Bob Ainsworth on ACL sale to Wasps (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
JimmyHillsbeard

JimmyHillsbeard

Well-Known Member
rondog1973 said:
All those wishing Ann Lucas gets her comeuppance at the next local elections should consider that it won't make a blind bit of difference who they replace her with, as whoever replaces her will have voted to sell to Wasps too.
Click to expand...


And will have done so in a closed part of the meeting because of "commercial confidentiality". In the public part of the councillor meeting not a single council questioned the rationale for the sale or the authenticity of the estimated figures.
 
S

shy_tall_knight

Well-Known Member
When all the Sisu lovers were bleating on about their investment in Cov (£30m - 50m), why didn't they just concentrate on the purchase price of the CCFC shares (which I believe was zero) or were we quite happy to include the cost of the debts which they paid off / took on.

I bow to OSB's greater knowledge of company law and accounting standards but £5m is a misleading figure in the context of a commercial discussion, its the cash commitments that are key in my opinion - something SISU weren't prepared to commit to.

Over the next 10 years I expect CCC will receive on top of the £5m, £14m of loan repayments plus interest which is what they have committed to.

I won't ever watch WASPS but I'm not that desperate to believe that our salvation lies in the hope that WASPS go belly up, need to concentrate on things the club can directly control
 
italiahorse

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm there as mentioned.
It's cheap enough so why not ?
No need for a live feed as it's on TV as well !!
 
G

Gosford Green

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
And some are obsessed with trying to defend them.

Ignore SISU for a minute and remember that the council has transplanted a London Rugby team into a City that already has one.
Click to expand...


Tim Fisher ''We have moved on from the Ricoh, we are building our own ground'' Meaning one empty stadium and a lot of lost revenue for Coventry and Warwickshire. Along cam someone who wanted the Ricoh, unfortunately a rugby team from the London area but now there is up to 32,000 rugby fans spending a lot more in the area than the 35 Fleetwood bought.

SISU and their brinkmanship fueled by Fishers bullshit has caused this whole very sad situation.

Am I happy that Wasps at the Ricoh? No one course I am not, its a situation that could lead to the death of my football team as I fear what SISU will do next, on that basis its impossible to ignore them.
 
Bennets Afro

Bennets Afro

Well-Known Member
Gosford Green said:
Tim Fisher ''We have moved on from the Ricoh, we are building our own ground'' Meaning one empty stadium and a lot of lost revenue for Coventry and Warwickshire. Along cam someone who wanted the Ricoh, unfortunately a rugby team from the London area but now there is up to 32,000 rugby fans spending a lot more in the area than the 35 Fleetwood bought.

SISU and their brinkmanship fueled by Fishers bullshit has caused this whole very sad situation.

Am I happy that Wasps at the Ricoh? No one course I am not, its a situation that could lead to the death of my football team as I fear what SISU will do next, on that basis its impossible to ignore them.
Click to expand...


complete contradiction there. Fisher - "we have moved on" to fishers bullshit. make your mind up!

We all knew the new stadium is bullshit so there wasn't any need to sell to wasps was they for fear of an empty stadium
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Intheknow said:
Let's have a touch of realism and understanding of these deals.

If I bought a house for ten pounds and it had no debt with it - house costs ten pounds.

if I bought a house for ten pounds but had to take on a ten pounds mortgage (ie, the owners debt), - house costs £20.
Click to expand...

If we are being realistic then.......

If the house is sold unencumbered by a mortgage then you exchange £10 cash for £10 freehold/leasehold house

debit Fixed assets credit cash

If the house has 100%(or less) mortgage on it then under terms of any mortgage I have seen the charge stipulates that the loan has first claim on any sale proceeds. Therefore in the transaction the £10 mortgage is cleared and never taken on by the purchaser

purchaser Debit fixed assets credit cash - net effect nil
seller debit mortgage credit fixed assets - net effect nil

Now the purchaser may need to borrow in the first place in order to buy the house as is usual. This is a new loan and new security that is usually secured on the new property in the name of the purchaser

Purchaser Debit cash credit loan..... followed by debit Fixed asset credit cash ...... leaving an asset and a liability of equal value on the balance sheet.
Seller Debit mortgage credit fixed assets


At no point in any of those scenarios does the house cost £20. The sale price is £10 and the purchase price is £10.

none of the above actually represents what has happened however

We are not talking about the conveyance of a freehold or leasehold property. We are talking about the sale of shares whose value are in part made up of the loan and other liabilities (which reduces the value) and the assets which increase the value. In addition the value of those shares is influenced by such things as other contingent liabilities, the value of future orders or income streams, an assessment of goodwill if any and yes the potential for attracting future sponsorship even
 
Last edited:
N

Noggin

New Member
Bennets Afro said:
Not really you all bash fisher for bullshitting when it suits, but you mention the new stadium and its going to happen, you all take it as gospel
Click to expand...

it is a ridiculous statement, no one takes it as gospel at all (in fact the complete opposite). But ACL had a year of not receiving rent, then over a year with no tenant at all (that you didn't believe him when he said it) along with the fact that tennent says they are not coming back, have acted completely irrationally in the past and are continuing to do so, have acted maliciously in the past and are continuing to do so and say they are going to build their own stadium. While you might not believe him, if an offer comes along that removes alot of your risk it's very easy to see why that is appealing.

I wish they hadn't sold to Wasps too but I completely understand why they did and while lashing out is appealing if I put myself in their shoes I can't hand on heart say I'd have done differently.
 
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Intheknow said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Which Company has done that. A quick perusal of Companies House doesnt show such a charge in the downloadable information

ACL - no
Arena Coventry 2006 - no
London Wasps Holdings - no
Canmango - no

there are charges dated ACL and ACL 2006 dated May 2013 listed
Similarly there are charges in favour of Richardson and Canmango on London Wasps Holdings dated 2013 also

Do you have any more details of the charge given to CCC please I would be interested to see them?
 
Last edited:
oldskyblue58

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
I think you have to look at a number of things to look at the value. What you can not do is pick out certain items and ignore others.

What we actually know

the day before the deal was done what was the situation
ACL had a loan for £14m but an overall positive balance sheet per the published accounts and was owned by CCC & AEHC
CCC had a loan owed to it of 14m secured on all the assets of ACL plus 50% of the shares (no they did not owe 50% of the loan) owns the freehold at the arena
AEHC had 50% of the shares (no they did not own 50% of the loan)
Wasps - had nothing in terms of the Arena

the day after the deal
ACL had a £14m loan a positive balance sheet and is owned by London Wasps Holdings Ltd
CCC have a loan of £14m owed to it and 2.77m in cash from sale of the shares and have granted a 250 year lease on the freehold it still owns
AEHC have 2.77m in cash from sale of shares and some prospect of donation income on the Higgs Charity stand
Wasps own 100% of ACL and have 250 year lease

Now if there was a new loan to Wasps, if Wasps had paid off the old loan, ACL was a new company without any trading record or future trading incomes then i might begin to agree the loan forms part of the deal. But it already existed, hasnt changed apparently except for perhaps term and is still and always has been a liability of ACL and linked to ACL's ability to secure trading income. Nothing other than ownership has changed and the reason Wasps paid 5.54m is because of the future trading ability of ACL after taking in to account ACL's commitment to pay a loan.

But Wasps may have given a guarantee to CCC of some sort. Well yes I would expect so but we dont actually know. CCC already have a first charge over all ACL assets - what any new charge if given would do would tie the new 250 year lease in to ACL so that Canmango etc cant just wind ACL up. But what is the exposure because it is contingent of other actions, firstly that ACL do not pay the loan, that ACL fails, followed by the assets of ACL not being sold for any value, so how much is the "loan that Wasps are responsible for" in reality by giveing a belt and braces guarantee to CCC above the first charge?

Btw all London Wasps assets are charged to Richardson or Canmango so no worth there for CCC then

If you are going to include the loan in the value of that deal then you have to include the assets that secure it. The loan might be 14m but what are the assets worth that secure it?

Here is a final thought. As the value of the loan deceases does the value of this deal decrease with it year by year or did Wasps simply put at risk 5.54m?
 
Last edited:
M

martcov

Well-Known Member
Intheknow said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Osb can't find this debenture. Does it exist? Also Wasps Holdings is already covered by charges to D Richardson - apparently. So in the worst case scenario, the debenture would be worthless - apparently. Is this true? Have you posted an inaccurate post ( which you told Moff you don't do )? I'm confused.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
martcov said:
Osb can't find this debenture. Does it exist? Also Wasps Holdings is already covered by charges to D Richardson - apparently. So in the worst case scenario, the debenture would be worthless - apparently. Is this true? Have you posted an inaccurate post ( which you told Moff you don't do )? I'm confused.
Click to expand...


Jack, Cloughie et al liked that post. Odd that JAck didn't ask for a link to the information -- especially as there is no evidence it actually exists.
 
Como

Como

Well-Known Member
From the Councils perspective they were stuck with a white elephant, loss making enterprise and a loan that may never be repaid.

SISU had made it clear they were not interested in dealing, or even paying rent.

Alongside come Wasps who not only handover a significant sum but look a much better bet to pay the loan.

Downside to the City, not a lot, of Wasps go under they still have the payment and the secured loan so they are back where they started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top