Does SISU know how to play that game? They valued the share at nothing, but were prepared to give Higgs money as it was a charity. Who valued the share for them? Were there consultants involved or did they just make that up?
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 personit'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.
In JR1 they found a judge who thought they might have a case. So that one is covered. It might have lasted a few years but it is still one case.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.
I think they do.Does SISU know how to play that game? They valued the share at nothing, but were prepared to give Higgs money as it was a charity. Who valued the share for them? Were there consultants involved or did they just make that up?
Of course they know how to play the game. Look how long the litigation has lasted without having a valid case.Does SISU know how to play that game? They valued the share at nothing, but were prepared to give Higgs money as it was a charity. Who valued the share for them? Were there consultants involved or did they just make that up?
Yup. JR1 had an argument a judge thought was worth making. That it was thrown out didn't affect that. So the only question mark is JR2, and I'd assume it's harder to make a case it's malicious on just one case too, if it ends up thrown out... although I'm no lawyer, and my CCFC-training on law is less than that on accountancyIn JR1 they found a judge who thought they might have a case. So that one is covered. It might have lasted a few years but it is still one case.
If they find a judge who thinks that they have a case in JR2 they are covered again.
Memory has me think 200% or 300%, but I won't say without evidence
Did he join because of his love of CCFC or did he see an earner?I'm thinking that's an awfully high interest rate, but I won't say that until you give me the evidence
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I got it wrong with my memory ref: Ranson and Cardiff so I have to apologise. The interest rate on £2.5mil was a mere 50%...Did he join because of his love of CCFC or did he see an earner?
Did he join because of his love of CCFC or did he see an earner?
The Guardian said:Coventry's most recent annual return, from six months ago, stated that through his company R2 Sports Group, which describes itself as pursuing "sources of income in relation to the football industry", Ranson holds 16% of the club's shares.
No idea...just thought that statement was hilariousDid he join because of his love of CCFC or did he see an earner?
I find most of your posts hilarious...No idea...just thought that statement was hilarious
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
We are controlled by SISU.Wonder if CCFC are owned or controlled by Seppala...
What I don't understand is you are only able to have an interest in one football club in the same country. Yet we don't know who has an interest in our club. So there is the chance that someone who has an interest in our club could have an interest in another club. Yet the FL does nothing.Actually CCFC do not know who controls Otium according to Companies House
View attachment 7769
Similarly with SBS&L
View attachment 7770
Wasps holdings
View attachment 7771
I think they do.
From a financial POV, their administration was beautifully planned, and like it or not they came up with a solution to break the rental agreement. Their trying to conjure up a value to something which has no value and, given the tools they had, I think on a purely financially speculative level (note the caveats people) they do a good job in trying to play what hand they have. That certain things haven't come off doesn't mean the play hasn't been worth making from their POV.
Isn't there a rule that you only have to declare above a certain percentage of ownership?What I don't understand is you are only able to have an interest in one football club in the same country. Yet we don't know who has an interest in our club. So there is the chance that someone who has an interest in our club could have an interest in another club. Yet the FL does nothing.
Over 12% IIRC.Isn't there a rule that you only have to declare above a certain percentage of ownership?
No the shareholder valuation is £5.5. million. The loan is irrelevant in terms of valuation it is a charge to the business.
ACL cost them about 5.5m....this was with taking the debt secured on the stadium on. But taking on the debt wasn't part of the purchase price. The lease extension cost them 1m. So they paid 6.5m.The commercial value of the transaction is what it cost WASPS ie £19million,I think you are missing the point as SISU quote this isn't that the true price as surely if they thought that the real transaction price of getting a stadium on a 240 yer lease was as low as £5.5m they would have quoted that as the lower the cost the more it would suit their argument.
ACL cost them about 5.5m....this was with taking the debt secured on the stadium on. But taking on the debt wasn't part of the purchase price. The lease extension cost them 1m. So they paid 6.5m.
Yes they then paid the debt off. But they paid the debt off with more debt secured on the arena. They also paid off the 6.5m with debt secured on the arena. Richardson also got 10m of the money owed to him from Wasps which is secured as debt on the arena. And the first few interest payments was paid for as debt on the arena. So you could say that they have paid for nothing yet :wacky:
So if we were a sporting franchise and were looking for a stadium, what cost would you have calculated for the Ricoh, ie if you wanted the owners to give you the cash would you have said £6.5m gets you a stadium on a 240 year lease
I didn't make the valuation. It also came with debt attached though.So if we were a sporting franchise and were looking for a stadium, what cost would you have calculated for the Ricoh, ie if you wanted the owners to give you the cash would you have said £6.5m gets you a stadium on a 240 year lease
They desperately wanted to win both legal actions.
God you're boring. You repeat the same crap over and over .Dong. When will you learn. They lost JR1 on purpose and they'll do the same with JR2. The experts on here have concluded so.
God you're boring. You repeat the same crap over and over .
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Probably yawwwwwwwnHaven't you said that before to me? Zzzzzz
Unfortunately it's now quite clear as some always believed. SISU needed the football club to pay for itself. Unfortunately for us fans division four was always going to be the place where this club would end up under such a policy.
The club needed to pay for itself Whilst initially SISU attempted to break ACL as a business via the rental strike, prolonged negotiations and the move to Northampton.
It then needed to pay for itself whilst legal action was taken against the council. With the aim of winning and recovering compensation. Also the hope that whilst this dragged on ACL would go out of business or be sold cheaply to SISU due to the pressure of the legal action and a poor business model with CCFC either paying non or minimum rent if we returned.
JR1 in most sensible people's opinion had no chance. So we had to sit and wait for it to end whilst the club is not funded and relegation happened.
The hope was once it was over we may get owners who want to fund the club.
Now we have JR2 in my opinion. The aim of this was to win and hopefully force Wasps to sell ACL.
Again whilst it drags on we pay minimal rent and hope Wasps business plan is unsustainable.
JR1 and that plan was a complete failure left us with no possibly of buying ACL and created the atmosphere that in the eyes of the council justified them selling out to a franchise. (Total failure)
JR2 is the first part of it is in its first steps to failure (winning the legal action to break Wasps financially)
Part 2 paying minimal rent so Wasps business plan fails whilst CCFC pays for itself. Is also about to fail. They will demand a rent from us that works for them.
If we leave again we will not be sustainable like were not first time round when we left.
Next summer if JR2 has concluded by then I expect SISU to walk.
They desperately wanted to win both legal actions.
Do you work in a laundrette? Rinse and repeat.
So say all of us, but I honestly can't see this Club ever making a full recovery, the damageI'm looking forward to the day when we can all feel like this whole affair is over and done with for good. I want to go back to supporting the club without all the question marks hanging over us such as where we'll be playing in 5 years etc, and not supporting/opposing the various parties in a multi-faceted, increasingly spurious-looking, litigation.
Big city like Cov, new owners winning cooperation and goodwill from others such as Wasps/council, leading to progress on the pitch and an enthused supporter-base, could be the start of the upward spiral. The current owners are the stumbling block to that, and that's been the case for a few years now - once new owners are running the club, we'll have a great opportunity for a fresh start with a much wider set of possibilities.So say all of us, but I honestly can't see this Club ever making a full recovery, the damage
Is to severe and the wounds are too deep :emoji_frowning2:
Who said they are making money?
Rich? It isn't their money they have been losing.
I have said that they have made the situation worse. But it is not all down to them. We were losing over half a million a month when they took over. It was never going to be easy.
The division between the supporters isn't the worse thing they have done. To me it is losing the chance of ownership of the Ricoh. If they hadn't tried to get it for next to nothing to maximise their profits it could now be with our club. But you can't guarantee that.
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?