dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Learn something new everyday
"Their future performance would play a small part in whether we renewed our contract but the key benefits are from concerts and other events."
I'd like to get that verified before accepting it as fact. Seems an odd thing to just drop into the middle of an article without any obvious quotes to back it up.
I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd just like it backed up by a reliable source.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chas Moloney's on twitter. @chasmoloney, surprisingly enough.
[h=2][/h]
I'd like to get that verified before accepting it as fact. Seems an odd thing to just drop into the middle of an article without any obvious quotes to back it up.
I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd just like it backed up by a reliable source.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you have a dig around on here I think PWKH has mentioned it before when someone was claiming Ricoh would terminate their contract due to the club not being there.
He has said he is not allowed to comment on matters relating to ACL so I'm sure you are mistaken.
I'm don't think it was recent, think it was before the JR was started by SISU causing everyone to shut up.
ACL said some time ago that it was not going to make further statements concerning CCFC. I am not a spokesperson for ACL. I cannot therefore answer the questions in the OP.
When I post here it is usually to try to correct something that is factually incorrect concerning the Charity as Clerk or the AHCT as a Trustee, that is all. This may sound like a cop out but that is how it is.
Michael recently sent me a PM asking much the same question that he has posted here, I have sent it on to ACL for the Company to answer if it decides to change its policy.
Have you just quoted yourself
"Their future performance would play a small part in whether we renewed our contract but the key benefits are from concerts and other events."
I'd like to get that verified before accepting it as fact. Seems an odd thing to just drop into the middle of an article without any obvious quotes to back it up.
I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd just like it backed up by a reliable source.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fucked this year then.
Not seen this or last years accounts for the charity on the site, but reading some old accounts it appears(unless I've been reading it wrong) that they have always(through Football investors ltd) valued it at £6.5 million, though have it valued at £2million on the balance sheet?
They also lost nearly £3million on stock market investments in 2009, so we should all be trying to get that back for them!
Not seen this or last years accounts for the charity on the site, but reading some old accounts it appears(unless I've been reading it wrong) that they have always(through Football investors ltd) valued it at £6.5 million, though have it valued at £2million on the balance sheet?
They also lost nearly £3million on stock market investments in 2009, so we should all be trying to get that back for them!
No if they lose money on investments then that's tough luck, same goes for Sisu.
Looks like they made it back in a subsequent year though.
found some lose change to pick up those two city centre venues.
This thread is 17 pages long and discussing finances, yet I cannot see a post by OSB58. This is the sort of thread where I would expect his input and guidance.
Have I missed something?
He's probably focused on preparing the CCFC supporters team for the weekend ,are they In some final or tilting at a title?
Been a very busy period at work and as the accounts were not available to download (can be done for free http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/ ) then there wasn't much to comment on.
The accounts do not in fact value 50% of ACL at all. What the accounts state is that the value of the Charity investment in Football Investors Limited which holds 50% of ACL is not in their opinion valued at less than the original cost of £6.5m. This opinion has been checked verified and confirmed by the Charity auditors.
In forming this opinion the trustees would have taken in to account the ACL results, the dispute, the risk, the offer June 2012, the future plans of ACL 2015, 2016 etc, the value of their social investment to achieve similar employment and social effect, the full valuation reports done 2012 (not just one section) and a whole lot things more some of which it would have been difficult to value in monetary sales terms. What they did not need to consider was the value CCC show in their accounts, the verbal offer of £2m (which was rejected out of hand) or the comments by a prospective buyer that it was worthless. So the carrying value in the accounts is the cost of investment which is actually not a "valuation" at all. It certainly is not a for sale valuation.
Ah but they agreed a deal for £5.5m. That was in 2012 and failed. The carrying value has to reflect the current value at the time the report was signed 01/05/14 which would be adjusted if in the opinion of the Trustees the value is less than cost and that reduction is long term or permanent. There is also a duty to look forward as to viability but also at any factors that might affect the value today. Could they sell below the cost price - I would assume if they sold to someone who would have a positive beneficial effect on the local community especially in north Coventry and had defined plans as to how, that they could square that with the Charity Commission.
Just as an aside the Trustees are quite prepared to write down the values of investments. They lent the Alan Higgs Centre Trust over £11m to build the complex the carrying value of that loan due for repayment 2053 is £1. Similarly quoted investments are shown at their value at the balance sheet date - easy to find just have to look at the FTSE for example. Accounting regulations require restatement to value
In 2012 the Charity showed a deficit in its movement in funds of £315k but more than made up for it with a surplus in its movements in funds in 2013 of £1.44m. Largely due to fluctuations of the stock market. The consolidated balance sheet which includes Football Investors Ltd and two property companies shows net assets of £20.2m in 2013. The Charity does not do fund raising activities, all of its income comes from its investments - Quoted & unquoted shares, property, deposit interest etc. It has received nothing from the mixed social investment that is the ACL shares held by Football Investors Ltd. In 2012 the Charity paid out 265k in grants in 2013 it was £117k. The Trustees do not get paid but the Clerk to the Trustees (PWKH) does, there is one other employee. There is no evidence of large payments to PR firms in either year
Drapers Bar & Restaurant Ltd is not included in the accounts to May 2013 other than a note to say it was incorporated in September 2013
Just a note about their legal advisors - they have two - one of which Bates Wells R Braithwaite London LLP I believe was closely involved in actually writing the Charities Act. The accounts disclose that the Trustees always take appropriate professional advice
Should the accounts have been filed on time - yes of course they should no different to CCFC. Where CCFC had problems with things like going concern (which understandably delayed theirs) the Charity had a problem with arriving at a suitable opinion as to what value the mixed investment at the Ricoh was to be stated. The 2012 accounts were due 5th February 2013 clearly at that time the dispute was at key point and outcomes unclear this then led into the various legal disputes culminating as far as the Charity goes in the recent court case. Legal/professional advice since then must I assume be that the investment is secure. If it were me I might have delayed so no information was available before the recent case was settled anyway but that does not mean the Trustees did that at all and there is no evidence of that.
So bottom line is the Charity investment does not give a value of 50% of ACL other than to say the Trustees of Alan Edward Higgs Charity and their auditors believe 50% to be at least the same as what they paid for it
If someone buys these shares at £6.5 million what do they actually get?
The 50% share that CCFC sold to Higgs was 50% ownership in ACL with 100% of matchday revenues. With the joint venture company I would assume that is now 100% of the share of matchday revenues received from the joint venture.
The accounts do not in fact value 50% of ACL at all. What the accounts state is that the value of the Charity investment in Football Investors Limited which holds 50% of ACL is not in their opinion valued at less than the original cost of £6.5m. This opinion has been checked verified and confirmed by the Charity auditors.
The 50% share that CCFC sold to Higgs was 50% ownership in ACL with 100% of matchday revenues. With the joint venture company I would assume that is now 100% of the share of matchday revenues received from the joint venture.
And do they also take ownership of 50% of the outstanding debt (I.e £7 million)?
Wouldn't be very attractive to Compass that I'd have thought, not much of a joint venture if don't receive any of the match-day revenues?
You've misunderstood me. A assume ACL receive a % from matchday revenues in line with their % stake in the joint venture. Does it follow that now belongs in the 50% share owned by Higgs in place of the previous 100% of matchday revenue?
So pretty much receive 50% of all revenues that ACL do if bought Higgs Share to put it simply?
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?