Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
Can you imgine what would happen if CCFC were a premiership club playing in Birmingham in the year of City of Culture!
Can you imgine what would happen if CCFC were a premiership club playing in Birmingham in the year of City of Culture!Well, they managed it for city of sport.
Except the loan forms an integral part of the share valuation at the sale date so it cannot be ignored if sisu are challenging the sale value of the ccc shares. Not about clever accounting. The repayment might be a separate event but the loan cannot be ignored
As far as i am aware no one has seen the detail of the complaint
- On 8th October 2014 Wasps bought the CCC 50% interest in ACL. On 14th November 2014 Wasps bought the AEHC 50% interest in ACL
- The sale was two separate purchases of roughly £2.77m each. The cost of purchasing a company is the cost of purchasing the voting shares.
- That put the sale value of the shares in ACL at £5.54m at that time
Not going to get into an argument with you about it. There is no contradiction or u turn, in what is being said.
The sale value of any companies shares is the agreed valuation of all assets less all liabilities. Explained all of that before many times
Wasps bought the shares they didn't buy the lease as a separate item
The lease was an asset the loan was a liability of acl at the date of sale. So in paying the 5.5m they paid full value for the lease 18.4m and took on the full amount of the loan 14.4m at the same time. The rest of the calculation take account of all the other assets and liabilities. They paid 5.5m for all assets less all liabilities ie the shares, so if they did that they paid the value of the lease
That is all I am going to say on it. It really is very simple and basic.
No change, no bias, no agenda just your lack of understanding
Bias and agenda? LolSo if the lease with a few years left was £18.4 then if it was agreed to extend before the actual sale and we returned before the sale was actually voted on then why didn't anybody say (actually, CCFC are here now it's worth more?)
I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.
So if the lease with a few years left was £18.4 then if it was agreed to extend before the actual sale and we returned before the sale was actually voted on then why didn't anybody say (actually, CCFC are here now it's worth more?)
I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.
Tbh though OSB unless people have experience of company takeovers it can be pretty hard to grasp the detailNot going to get into an argument with you about it. There is no contradiction or u turn, in what is being said.
The sale value of any companies shares is the agreed valuation of all assets less all liabilities. Explained all of that before many times
Wasps bought the shares they didn't buy the lease as a separate item
The lease was an asset the loan was a liability of acl at the date of sale. So in paying the 5.5m they paid full value for the lease 18.4m and took on the full amount of the loan 14.4m at the same time. The rest of the calculation take account of all the other assets and liabilities. They paid 5.5m for all assets less all liabilities ie the shares, so if they did that they paid the value of the lease
That is all I am going to say on it. It really is very simple and basic.
No change, no bias, no agenda just your lack of understanding
Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:
“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”
Valuation without was £16-18m
Tbh though OSB unless people have experience of company takeovers it can be pretty hard to grasp the detail
That's why both sides need solicitors
It’s the valuation by Strutt and Parker of £48 m that’s the issue. Especially as Eastwood was happy to boast the lease extension added minimal value to the deal
They should have got John Williams in for that.asked once to look at automating it and running away quickly
They should have got John Williams in for that.
I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.
So that KPMG valuation was before the sale and subsequent lease extension? Assumes CCFC rent plus associated matchday income would have been worth around 500k per year?Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:
“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”
Valuation without was £16-18m
Ever considered nomination as POTUS or joining QAnon they both love a good unfounded conspiracy
Think you will find in posts of mine in this very thread that I have very good reason for restricting my posting on this site for the last 6 weeks. Nothing to do with bias or agenda, and far more serious than what is perceived in your head.
"Frankly scarlet I don't give a damn"what you think
But thanks to those who sent best wishes.
So that KPMG valuation was before the sale and subsequent lease extension? Assumes CCFC rent plus associated matchday income would have been worth around 500k per year?
They would have amazingly inept lawyers if the deal wasn't done appropriately, really.I think the case has been well made and we pushed it with ccc but they just spoke to the uk judgements and that their position seemed correct. We did say that Eu legislature deal with more state aid issues and may have more knowledge but they seemed pretty happy they received a good deal. Mark has given his opinion further up the thread
I think that’s where I amThey would have amazingly inept lawyers if the deal wasn't done appropriately, really.
There's always been a moral argument they shouldn't have sold to Wasps (and as CCFC fans, am sure we'd all agree with that one!) but in terms of procedure...?
(Annoyingly I can't find the Tim Fisher quote saying it was overvaued, even then!)
City’s chief executive, Tim Fisher, insists they do not regret failing to buy the Ricoh, saying they could not agree to taking it on, as Wasps have done, not only for £5.4m but with the council’s £14m loan on the stadium still to pay.
Depends whether Fisher was quoting before lease extension.Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.
That was December 2014, after the 250 year lease was agreed.Depends whether Fisher was quoting before lease extension.
Plus Wasps had to take on this large debt to complete the deal and finance their business and obviously they've struggled to make the payments on that debt at times -even before lockdowns etc.
When all is said and done SISU would have had to find the 18-19 million to "buy" the Ricoh and presumably weren't aware the extended lease was on the table
[Tim Fisher] cautioned that it might not be in the club’s interest to make a bid for the 50% if it meant being exposed to liability of an unsustainable huge mortgage. The owners will not expose the club to the risk of default of debt with the further administration and points reductions that would ensue.
Isn't the argument that the reason Wasps initial valuation was so much higher was because they were now playing there. If CCFC playing there added £1m to the valuation how did Wasps playing there add tens of millions?Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:
“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”
Valuation without was £16-18m
Isn't the argument that the reason Wasps initial valuation was so much higher was because they were now playing there. If CCFC playing there added £1m to the valuation how did Wasps playing there add tens of millions?
Always enjoy your contributionsUnderstand that and I try to explain in as simple terms as I can and try to do it as far as possible based on facts.
That's why both sides need solicitors
They are a necessary nuisance when you have two people like the ones involved in this.No ! They are a nuisance - definitely need hard headed accountants with creative thinking and answers !
Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.
Tim told us it was worth nothing but were willing to pay as a good gesture.Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.
Tim told us it was worth nothing but were willing to pay as a good gesture.Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.
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?