Could Otium (2 Viewers)

albatross · Nov 2, 2014

Dipped in and out of this but If I were WASPS I would set up a company say ACL that held the ownership of CCFC and WASPS. The revenue potential of the Premier league football is immense. last season the lowest earners Cardiff City took over £60million from the Premier league, without counting gate receipt sponsorship etc... so if you get 25,000 for home games that will put your income at about £75m.

What you get outside the championship to share from the premier league is less than 10% between all the league 1 and 2 clubs.

With a good management structure there could be two very successful teams up at the Ricoh.

Too late to shed tears about the past ... it done..... times are different lets move forward

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
No because the directors could perfectly legitimately argue there is a potential for dispute with two seperate companies and also Higgs have already stated they prefer 100 ownership.

The directors of ACL who are employed by Higgs surely have to put the aims of Higgs as their priority in this sale.
If SISU agree to abide by all conditions wasps agreed to and offer more money that will go to the charity.
The ACL directors cannot say well wasps and SISU may (that's a may) argue in the future so lets not do what's best for the charity.
They have to base their decisions on facts and the objectives of the charity.

Godiva · Nov 2, 2014

I don't believe Wasps would entertain the idea of sharing ACL with anyone else.

One thing to remember is that ACL must be in a critical financial state - why else sell it in a way that just about make sure the football club cannot have a sustainable future at the Ricoh? And why sell it at a price significantly lower than the original offer from sisu?

Wasps brings in new sponsors and additional revenue that is likely to see ACL become profitable. They have at least 2 years with ccfc as tenants, but in reality that will expand to probably 5 years. Amble time to expand the business and become independent of ccfc.

That increase in value is down to Wasps alone - so why would they share that?

I am sorry - I don't think it's realistic, but hey, stranger things have happened.

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

dongonzalos said:
The directors of ACL who are employed by Higgs surely have to put the aims of Higgs as their priority in this sale.
If SISU agree to abide by all conditions wasps agreed to and offer more money that will go to the charity.
The ACL directors cannot say well wasps and SISU may (that's a may) argue in the future so lets not do what's best for the charity.
They have to base their decisions on facts and the objectives of the charity.

Sorry don you are wrong -- they don't have to consider the charity at all at all and I say again - - Higgs have publically stated they want 100% ownership.

stupot07 · Nov 2, 2014

albatross said:
Dipped in and out of this but If I were WASPS I would set up a company say ACL that held the ownership of CCFC and WASPS. The revenue potential of the Premier league football is immense. last season the lowest earners Cardiff City took over £60million from the Premier league, without counting gate receipt sponsorship etc... so if you get 25,000 for home games that will put your income at about £75m.

What you get outside the championship to share from the premier league is less than 10% between all the league 1 and 2 clubs.

With a good management structure there could be two very successful teams up at the Ricoh.

Too late to shed tears about the past ... it done..... times are different lets move forward

The revenue of the PL is immense but 9/10 takes a considerable amount of money to get there (the season we were relegated reading, Southampton and west ham all had wage bills £28m+, leicester spent £125m in 3 1/2 years, etc). You get the odd one that sneaks in (Blackpool) but that's very rare and will become rarer as the new parachute payment deal (over 4 not 2 years) takes effect.

And when you get there, most teams (not all) have to spend big on wages, etc to try and stay there. There's a big difference between revenue and profit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Sorry don you are wrong -- they don't have to consider the charity at all at all and I say again - - Higgs have publically stated they want 100% ownership.

I would think they would only consider the charity as that is who employs them?
The council element if ACL has gone.
It is Higgs selling their share so surely it will be their directors making the decision.
Yes I agree they stated they want to sell to wasps. However they are a charity a bigger offer that is better for the charity has to have a very very good reason to be rejected.
Otherwise you are not doing best for the charity( your legal obligation as trustees)

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

dongonzalos said:
I would think they would only consider the charity as that is who employs them?
The council element if ACL has gone.
It is Higgs selling their share so surely it will be their directors making the decision.
Yes I agree they stated they want to sell to wasps. However they are a charity a bigger offer that is better for the charity has to have a very very good reason to be rejected.
Otherwise you are not doing best for the charity( your legal obligation as trustees)

No wrong its the opposite. The shares sold need to be approved by the board / existing 50% shareholders. They have protection rights to protect their interests. Say another premier league rugby team offered £5 million for the Higgs share - do you think that they would be allowed to take it. Nothing to do with shareholders in a charity its shareholders in ACL and the future for the existing company that matters.

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
No wrong its the opposite. The shares sold need to be approved by the board / existing 50% shareholders. They have protection rights to protect their interests. Say another premier league rugby team offered £5 million for the Higgs share - do you think that they would be allowed to take it. Nothing to do with shareholders in a charity its shareholders in ACL and the future for the existing company that matters.

