So I guess you're saying that the charity don't do any good works in or around Coventry where £6.5m might be better spent. Interesting.
However on one thing here I entirely agree - the charity shouldn't be helping out helping out millionaire owners and players.
On that basis I think the charity are quite right to either sell their share for whatever they think is a fair return, or hold on to it until it suits them if no such offer is forthcoming, even if it doesn't suit the current owners of the club.
I'm sure both you and Nick would agree, since it seems you're all in favour of the charity taking a cold, hard business approach to financial matters and the club.
Unless, that is, you're saying that the charity should be obliged to sell way below what they want, just to help out the club - but you can't be saying that because it's an obvious contradiction, right?
No. I'm asking how you validate things.
While of course I think it would be unfair for them to get nothing, people seem to say that the high rent is all SISU's fault because they agreed to it. If the Higgs have bought something that is now actually worthless, who's fault is that?
(just putting it out there)
I certainly do think that the £6.5million might have been better spent.
Higgs can sell it or not at whatever price they like, may end up with an asset worth billions or something that ends up costing them money, which it already has of course, as they have taken nothing out and £6.5million would have earned a fair whack of interest by now I'd have thought.
Selling below what they want is one thing, they should be maybe trying to sell it for what it's worth.
They think it's worth £6.5m - who's to say it isn't. All the money that they've lost on this was as a result of a desire to help the club, remember.
So, what you (and I think Nick) are really saying is that you'd like them to sell it for what SISU want to pay for it, aren't you? If not, what's the issue. SISU don't want to pay the asking price, the Higgs are acting as cold, hard businessmen, as you'd like them to.
Or do you object to them holding onto it until they can sell it for what they think it's worth, for some reason?
Not sure whose fault it is?
How has it became worthless?
They think it's worth £6.5m - who's to say it isn't. All the money that they've lost on this was as a result of a desire to help the club, remember.
So, what you (and I think Nick) are really saying is that you'd like them to sell it for what SISU want to pay for it, aren't you? If not, what's the issue. SISU don't want to pay the asking price, the Higgs are acting as cold, hard businessmen, as you'd like them to.
Or do you object to them holding onto it until they can sell it for what they think it's worth, for some reason?
Caveat emptor
Well carrying the anology on the mortgage is £2 million so actually I have just increased the valuation to £4 million
Higgs will never get the money back -- the end and also his dumbass comment at the end tells me all I need to know about him
I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!
Ah that old one.
Let's have a few independent valuations of Ccfc then, and force sisu to sell to the fans or any new owner at the average value.
Does that sound like a decent compromise?
Ah that old one.
Let's have a few independent valuations of Ccfc then, and force sisu to sell to the fans or any new owner at the average value.
Does that sound like a decent compromise?
So what is so unfair about that?
Of course, if somebody can come in and buy the club and has the money to run the club properly I would be up for that too. Sell to the fans is out though, we would be worse off than we are now in my opinion.
I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!
I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!
Imagine that a valuation of Nil would be given for the club, but rather like ACL and it's £14million loan to be repaid, would have to take on all the debts.
You can buy it if you like.
I would much rather that independent valuations were done and then an average taken. I am not saying pay whatever SISU want, just a fair price and if that turns out to be 100 million or £1.50 then so be it!
Imagine that a valuation of Nil would be given for the club, but rather like ACL and it's £14million loan to be repaid, would have to take on all the debts.
You can buy it if you like.
So what is so unfair about that?
Of course, if somebody can come in and buy the club and has the money to run the club properly I would be up for that too. Sell to the fans is out though, we would be worse off than we are now in my opinion.
However if it is worth zero, you will pay all of SISU's debts won't you? As well as their asking fee?
There is no 'fair value' here Nick. The charity put £6.5m in and the asking price was (briefly) £5.5m.
I think most people agree that the charity shouldn't be forced to help out the club - so why should they now, when SISU are attempting to distress ACL, sell for an average 'independent valuation'?
There was a deal in place for a set formula, which SISU didn't care for, and then another deal which SISU couldn't pull off because of the buy-now, pay later stuff.
What you're saying isn't fair at all - SISU can pay the asking price, or not. If they don't want to then we're going to have to accept that Higgs have got every right to hold on to the share. Otherwise you're back to asking a charity to bail out the club, something which most here seem to regard as unacceptable.
Unfortunately if we follow your logic SISU would need to sell for the value of the club and walk away with 45 million debt.
They are unlikely to do that as I can't imagine the council would sell their share of ACL and keep the loan
I am not saying that by rights anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do or sell if they don't want to.
What I mean is if these valuations come out and say that their share is only worth £2.50 but they won't sell for less than £6.5 million then it surely means they are the stumbling block? If it comes out and says they are worth £2.50 but SISU did make a cash offer of 2 million then they would be generous wouldn't they? If it did come out they are pretty much worth pennies but they demand £6.5 million then are they not trying to rip the club off?
People keep going on about what the charity put in, who is to blame if they put the money in but it turns out to be worth nothing?
Exactly, so if the club is worth nothing but has shit loads of debt. It is like SISU then trying to charge a buyer loads of money for the club and also have the debt there.
They can hang on to sell it for what they think it's worth if they so wish.
Anyway I'm just off to call the car breakers, they had offered me £100 for my old car, but I value it at £2000, so going to hold it til they match my valuation.
They'll be crawling back to me in no time I expect.
Given the outstanding mortgage value its obvious to everyone that these shares are pretty worthless. To even suggest they are worth £6.5 million is totally deranged. Its half of a company that in a normal year generated very modest turnover.
As I've been attacked today on my earnings which I still regret revealing I may as well go the whole hog. The reason is I have two jobs. The main job and also I am a director in a company and receive gaurenteed dividends. The company is cash rich and it has a turnover of around £2 million. Profit as a percent of turnover is much higher than ACL. We had it independently valued recently and its valuation is as a percentage of ACL's "valuation" tiny. In good years this company made 40% of the profit that ACL made last year off £12 million less turnover.
Go figure.
I am not saying that by rights anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do or sell if they don't want to.
What I mean is if these valuations come out and say that their share is only worth £2.50 but they won't sell for less than £6.5 million then it surely means they are the stumbling block? If it comes out and says they are worth £2.50 but SISU did make a cash offer of 2 million then they would be generous wouldn't they? If it did come out they are pretty much worth pennies but they demand £6.5 million then are they not trying to rip the club off?
People keep going on about what the charity put in, who is to blame if they put the money in but it turns out to be worth nothing?
So the charity can't sell
SISU can't sell
Only one solution
Fight? .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Your contention here is that ACL has no value to Higgs, which is an opinion and not one that stacks up particularly well in the face of the facts.
You don't think the charity should bail out millionaire owners, but you would have Higgs sell to SISU at below the value they wish to receive. It seems to me that the truth is that actually you want the Higgs to bail out the club again, in effect.
With regard to cars, well if we're going to use bullshit metaphors can we can stick to house purchase ones, please. It's more consistent.
Once again Nick, the people to blame for the decrease in value of the charity's investment are exactly the same as those trying to purchase it for less than the charity want to accept!
The charity want a set amount for their share, and they think with or without the club it's worth it. Why should they have to sell right now and for less than that, other than to suit SISU?
Edit: With the point of course that SISU aren't even trying to purchase the share any more, making most of this argument redundant in any case!
So stalemate. If Higgs believe the shares are above their true market value, then sisu should pay more than they are worth? This is why some independent valuations would be beneficial at least fans and tax payers would know if anyone side is being ripped off rather than the current guess work and conjecture...
Hmmm perhaps a new ground is the way forward....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Once again Nick, the people to blame for the decrease in value of the charity's investment are exactly the same as those trying to purchase it for less than the charity want to accept!
The charity want a set amount for their share, and they think with or without the club it's worth it. Why should they have to sell right now and for less than that, other than to suit SISU?
Edit: With the point of course that SISU aren't even trying to purchase the share any more, making most of this argument redundant in any case!
I am not saying they do have to do anything, but it would make things clearer as what is stopping us from returning to the ricoh wouldn't it?
I might be wrong, but wasn't that council net valuation done before any rent "strike"?
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?