In the case of a business you would look at the assets and liabilities when making an offer. If it had no liabilities you would be able to offer more money. In the case of Wasps they would have seen the 14 m liability and made their offer accordingly. CCC would have looked at it as seller and have seen 14m loan repayment over 20 years and 5,54m as the price. ACL was sold with the loan contract at a price taking that into account.
Bob Ainsworth on ACL sale to Wasps (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter TheRoyalScam
- Start date
In the case of a business you would look at the assets and liabilities when making an offer. If it had no liabilities you would be able to offer more money. In the case of Wasps they would have seen the 14 m liability and made their offer accordingly. CCC would have looked at it as seller and have seen 14m loan repayment over 20 years and 5,54m as the price. ACL was sold with the loan contract at a price taking that into account.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So the Higgs share was chronically over valued at £6 million then?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No you are correct it isn't. In fact your analogy was ridiculous. You quote a private individual buying a house. The individual will be personally liable for the debt.
In this instance MGI moonstone that one share company and ultimately wasps holdings have no liability. ACL limited has the liability. If they go belly up and default on the loan they have no payments to make. So belly up tomorrow and they haven't paid their £19 million have they?
The difference between you and me is homework. Companies House shows that Wasps have granted a debenture to the Council. I wonder what liability that secures.....
Nick
Administrator
Does that mean the loan is now with wasps? Or a guarantoor type thing?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You tells as you are in the know. I would assume it's for £1 million for the purchase of the 250 year lease. It certainly will not be for the full amount of the loan given that the same companies house shows negative equity of £14.25 million prior to the takeover.
At the time no. In a partly distressed state as you claim, yes.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well I seem to recall in the good old JR the business was portrayed as not being distressed and that CCFC were in fact only 9% of its turnover
You now dispute this version of events do you?
Question: has the 1m been paid in Advance? If so, why do you need security?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Answer: no one really knows. The council leader muttered something in a radio interview that £1million came off the loan but given her sometimes hazy recollection of facts this could be what she meant.
If Wasps don't owe the Council any money then Wasps are presumably standing behind a third party's debt to the Council.
And why does "negative equity" mean the guarantee won't be for the full amount?
No, I said that at the time it probably wasn't overvalued. After all the legal crap and the Rent strike it was, according to you, a "carcass' and 6m was too much.
Perhaps security for a subsidiary's debt?
As I understand it, the 1m is for the Rent on the lease for the duration of the lease, paid in advance. Otherwise it could be paid at 4000 a year over 250 years. Has Wasps Holding a negative equity?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Yes £14.25 million isn't? In the know is surfing companies house -- he will know
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why the question mark - don't you know?
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
You make a lot of assumptions in this statement, don't you know the facts?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well I know what companies house describes as it's net worth. Interesting risk rating as well.
In the know seems to make a lot of assumptions don't you think?
I wonder if the £1m payment quoted was the premium for the extension so not an advance of anything? Would that be too unrealistic?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This thread is mental. OSB, who's word has been taken as gospel until he says something that doesn't support CCC, has very clearly and simply explained the situation yet several posters refuse to acknowledge it and prefer to tow the council line no matter what.
This is after a thread earlier in the week where people were openly saying that if further legal action or an investigation into CCC's handing of the ACL sale showed CCC to be in the wrong it would still be SISU who should be criticised for pursuing the action.
Some people can't see the wood for the trees. So blinded by their hatred for SISU or their own agenda they can't acknowledge simple facts.
The way some are calculating the sale price of ACL just defies logic. Follow the same principle and after the naming rights have been renewed will those people be saying CCC have paid Wasps to take the stadium off their hands?
This is after a thread earlier in the week where people were openly saying that if further legal action or an investigation into CCC's handing of the ACL sale showed CCC to be in the wrong it would still be SISU who should be criticised for pursuing the action.
Some people can't see the wood for the trees. So blinded by their hatred for SISU or their own agenda they can't acknowledge simple facts.
The way some are calculating the sale price of ACL just defies logic. Follow the same principle and after the naming rights have been renewed will those people be saying CCC have paid Wasps to take the stadium off their hands?
I wonder what the naming rights would have been worth without Wasps?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Some people can see the woods, trees and rainforests it seems
Last edited:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
I am pretty sure companies house does not publish company net worth. Show me the link please. Company risk rating is not published by companies house either..
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Not so long ago there was talk of the Ricoh sponsorship of the arena not being renewed, not it looks more like there will be some competition between JLR & Ricoh for the rights when they are due for renewal (this year I believe) .. and all because of Wasps involvement. I am not crowing, I believe that to be a reasonably accurate assessment, if anyone can find evidence to contradict me please post it, I'll be interested to hear it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
And?
OSB has also said he doesn't know of any guarantees from Wasps Holdings. In the know says there is a debenture on Wasps Holdings to the benefit of the council ( which is a sort of guarantee ). I don't know who is right.
who said SISU were wrong to pursue legal action if they are right? I said if they have evidence that they are right they should have presented it long ago and they should be critised for not doing so if that is the case.
After all the legal crap and accusations through rumours ( e.g. Smoking guns ) against council officials, it is little wonder that the council nearly bit Wasps hand off when they offered to buy the shares thus enabling the loan to continue to be repaid. Had the council continued to own ACL ( together with Higgs ), they would be running a company in effect
almost solely to pay themselves their own money back.
This would have been crazy. The stadium naming rights would not have brought in much if the "bowl" remained unused by a well known sports club, so an offer from Wasps just before renewal comes in very handy ( assuming the renewal has not yet been signed - it was a "no comment" last time the question was asked ).
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
The ACL (Wasps) liability for the loan is balanced against the value of lease.
But as proven in court that varies with the client in the Stadium and rental charges.
Looking back it seems that ACL being owned by a separate company to that using the stadium was very risky for freehold owners CCC.
At what point did Sisu spot this and make their play for the freehold ?
what at is the value of the lease if Wasps as stadium users fail? In the know claims there is also a debenture on Wasps Holdings, presumably for that scenario. Only problem being Wasps Holdings assets..... Wasps "golden share"...?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The most important factor that isn't mentioned on top of all the factors that make it bleedin obvious why the council did what they did. Is the fact that TF said they could not have done the deal wasps did!
Last edited:
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Grendel my dear Wasps v Cardiff Blues tomorrow, bit of an England v Wales thing are you going ?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oddly enough no
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Find it yourself - here is a snippet though;
The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 30/06/2013 reported 'cash at bank' of £340,338, 'liabilities' worth £3,591,215, 'net worth' of £-14,261,348 and 'assets' worth £901,143.
Read more at: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/0...OLDINGS-LIMITED/financial-accounts#financials
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Nick
Administrator
He hates SISU, judge for yourself.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He will be there. Perhaps him Italia Jack dongle bigfatron all have a box together. Probably providing live feeds so Martcov can enjoy the action as well.