So you are referring to the power of veto by wasps
As oppose to Higgs accepting the bid

Rusty Trombone · Nov 2, 2014

Godiva said:
I don't believe Wasps would entertain the idea of sharing ACL with anyone else.

One thing to remember is that ACL must be in a critical financial state - why else sell it in a way that just about make sure the football club cannot have a sustainable future at the Ricoh? And why sell it at a price significantly lower than the original offer from sisu?

The price reported at £2.77m is more than the £2m offer from SISU.

The other SISU offer of £5m was tied to the loan being reduced by the bank, which was never going to happen, as proven by the banks rejections of even higher offers.

You may well be right about the other bits, but to keep trotting out this stuff about the previous offer being significantly higher, is frankly nonsense.

Jack Griffin · Nov 2, 2014

Godiva said:
I don't believe Wasps would entertain the idea of sharing ACL with anyone else.

One thing to remember is that ACL must be in a critical financial state - why else sell it in a way that just about make sure the football club cannot have a sustainable future at the Ricoh? And why sell it at a price significantly lower than the original offer from sisu?

Wasps brings in new sponsors and additional revenue that is likely to see ACL become profitable. They have at least 2 years with ccfc as tenants, but in reality that will expand to probably 5 years. Amble time to expand the business and become independent of ccfc.

That increase in value is down to Wasps alone - so why would they share that?

I am sorry - I don't think it's realistic, but hey, stranger things have happened.

Made same point a week ago, there is absolutely no chance they're going to just give SISU 50% of the gravy.. they are not a charity.
The only circumstances I can conceive under which they might entertain a deal are..
1) SISU bring in investment
2) Wasps can't raise the money they need.

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

dongonzalos said:
So you are referring to the power of veto by wasps
As oppose to Higgs accepting the bid

The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?

Rusty Trombone · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?

The shareholders have the ultimate power. The shareholders all appear to want Wasps to get 100% of ACL.

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
The shareholders have the ultimate power. The shareholders all appear to want Wasps to get 100% of ACL.

Do you have details of the articles of association of ACL and in particular the elements concerning share disposal?

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?

The ones that are employed by Higgs would have to vote for SISU if it is a bigger offer and matches all other conditions offered by wasps.
The ones employed by wasps would vote for wasps.

Rusty Trombone · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Do you have details of the articles of association of ACL and in particular the elements concerning share disposal?

No, but if you have feel free to share.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
The directors of ACL make a decision for ACL and those directors who all want wasps to gain 100% ownership will vote how?

A bidding contest between SISU and Wasps for the remaining 50% is most certainly in the charity's interest and is I suspect in ACL's interest too as of course it means more money coming in when a cut-price value was all that was on the table beforehand. More money for the trustees means more money for its charitable activities so the Higgs representatives on the ACL board would find it very hard indeed to justify voting against it. As for the other directors, having CCFC alongside Wasps means you have twice as much sport going on at the Ricoh which means more money for the company as a whole. No chance of the club staying as permanent tenants.

There could be no conflict between the 2 companies holding 50% each as neither would have the majority required to harm the other.

Godiva · Nov 2, 2014

Rusty Trombone said:
The price reported at £2.77m is more than the £2m offer from SISU.

The other SISU offer of £5m was tied to the loan being reduced by the bank, which was never going to happen, as proven by the banks rejections of even higher offers.

You may well be right about the other bits, but to keep trotting out this stuff about the previous offer being significantly higher, is frankly nonsense.

You are forgetting the difference in the length of the lease.

BTW - I don't think the £2m offer was ever a serious written offer.
And we don't know if the bank would have accepted a partly write-off of the loan. We only know that ACL/CCC failed in their attempt.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Also-the other thing to bear in mind is that with a 50:50 structure that means that in real terms the revenue you'd get is 40% of the Ricoh's total income, because of ACL's 80% shareholding in IEC. Which would mean that Wasps would benefit from the club's presence as much as the club would benefit from Wasps and give even less reason for one to distress the other.

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
A bidding contest between SISU and Wasps for the remaining 50% is most certainly in the charity's interest and is I suspect in ACL's interest too as of course it means more money coming in when a cut-price value was all that was on the table beforehand. More money for the trustees means more money for its charitable activities so the Higgs representatives on the ACL board would find it very hard indeed to justify voting against it. As for the other directors, having CCFC alongside Wasps means you have twice as much sport going on at the Ricoh which means more money for the company as a whole. No chance of the club staying as permanent tenants.

There could be no conflict between the 2 companies holding 50% each as neither would have the majority required to harm the other.

Sorry you are wrong that is not the way share agreements work in private limited companies.

Wasps want 10@% controlling interest and the directors will support them.

This is a non debate

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Godiva said:
You are forgetting the difference in the length of the lease.

BTW - I don't think the £2m offer was ever a serious written offer.
And we don't know if the bank would have accepted a partly write-off of the loan. We only know that ACL/CCC failed in their attempt.

They stated in court that they offered 2 million for business that was worth nothing. Because the business is a charity.
Seems wasps were more charitable

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Sorry you are wrong that is not the way share agreements work in private limited companies.

Wasps want 10@% controlling interest and the directors will support them.

This is a non debate

If Wasps are outbid how could the directors support them?

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Also-the other thing to bear in mind is that with a 50:50 structure that means that in real terms the revenue you'd get is 40% of the Ricoh's total income, because of ACL's 80% shareholding in IEC. Which would mean that Wasps would benefit from the club's presence as much as the club would benefit from Wasps and give even less reason for one to distress the other.

Especially if CCFC are successful

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
If Wasps are outbid how could the directors support them?

Well two if then are councillors who want 100% to go one way for a start. frankly you are being naive to think this is nothing more than. box ticking excercise to stop future litigation.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Especially if CCFC are successful

A successful CCFC will bring in bigger crowds than a successful Wasps and will financially benefit both clubs. Works better for ACL so why would ACL's directors dismiss it out of hand?

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
A successful CCFC will bring in bigger crowds than a successful Wasps and will financially benefit both clubs. Works better for ACL so why would ACL's directors dismiss it out of hand?

Because those directors have sold to wasps and next month will not be there.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Well two if then are councillors who want 100% to go one way for a start. frankly you are being naive to think this is nothing more than. box ticking excercise to stop future litigation.

Did you not once claim that all contracts were there to be broken? The Higgs want to cover their backs, I get that, but if they are offered a serious amount more as part of a deal that leads to more cash for ACL that all the directors would outright reject it?

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Because those directors have sold to wasps and next month will not be there.

Thought you just said ACL's directors will vote in favour of ACL's interests?

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Thought you just said ACL's directors will vote in favour of ACL's interests?

They will and also in the councils interest which is to sell lock stock and barrel to a consortium funding wasps. They want rid of the loan.

This is a fit up. Lucas throwing a bone to fans pretending there is an alternative is shameful. The ink is dry its 100% you e been had.

Grendel · Nov 2, 2014

Brighton Sky Blue said:
Did you not once claim that all contracts were there to be broken? The Higgs want to cover their backs, I get that, but if they are offered a serious amount more as part of a deal that leads to more cash for ACL that all the directors would outright reject it?

What is the current bid on the table then? Let's entertain this for a minute.

Brighton Sky Blue · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the current bid on the table then? Let's entertain this for a minute.

As far as anyone can tell no bid has been made on the club's part. But let's suppose that a bid from the liquidator which is where it would come from is greater than Wasps' offer by a few million. Accepting it would give 2 sports clubs of comparable size (in terms of attendances) a joint shareholding and from that twice as much coming in to ACL's overall coffers, which also means more going into Wasps courtesy of the IEC set-up.

It would make sense for the Higgs, it would make sense for Wasps and it would make sense for ACL as a whole. Of course, if the club stayed on as tenants this would be negated. But the club in the long run would be better off building a tinpot stadium elsewhere and having 100% of that rather than 0% of a 32,500 capacity Ricoh.

dongonzalos · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
What is the current bid on the table then? Let's entertain this for a minute.

It is a conditional bid. Based on the disclosure of what wasps have bid.
JS wants to see how wasps having done due diligence have got round the compass aspect. Have they been offered anything different to when she ( kind of) bid.
Then she will decide whether to maintain her bid.
I am guessing she has just matched wasps (which is a waste of time)

stupot07 · Nov 2, 2014

Where's OSB when you need him....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

torchomatic · Nov 2, 2014

Very confusing. While I obviously wouldn't trust SISU, I wouldn't trust any of ACL/CCC either as they are one in the same essentially. They just want shot of the Ricoh and SISU. We're all caught in the crossfire unfortunately.

Rusty Trombone · Nov 2, 2014

Godiva said:
You are forgetting the difference in the length of the lease.

BTW - I don't think the £2m offer was ever a serious written offer.
And we don't know if the bank would have accepted a partly write-off of the loan. We only know that ACL/CCC failed in their attempt.

The lease extension was sold by the Council as freeholder, nothing to do with SISU's offer for Higgs share, and the value of it being extended was low at £1m, and the stadium won't last 250 years.

I don't think it's a great argument that the bank may have accepted a hugely reduced offer from SISU when they wouldn't from anyone else, but if you do then fair enough I suppose.

Rusty Trombone · Nov 2, 2014

Grendel said:
Well two if then are councillors who want 100% to go one way for a start. frankly you are being naive to think this is nothing more than. box ticking excercise to stop future litigation.

Which councillors are Directors?

Could Otium (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency