a gem of a manager who plays great football
We have a manager whose hands are tied
We have a great midfielder from some place I can't pronounce whose head and shoulders above everyone else
It's all Timmy's fault

Fuck - I've been in a coma for 5 years - nothings changed.

Also the outcome will be the same.

Worrying thing is that it looks like it will be still be the same in 5 years time too .................if we still have a team!

No plan, no desire to move forward, no investment in creating, no change

Nick · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Don't believe so. The sale of ACL and the lease extension are separate transactions as far as I'm aware. Pretty sure OSB has done a timescale on this in the past. ACL sold in September, lease extension sold the following January IIRC.

How much was it in total with the extension then?

When they sold ACL, the lease extension was fully approved. So yes, it was sold with the agreement of the lease extension whether it was sat on the books then or not.

It was said on the 7th October:

Wasps will be granted a 250-year lease at the site, but the council will retain the freehold.

It also said how much Higgs would be receiving.

The actual takeover happened in November.

Grendel · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
So when Wasps bought ACL the council had already furnished ACL with a 250 year lease? It was sitting on ACL's books was it?

The emergency committee meeting minutes say that yes it was done at the point of sale. The Higgs element was sold at a later date and if course had it's value instantly raised by a lease extension.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
The extension if the lease was intrinsic to the deal. The council extended the lease in order to make the same happen.

The power of negotiation's hey. Shame our owners wouldn't enter into negotiations isn't it?

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
The emergency committee meeting minutes say that yes it was done at the point of sale. The Higgs element was sold at a later date and if course had it's value instantly raised by a lease extension.

So you agree that it wasn't worthless then? There was always the option to negotiate an extended lease wasn't there? So the value was always there wasn't it? Even when you were insisting it was worthless and jumping down the throats of anyone who said different? I've never seen someone disagreeing with someone by agreeing with them before. You really are a special case.

Grendel · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
So you agree that it wasn't worthless then? There was always the option to negotiate an extended lease wasn't there? So the value was always there wasn't it? Even when you were insisting it was worthless and jumping down the throats of anyone who said different? I've never seen someone disagreeing with someone by agreeing with them before. You really are a special case.

So now you are accusing the council of deliberately suppressing ACL's value to the detriment of a local charity.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
So now you are accusing the council of deliberately suppressing ACL's value to the detriment of a local charity.

Two can play that game. So now you are accusing the council of deliberately inflating ACL's value to the benefit of a local charity?

I've always said that ACL had value. I pointed out earlier in this very thread that the lease was never an issue because they can be renegotiated.

My position has never changed unlike yours. I'm still on the same hymn sheet.

shmmeee · Sep 19, 2016

robbiekeane said:
I know you're trying to be clever but do you realise how stupid you actually sound? Straw man argument is all you have. No one has said anything of the sort, but God forbid people take a pragmatic view on the situation that isn't an automatic default to "its all sisus fault"... That's if we're losing. If we're winning its nothing to do with them

Well that's provable nonsense. The "CCC/Wasps/CET are trying to destroy the club" conspiracy pops up in almost every thread.

robbiekeane · Sep 19, 2016

shmmeee said:
Well that's provable nonsense. The "CCC/Wasps/CET are trying to destroy the club" conspiracy pops up in almost every thread.

Can you read? Does it pop up in every thread that "Poor old SISU are just innocent bystanders caught up in the middle"?

Thanks for coming

Grendel · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Two can play that game. So now you are accusing the council of deliberately inflating ACL's value to the benefit of a local charity?

I've always said that ACL had value. I pointed out earlier in this very thread that the lease was never an issue because they can be renegotiated.

My position has never changed unlike yours. I'm still on the same hymn sheet.

It was valueless at the terms they offered the football club and that's the point.

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Wasps purchased ACL without ACL owning a 250 year lease

...and as if by magic, a 250 year lease appeared.

What a happy coincidence, and what a piece of good fortune!

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
...and as if by magic, a 250 year lease appeared.

What a happy coincidence, and what a piece of good fortune!

Not suggested anything remotely like that if you read all my posts on this thread. Just the opposite in fact.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Grendel said:
It was valueless at the terms they offered the football club and that's the point.

So the length of the lease wasn't negotiable for the club? Is that what you're suggesting?

Deleted member 5849 · Sep 19, 2016

skybluetony176 said:
Not suggested anything remotely like that if you read all my posts on this thread. Just the opposite in fact.

I've read all your posts and, tbh, it seems to be another Tony and Grendel mating dance, where any supposed point is lost in a welter of bollocks, where sense is sacrificed on the altar of one-upmanship.

skybluetony176 · Sep 19, 2016

Deleted member 5849 said:
I've read all your posts and, tbh, it seems to be another Tony and Grendel mating dance, where any supposed point is lost in a welter of bollocks, where sense is sacrificed on the altar of one-upmanship.

Either way I didn't suggest it did magically appear. Nice of you to join the dance by the way. Can I step back in now or do you want to wait for the next song?

ccfcway · Sep 19, 2016

"where we're going, we don't need roads"

Astute · Sep 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
Various ways of looking at it I guess.

You could compare the return against the initial investment. CCC put in around £10 and got around a quarter of that back.

Or compare the cost of the initial 50 year lease, think it was around £20m, with the 200 year extension which they sold for £1m.

Maybe compare the amount they received against the valuation placed on it a few weeks later, certainly doesn't look like a good deal then.

Same if you compare it against the sort of figures they were throwing at the club.

Or even against the value a future CCFC owner may have paid. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a future owner pay £20m plus.

On the other hand if you look at it as a debt laden loss making business then its not a bad deal. Of course if the new owner then very easily turns it into a profit making business it raises questions over how it was being run previously.

Why is it that even though the costings and where the money came from has been shown on here several times some try to say that CCFC put in many millions and CCC nothing when the opposite is true?

The way I see it is CCC sold it for well under value to try and get rid of SISU. It didn't suddenly go from being worthless to about 50m just because Wasps got an extended lease. But it went from costing CCC money to run to getting a few millions back.

Astute · Sep 19, 2016

chiefdave said:
No idea if they will get the judge to agree with them but I think if they do the council could be in trouble.

If they are seen to be at fault I would prefer them to be personally held responsible and not the taxpayer.

chiefdave · Sep 19, 2016

Astute said:
Why is it that even though the costings and where the money came from has been shown on here several times some try to say that CCFC put in many millions and CCC nothing when the opposite is true?

Back to the future (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency