Court Match Thread (14 Viewers)

Whatever people's views of the various participants in this sorry saga, one thing seems certain is that CCC loathe SISU,and from their point of view its not hard to see why, and would clearly be delighted to see the back of them. Again what ever people's views of Wasps,(and like most I don't like the fact they 'own' the Ricoh),they now with good reason from their point of view,have reason to despise SISU. This JR showed it was SISU attempt to effectively bankrupt Wasps,or at least cause them severe financial distress. Now a lot of CCFC fans wouldn't care too much about that scenario,but it clearly gives Wasps good grounds to make sure now they don't do any favours to SISU.
With Hoffman having effectively confirmed under new ownership, he foresaw no problem with staying at the Ricoh, you have to wonder if SISU's 'enemies' now see a golden opportunity to once again try and force SISU out.
They have now ruled out a new ground, moving the team out of Coventry would see gates collapse, and the 'Butts' option seems no more credible than their fantasy new stadium was . While most fans see the FL as next to useless, it is hard to see how they would allow SISU to ground share again, without cast iron and credible plans.
The season is nearly upon us, and the weeks keep ticking by,with no sign of any resolution. Once the season starts, before you know it, Christmas will be here. For the last 2 months we have heard nothing from the club about its plans for 12 months on, it is as if they don't really care.

Sub said:

Oldskyblue58 do you think they have a chance of getting a appeal through and if they do you think they can win or have any grounds to entitle them to compensation ?

Click to expand...

Personally no I don't think they can succeed. However very often going to court is a 50:50 chance and I am not a lawyer. The judge didn't leave much doubt on Friday, and the SISU case seems set in what happened after the decision where as to succeed it needed to be set in what happen before or during the decision. JR is about process leading to the decision

Fundamentally they have a problem in trying to link a lease valuation of another entity to a decision that took place months before. They then have to prove proper process was not adopted leading up to the decision 07/10/2014.

In terms of valuation it is what it was worth to CCC at the date of the decision not what it later became worth to another company. They are not it seems challenging the share transaction, but the lease extension value given to ACL 2006. Could they earn from it in the next 40years - no, so that limits value to CCC. Its fairly basic & standard valuation techniques a lease is generally worth to you a multiple of what you can earn from it and if accepting a lump sum a net present value of those incomes,

The lease worth to Wasps is entirely different. What they can earn from it is considerably more than CCC over the next 40 years, even 250years. Wasps trade from it they sub let it they have a right to income from it.

A lease with Wasps in place long term has to be worth more than a lease with no sports team long term

oldskyblue58 said:

Personally no I don't think they can succeed. However very often going to court is a 50:50 chance and I am not a lawyer. The judge didn't leave much doubt on Friday, and the SISU case seems set in what happened after the decision where as to succeed it needed to be set in what happen before or during the decision. JR is about process leading to the decision

Fundamentally they have a problem in trying to link a lease valuation of another entity to a decision that took place months before. They then have to prove proper process was not adopted leading up to the decision 07/10/2014.

In terms of valuation it is what it was worth to CCC at the date of the decision not what it later became worth to another company. They are not it seems challenging the share transaction, but the lease extension value given to ACL 2006. Could they earn from it in the next 40years - no, so that limits value to CCC. Its fairly basic & standard valuation techniques a lease is generally worth to you a multiple of what you can earn from it and if accepting a lump sum a net present value of those incomes,

The lease worth to Wasps is entirely different. What they can earn from it is considerably more than CCC over the next 40 years, even 250years. Wasps trade from it they sub let it they have a right to income from it.

A lease with Wasps in place long term has to be worth more than a lease with no sports team long term

Click to expand...

And that last paragraph is what is some conveniently try to bury.

chiefdave said:

I wonder, although perhaps giving SISU too much credit, if the idea here is not to win the case particularly but to shine a light on the current valuation of the lease. If KMPG valued it at £600K - 1m that contrasts sharply to the value Wasps currently place on it. If that current value gets queried given that it is security for the bonds could that not be an issue?

What did KMPG actually value? It reads to me like they've valued the freehold with the existing lease in place. That would be worth little as with the lease in place for the next 40 years how do you generate any income? The councils own funding document for the Ricoh build acknowledges that stating that the value of the freehold will rise as the lease draws to a close.

Click to expand...

The worth to CCC Oct 2014 is not the same as the worth to Wasps now for all the reasons I have kept repeating. The security is based on two different valuations provided by independent expert valuers. Investors are not going to be looking at SISU say so when they have published evidence

KPMG valued two things
- the shares
- the lease extension - and yes based on what could be earnt from the lease given CCC had already earnt 21m

Apparently the Judge on Friday stated that if left to him he would not allow an appeal, this cannot bode well for a Sisu appeal.

Regards.

oldskyblue58 said:

The worth to CCC Oct 2014 is not the same as the worth to Wasps now for all the reasons I have kept repeating. The security is based on two different valuations provided by independent expert valuers. Investors are not going to be looking at SISU say so when they have published evidence

KPMG valued two things
- the shares
- the lease extension - and yes based on what could be earnt from the lease given CCC had already earnt 21m

Click to expand...

Is the issue that the lease extension had been agreed before the transaction? Was there not a council meeting to discuss this? KPMG valued a 41 year lease at 600k to 1m? Is the issue that they could/should have sold the lease to ACL prior to the sale to Wasps thus increasing it's value?

oldskyblue58 said:

Personally no I don't think they can succeed. However very often going to court is a 50:50 chance and I am not a lawyer. The judge didn't leave much doubt on Friday, and the SISU case seems set in what happened after the decision where as to succeed it needed to be set in what happen before or during the decision. JR is about process leading to the decision

Fundamentally they have a problem in trying to link a lease valuation of another entity to a decision that took place months before. They then have to prove proper process was not adopted leading up to the decision 07/10/2014.

In terms of valuation it is what it was worth to CCC at the date of the decision not what it later became worth to another company. They are not it seems challenging the share transaction, but the lease extension value given to ACL 2006. Could they earn from it in the next 40years - no, so that limits value to CCC. Its fairly basic & standard valuation techniques a lease is generally worth to you a multiple of what you can earn from it and if accepting a lump sum a net present value of those incomes,

The lease worth to Wasps is entirely different. What they can earn from it is considerably more than CCC over the next 40 years, even 250years. Wasps trade from it they sub let it they have a right to income from it.

A lease with Wasps in place long term has to be worth more than a lease with no sports team long term

Click to expand...

Thanks OSB

skybluetony176 said:

She's unjustified, she's ancient and she comes from moo moo land.

Click to expand...

"Last Train To Transcentral" will not leave the Ricoh station until an hour after full time
For safety reasons.....Thank You.

chiefdave said:

I wonder, although perhaps giving SISU too much credit, if the idea here is not to win the case particularly but to shine a light on the current valuation of the lease. If KMPG valued it at £600K - 1m that contrasts sharply to the value Wasps currently place on it. If that current value gets queried given that it is security for the bonds could that not be an issue?

What did KMPG actually value? It reads to me like they've valued the freehold with the existing lease in place. That would be worth little as with the lease in place for the next 40 years how do you generate any income? The councils own funding document for the Ricoh build acknowledges that stating that the value of the freehold will rise as the lease draws to a close.

Click to expand...

SISU have simply lost approx. £250K (after paying for their own legals and those of the defendants) and harvested bucket full of bad publicity from this fiasco,

I'm sure that was not the intention. They have no case, they will lose.

SkyBlueZack said:

Is the issue that the lease extension had been agreed before the transaction? Was there not a council meeting to discuss this? KPMG valued a 41 year lease at 600k to 1m? Is the issue that they could/should have sold the lease to ACL prior to the sale to Wasps thus increasing it's value?

Click to expand...

The lease extension was valued at the 600k to 1m quoted. It was then down to the valuation being met.

Why would ACL want a lease extension when they were making a loss on the original lease and the football club that it was built for were not interested in the lease or even renting the arena?

The JR process is about what was, not what could should or would have been

I think and said many times from the start ACL should have had a longer lease, that opened up possibilities in dealing with the club. However it didn't mean exactly the same could not have happened. It doesn't guarantee a sale to CCFC or its owners

After set up how were ACL going to purchase the lease before being sold to Wasps? Couldn't get the money from CCC that would almost certainly have been state aid. They had no spare cash flow, were according to many up against it financially and all assets were charged as security for the £14m loan. Even if they had paid £1m for it then the other book entry is an equivalent growth in debt. Did the ACL plans indicate they could drive the business as well as Wasps have given no prospect of an anchor sports tenant - CCFC and SISU had been quite clear they were not coming back long term. The lease extension would have been the same value to CCC on that date no matter who they sold it to.

Would the value of ACL having the longer lease have gone up possibly but not its not certain. It would almost certainly not have added £30m to the sale price. The value today reflects the Wasps input as it would if CCFC now owned it, that's not the same as CCC/AEHC owning it with very limited stadium income. But it had not happened and the JR deals with the decision on what was not what might have been.

The commercial value of a lease owned by CCC/AEHC with no long term sporting anchor tenant is still going to be very different to one for owners with a long term sports anchor tenant

For example Having Wasps there being charged annual rent of 600k by ACL could increase the value of the lease by £16m+ in Net present value terms just on that rent. ie todays value of a lump sum for income streams of £600k at 2% interest over 40 years. As of 07/10/2014 ACL owned by CCC/AEHC did not have that tenant (worked £16m out using this Annuity Calculator - Present Value of Annuity )

Keep in mind the lease is owned legally by ACL as is the extension. The value to ACL will include elements relating to other group members.

chiefdave said:

I wonder, although perhaps giving SISU too much credit, if the idea here is not to win the case particularly but to shine a light on the current valuation of the lease. If KMPG valued it at £600K - 1m that contrasts sharply to the value Wasps currently place on it. If that current value gets queried given that it is security for the bonds could that not be an issue?

What did KMPG actually value? It reads to me like they've valued the freehold with the existing lease in place. That would be worth little as with the lease in place for the next 40 years how do you generate any income? The councils own funding document for the Ricoh build acknowledges that stating that the value of the freehold will rise as the lease draws to a close.

Click to expand...

Bloody hell Dave, let it go. You're starting to sound like Grendull with theories of loosing on purpose.

It was a load of bollocks. Leave it there. A dumbed down for a football forum accountancy lesson from OSB pretty much explains why it was bollocks. Perhaps Joy should read it before making her mind up on an appeal.

There's no gain for SISU and certainly not for CCFC in persueing this.

skybluetony176 said:

She's unjustified, she's ancient and she comes from moo moo land.

Click to expand...

I'm sure "with still no masterplan" is a line from that song too!

The court case is disturbing. One thing sisu are experienced at is arguing in court.

This was lame, lazy and was never going to be considered.

Going to court is clearly the motivating factor - not winning. Imagine if they won in principal but were granted no compensation.

Remaining on the battlefield is their only strategy and has been for a long time.

Grendel said:

The court case is disturbing. One thing sisu are experienced at is arguing in court.

This was lame, lazy and was never going to be considered.

Going to court is clearly the motivating factor - not winning. Imagine if they won in principal but were granted no compensation.

Remaining on the battlefield is their only strategy and has been for a long time.

Click to expand...

Playing for time, to prolong things in the hope wasps default on their Bond ? I'm not sure
But their performances in court thus far are so poor, you can only assume they are not
Really trying.

Brylowes said:

Playing for time, to prolong things in the hope wasps default on their Bond ? I'm not sure
But their performances in court thus far are so poor, you can only assume they are not
Really trying.

Click to expand...

The strategy is just to remain in court whatever the outcome or Seppella has completely lost her direction - either way it doesn't bode well - and it's likely to be the former.

Grendel said:

The strategy is just to remain in court whatever the outcome or Seppella has completely lost her direction - either way it doesn't bode well - and it's likely to be the former.

Click to expand...

So if the court battles rumble on for as long as they can possibly push them, what sort Of timescale
do we think we are looking at before reaching some sort of conclusion, 3, 4 or more years, at which
point there is likely to be very little left of CCFC as a professional outfit.
TBC when I say conclusion I just mean completely exhausted, I don't believe they can win.

Brylowes said:

So if the court battles rumble on for as long as they can possibly push them, what sort Of timescale
do we think we are looking at before reaching some sort of conclusion, 3, 4 or more years, at which
point there is likely to be very little left of CCFC as a professional outfit.
TBC when I say conclusion I just mean completely exhausted, I don't believe they can win.

Click to expand...

In terms of legal action they don't want to win. Want they want is everyone else to collapse and they are still standing. It's world war 1 trench warfare. Throw some wayward bombs but stay in the battle.

No one can seriously dispute this now.

Brylowes said:

So if the court battles rumble on for as long as they can possibly push them, what sort Of timescale

Click to expand...

It was August 2013 when the initial hearing into JR1 took place. So on that basis if JR2 follows a similar timescale that will end around November 2020.

Grendel said:

In terms of legal action they don't want to win. Want they want is everyone else to collapse and they are still standing. It's world war 1 trench warfare. Throw some wayward bombs but stay in the battle.

No one can seriously dispute this now.

Click to expand...

But who's going to collapse? Certainly not a City Council, it's not like they even have
To try very hard or commit much time to it, turn up 'go through motions' win, SISU pay.

skybluetony176 said:

Quite right. My mistake. Strange that it's in pretty much every news article covering the takeover though from the CET to the BBC.

Click to expand...

Alright, a laptop enables me to type an anal response, that I hope to God is the end of this

Anyway, tbf it's clearly the CCFC press release from the time, that lazy journalists re-hash and then put their name on the top of. Within that however the wording, and phrasing, and lack of quote is indeed very significant. As OSB has shown, they have pumped plenty of cash in. Plenty of that cash went on wages on the contracts given. Clinton Morrison, after all, wasn't free - he was the cost of his three year deal, which wasn't cheap. We also had to pay off the balance of Best (and one other's, can't remember who!) transfers when they came in, as the previous owners hadn't managed to actually keep up. Loans too, weren't really free when they were players the calibre of Henderson. And wages for some of the later players brought in were eye watering, when you consider their background. Ranson may have got the nickname of Ruthless Ray but, not convinced his dealings with CCFC deserved it, in hindsight.

So, 'transfer funds' is entirely appropriate. They did indeed spend what they promised. The problem was, it wasn't on fees as hoped by fans. This 'debate' raged on GMK, with me pointing out not to expect the cash to be spent (Ranson, tbf to him, even clarified on at least one, maybe more occasions, that the £20mil wasn't just fees).

Intended to ramp up the hype? Most definitely. But... it's not a SISU specific thing to throw a carrot and let people decide what they wat to. Let's be honest, all the protagnists in the later dramas have done that too. What it proves is never let yourself read what you want to into something, but see what the words actually say, and *how* they're presented.

Anyway, let's move on from this pettiness!

Grendel said:

The strategy is just to remain in court whatever the outcome or Seppella has completely lost her direction - either way it doesn't bode well - and it's likely to be the former.

Click to expand...

If the aim was only to remain in court - presumably to annoy their opponents - then maybe Wasps or CCC or the court bring some action for wasting the court's time or malicious use of the court.

martcov said:

If the aim was only to remain in court - presumably to annoy their opponents - then maybe Wasps or CCC or the court bring some action for wasting the court's time or malicious use of the court.

Click to expand...

wouldn't that mean they remain in court ?

martcov said:

If the aim was only to remain in court - presumably to annoy their opponents - then maybe Wasps or CCC or the court bring some action for wasting the court's time or malicious use of the court.

Click to expand...

Risk resources

Some good guidance here.

skybluetony176 said:

Risk resources

Some good guidance here.

Click to expand...

E.g.:
excessive litigation, where the solicitor fails to consider their other duties when following a client's wish to pursue aggressive and, in particular, speculative litigation

I would have thought Joy's threat to tie the council in litigation if she didn't get her way would come under - excessive and aggressive litigation. She used it as a threat, not really bothered about winning, just making life hard for CCC in the hope they would go for a settlement or she would get her own way.

Whatever way you look at, it's very difficult to see the club emerging from this
Mess 'Well.
Almost seems a waste of time looking forward to the new season

What this whole episode demonstrates is that valuations are largely driven by the preferences of the person who is paying for the valuation. The firms providing the valuations are basically corrupt. And I say that as a former employee of KPMG.

singers_pore said:

What this whole episode demonstrates is that valuations are largely driven by the preferences of the person who is paying for the valuation. The firms providing the valuations are basically corrupt. And I say that as a former employee of KPMG.

Click to expand...

The valuations have been for the same item but in a different condition. So the valuations will be different.

We should all be able to remember Fisher constantly going on about getting an independent valuation of the arena when we were playing in Northampton. The arena had no tenant and no sign of one either. The arena was making a loss. So of course the valuation would have been a lot lower.

So a valuation was done. The valuation for ACL came to about 5.5m which included taking on the debt in place. SISU had already valued it as nothing....but would give Higgs 1m as they are a charity. They also didn't want to take on the debt secured on the lease. No problem here as something is only worth what someone is willing to pay. And to many SISU were the only ones that would be interested in the arena.

Then Wasps come along. They are happy with the valuation. They do what SISU don't. They negotiate. A valuation is done for a lease extension. But as the valuation for an empty stadium is low so is the valuation of the lease extension. They agree to pay the top valuation of 1m.

So Wasps take over CCC's half of the lease. SISU know their plan has gone disastrously wrong. They agree to bring our club home on a cheap rent. SISU put in a bid for the 50% belonging to Higgs. But it includes clauses. SISU say they want to work with Higgs. They want nothing to do with SISU. And anyway the deal is already done. So Wasps have 100% of ACL. So they then pay the top end of the lease extension valuation. They have a paying tenant. The arena has the best attendances since it was built. And it is being used by 2 clubs. F&B goes up. Car park revenues go up.

Time for another valuation. The last one was for an empty unused stadium making a loss. This one is for something totally different. Of course it would be for much more. Nothing corrupt.

Enter JR2. Wasps didn't pay enough allegedly. Yet they paid more than SISU were willing to pay. They paid more than anyone we know was willing to pay. They paid the top end of what it was valued at when empty.....as it was.

singers_pore said:

What this whole episode demonstrates is that valuations are largely driven by the preferences of the person who is paying for the valuation. The firms providing the valuations are basically corrupt. And I say that as a former employee of KPMG.

Click to expand...

Like consultants, can't help but feel they're paid to tell you what you want to hear!

Astute said:

The valuations have been for the same item but in a different condition. So the valuations will be different.

We should all be able to remember Fisher constantly going on about getting an independent valuation of the arena when we were playing in Northampton. The arena had no tenant and no sign of one either. The arena was making a loss. So of course the valuation would have been a lot lower.

So a valuation was done. The valuation for ACL came to about 5.5m which included taking on the debt in place. SISU had already valued it as nothing....but would give Higgs 1m as they are a charity. They also didn't want to take on the debt secured on the lease. No problem here as something is only worth what someone is willing to pay. And to many SISU were the only ones that would be interested in the arena.

Then Wasps come along. They are happy with the valuation. They do what SISU don't. They negotiate. A valuation is done for a lease extension. But as the valuation for an empty stadium is low so is the valuation of the lease extension. They agree to pay the top valuation of 1m.

So Wasps take over CCC's half of the lease. SISU know their plan has gone disastrously wrong. They agree to bring our club home on a cheap rent. SISU put in a bid for the 50% belonging to Higgs. But it includes clauses. SISU say they want to work with Higgs. They want nothing to do with SISU. And anyway the deal is already done. So Wasps have 100% of ACL. So they then pay the top end of the lease extension valuation. They have a paying tenant. The arena has the best attendances since it was built. And it is being used by 2 clubs. F&B goes up. Car park revenues go up.

Time for another valuation. The last one was for an empty unused stadium making a loss. This one is for something totally different. Of course it would be for much more. Nothing corrupt.

Enter JR2. Wasps didn't pay enough allegedly. Yet they paid more than SISU were willing to pay. They paid more than anyone we know was willing to pay. They paid the top end of what it was valued at when empty.....as it was.

Click to expand...

Exactly what the judge said. SISU comparing apples with pears.

Tim saying he wouldn't have taken the Wasps deal because of the outstanding loan should have ended SISUs line of argument.

I would say that if goes further, someone should seriously question Rhodri as to why he allows his client to pursue this aggressive and excessive litigation which, even from our SBT knowledge, has no chance of success- unless someone has a smoking gun hidden away somewhere.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Like consultants, can't help but feel they're paid to tell you what you want to hear!

Click to expand...

Depends what type of consultant you mean.

Consultant fees are high. I have gone private for a bad wrist/hand injury. When I have an appointment that lasts about 10 to 15 minutes. It is to check the progress of my injury. The cost is £110 :jawdrop: But at least I normally get to hear what I don't want to hear :wideyed:

martcov said:

Exactly what the judge said. SISU comparing apples with pears.

Tim saying he wouldn't have taken the Wasps deal because of the outstanding loan should have ended SISUs line of argument.

I would say that if goes further, someone should seriously question Rhodri as to why he allows his client to pursue this aggressive and excessive litigation which, even from our SBT knowledge, has no chance of success- unless someone has a smoking gun hidden away somewhere.

Click to expand...

It isn't down to Rhodri. It is down to his customer. And in JR1 they eventually found a judge who thought they might have a case. And the same might happen with JR2.

Who knows if he has told SISU that there isn't much chance of winning? After all he wanted to be able to change the grounds of JR2 as they went along in court.

Astute said:

Depends what type of consultant you mean.

Consultant fees are high. I have gone private for a bad wrist/hand injury. When I have an appointment that lasts about 10 to 15 minutes. It is to check the progress of my injury. The cost is £110 :jawdrop: But at least I normally get to hear what I don't want to hear :wideyed:

Click to expand...

Consultants at work spring to mind. One place I used to be at many years ago, was having a big reorganisation, changing how we were constituted, and consultants wrote us a report saying this was the best way forward. TPTB then changed their minds, so we had some new consultants who, amazingly enough, ended up with a report telling us that no no no, we should stay as we were!

To lay person it's the same with valuations and, tbf, signing accounts off as going concerns. 'Corrupt' is too strong as it's the general process, but you can't help but feel there are certain box ticking exercises. Of course the total, total basket cases would never get through as people have to justify themselves if it all goes pear shaped, but it's probably safe to say the extreme outliers can be pushed to the client's advantage.

Wasps (and SISU, for that matter!) know how to play the game.

Deleted member 5849 said:

Consultants at work spring to mind. One place I used to be at many years ago, was having a big reorganisation, changing how we were constituted, and consultants wrote us a report saying this was the best way forward. TPTB then changed their minds, so we had some new consultants who, amazingly enough, ended up with a report telling us that no no no, we should stay as we were!

To lay person it's the same with valuations and, tbf, signing accounts off as going concerns. 'Corrupt' is too strong as it's the general process, but you can't help but feel there are certain box ticking exercises. Of course the total, total basket cases would never get through as people have to justify themselves if it all goes pear shaped, but it's probably safe to say the extreme outliers can be pushed to the client's advantage.

Wasps (and SISU, for that matter!) know how to play the game.

Click to expand...

Had them same people in where I work. They normally come out with we have too many people doing a certain job. So it gets implemented. Then management want to know why production has gone down as the experts told them what was best. And those of us that have been doing the job for years don't know as much as them :banghead:

Astute said:

It isn't down to Rhodri. It is down to his customer. And in JR1 they eventually found a judge who thought they might have a case. And the same might happen with JR2.

Who knows if he has told SISU that there isn't much chance of winning? After all he wanted to be able to change the grounds of JR2 as they went along in court.

Click to expand...

According to Tony's link lawyers have duties to third parties and the public interest as well as their clients. And yes, it does seem as if he is making it up as he goes along.