If its viable then is anything preventing a 4th party (ie not Coventry Council, CCFC or SISU) coming along and negotiating a price to buy the share?
It's not ACL selling. ACL is a company owned 50% by Higgs and 50% by the council. SISU could, and possibly did, agree terms but the council can block any sale.
Higgs have stated they want to get out of ACL and use the money elsewhere. As there seems to be zero chance of the council allowing a sale to SISU the only real option is for the council to buy Higgs 50%, not sure how this impacts CCFC option on buy back but I think that runs out soon anyway. If, as is stated, ACL is in good health and would be with or without CCFC I can't see any reason for the council not to do that, unless there is some rule preventing a council 100% owning a private business.
At a guess it can't be sold to a 3rd party until the option CCFC have expires but I'm sure that's not far off so in theory it could be sold to anyone, subject to the council approving the new partner.
If its viable then is anything preventing a 4th party (ie not Coventry Council, CCFC or SISU) coming along and negotiating a price to buy the share?
SISU are CCFC in this case. People need to stop separating them.
Yeah, I meant to say that, thx for pointing out.At a guess it can't be sold to a 3rd party until the option CCFC have expires but I'm sure that's not far off so in theory it could be sold to anyone, subject to the council approving the new partner.
I have a feeling this is the next option the Council/ACl will explore i seem to remember there being a period of time allotted for CCFC to buy back the Higgs share 2015 rings a bell, now if this goes to court again and the court rules against SISU/CCFC again that might allow Higgs to sell to another party, that would really put a spanner in the sisu works i suspect..If its viable then is anything preventing a 4th party (ie not Coventry Council, CCFC or SISU) coming along and negotiating a price to buy the share?
Couple of questions.
When you agree a Heads of Terms.
Although you have not finalised the deal. It is saying yes that is a price I am happy to buy at. The other party saying yes I am happy to sell at that price. All the terms and conditions are ok let's go away and get it signed. no its is saying this is the general frame work of a deal and subject to detailed discussions, certain proof being received, and agreement of conditions we will draw up a contract to sign
If so SISU were not phased by ACL's asking price. it was the charity to sell not ACL
ACL want to sell. The deal is sitting there waiting to be signed. it isnt ACL selling and no it isnt
If SISU do this deal
Do they cut that 400k rent by half as they own half of where the rent is paid?no because it belongs to acl..... shareholders get dividends
Do they get greater access to the revenue schemes by doing this deal? no but involved in decision making
Excuse me if I have it wrong but I don't fully understand it anymore if I am going to be honest.
If the above is the case should we the fans not be pushing SISU to do this deal. So things get sorted quickly.
If its viable then is anything preventing a 4th party (ie not Coventry Council, CCFC or SISU) coming along and negotiating a price to buy the share?
I have a feeling it's whatever ACL made from just dozen games at the Olympics and i suspect it was a right few bob is what has pissed sisu off especially Seppella, money for old rope really and few little improvements for free to the Arena to boot.Why would anyone want to buy a loss making company such as ACL? As far as I can tell, it has no great assets apart from a leasehold over a stadium which its main tenant can't/won't pay a rent at a level to ACL to keep it afloat without support from the council.
You would have thought that hosting a few Olympic events and a Coldplay concert would show how ACL could survive independently as a commercial entity without CCFC yet within a few months these events and CCFC not paying it's rent it needs to bailed out by the Council because it can't meet its debt repayments.
the option gives first chance of buying the shares ... at a price acceptable to the Charity (there is a mechanism to calculate but Charity could set that aside). Right now I wouldnt bet that the Charity want to sell to SISU let alone the Council veto it
the option gives first chance of buying the shares ... at a price acceptable to the Charity (there is a mechanism to calculate but Charity could set that aside). Right now I wouldnt bet that the Charity want to sell to SISU let alone the Council veto it
So they would get a share of any dividends and have a casting vote on how the income streams are allocated.
As half the owner if ACL. How would that affect us with regards to the FFP
strangely the last time ACL made a loss on their accounts was 2006............... been in profit ever since. Last accounts 31/05/11 showed net assets £1.5m. Fixed assets showed 25m of which 19.6m was the leasehold interest
Their accounts are due to be filed this month so will be interesting to see what the may 2012 accounts show. I understand they will be filed on time.............. the significance of which is that the auditors will have signed of as being a going concern for at least the next 12 months.
Absolutely zero percent...they dont have a good track recordCCFC's accounts are due to be filed this month too .............. wonder what the chances of that are
CCFC's accounts are due to be filed this month too .............. wonder what the chances of that are
is it possible for them to file accounts with the rent situation ongoing? Presumably ACL can just show what is owed in their accounts and get that signed off but would anyone sign off on CCFC accounts without a resolution on the rent?
is it possible for them to file accounts with the rent situation ongoing? Presumably ACL can just show what is owed in their accounts and get that signed off but would anyone sign off on CCFC accounts without a resolution on the rent?
If you strip out CCFC rent at the existing uncommercial rate ACL is loss making and I can't see the leasehold fixed asset now being worth anywhere near £20m. Who would pay that for it - apart from a related party transaction between ACL and one of its shareholders perhaps??? Would have thought time for a revaluation.
The actions of ACL in needing a bail out from the council so soon after what should have been a very good year for them tell us more about ACL's financial position than any set of accounts do.
If you strip out CCFC rent at the existing uncommercial rate ACL is loss making and I can't see the leasehold fixed asset now being worth anywhere near £20m. Who would pay that for it - apart from a related party transaction between ACL and one of its shareholders perhaps??? Would have thought time for a revaluation.
The actions of ACL in needing a bail out from the council so soon after what should have been a very good year for them tell us more about ACL's financial position than any set of accounts do.
The loan arrangement, which is a good deal for both ACL and the council; was as much to do with protecting a distress position of SISU's making as it is related to normal trading conditions.
Fisher's role in that process has been particularly unsavoury in my opinion
If you strip out CCFC rent at the existing uncommercial rate ACL is loss making and I can't see the leasehold fixed asset now being worth anywhere near £20m. Who would pay that for it - apart from a related party transaction between ACL and one of its shareholders perhaps??? Would have thought time for a revaluation.
The actions of ACL in needing a bail out from the council so soon after what should have been a very good year for them tell us more about ACL's financial position than any set of accounts do.
The loan arrangement, which is a good deal for both ACL and the council; was as much to do with protecting a distress position of SISU's making as it is related to normal trading conditions.
Fisher's role in that process has been particularly unsavoury in my opinion
So if the CCFC accounts cannot be signed off by their auditor, (for the reason given by OSB), then presumably we can be certain of having a transfer embargo, once the accouts become overdue in a couple of months time? Should be a great start for the new manager. Here we go again.......................
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?