Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
They also want compo off the council when they get their extra money off wasps after they underpaid.
Ding ding - round 2 (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Captain Dart
- Start date
They also want compo off the council when they get their extra money off wasps after they underpaid.
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
But the best way to sort all of this is mediation?
This is going to go on for ever...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Well reading between the lines seems to me sisu have put it about 20million plus is their figure they want don’t care how they get it and I think they might will then ship out. What else is there to mediate ? IF a 20 year rent deal for the Ricoh is thrashed out could that tempt interest ? Is the people out there with interest? We are Terry well rock bottom now, gates dwindling, ageing fan base. Sepalla ain’t daft and she’ll see the writing on the wall despite what seems to be her obstinance. Is there any realistic takers though ?
AFCCOVENTRY
Well-Known Member
Dale Evans
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
This Wasps deal with would never have come about if SISU had not moved to Northampton to break the original lease and harked on about a new stadium.
The reason why Wasps got the stadium was effectively engineered by SISU. Now they are unhappy because they got out manoeuvred and by a Council, how embarrassing is that!
The reason why Wasps got the stadium was effectively engineered by SISU. Now they are unhappy because they got out manoeuvred and by a Council, how embarrassing is that!
Last edited:
More responsible and caring owners { even if they had a valid case in all this } would call for mediation and perhaps consider a very cheap rent deal as by way of compensation for say the next 15/20 years and put some of the uncertainty to bed and give some stability and continuity to the football club..............................We haven't though have we !?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Just as a point of order, when all this started to blow up and the SkyBlueTrust did a Q&A with CCFC and CCC (still a good piece of work from the Trust) then it was CCFC whob said (albeit with caveats) yes to mediation. CCC dismissed the idea out of hand...
Yep, well there has always been two sides of this story ! A seedy battle royale and CCFC stuck in the middle of it !
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Good point, but here the Coventry Telegraph suggested mediation on 8th SEP 2016.
Questions over Coventry City's future met with wall of silence
Here some talks initiated by Jim Cunningham MP with support of the Sports Minister started 19th Mar 2017
EXCLUSIVE: Mediation talks under way to keep Coventry City in city involving MPs
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Has everybody forgotten this......................
Coventry plan to build new stadium after departure from Ricoh Arena
Coventry plan to build new stadium after departure from Ricoh Arena
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
I don't think there is anything to mediate about when the Wasps deal was done our owners said Wasps paid over the odds and they were moving on and building their own stadium . You can't talk to people like this I seem to remember one time when talks were discussed they didn't turn up . They had their chance to buy and didn't so move on and build
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
thekidfromstrettoncamp
Well-Known Member
In the statement S B K has brought up a quote from our beloved chairman "People have to understand we do not posture, we do not threaten because that is not how you do business. you only do business in good faith." It would be great if they did
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Given the financial situation of the club and the council/acls distrust of the club and it potential management of the arena, i don't think you can say with any cirtainty that wasps would never have come about if it wasn't for the sixfields debacle. And IIRC there was suggestion that Richardson/wasps had made some form of enquiries a year or so prior to sixfields.
In fact had we not moved to sixfields, I they would have sold to us and we would be on a rental deal here anyway, which would have still given wasps opportunities to come and buy acl. After all aren't they bringing in £60m+ per annum into the local economy.....
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Will try keep this as simple as i can. Had some thoughts about this JR2, not saying i am right i simply do not have the information.
What we know
- ACL & ACL 2006 own the head lease and extension, before & after the share deal. Yes Wasps Holdings own ACL but they are separate companies under the same control (heard that before havent we)
- There is a lease extension granted to ACL not Wasps Holdings and the judges have made that the focus of the JR2
- SISU/ccfc believe the value of the head lease and extension is roughly the same as the Strutt & Parker bond valuation at £48m
- SISU/CCFC have their own experts to back up their valuation but not not a valuation for May 2015 but October 2014 when the shares were sold.
- The argument is that the extension of the lease was inextricably linked to the share sale and it should all have been marketed differently. ie SISU should have been offered similar terms and had first bite (or at least been allowed to compete- what were they doing for seven years?)
- they want Wasps to pay 29m more to the CCC and then compensation to SISU because they missed out
- The judges have allowed things to proceed subject to mediation first
thats the major points isnt it.
There seems to be a fixation on the Wasps bond valuation used as security to the bond issue. But to my way of thinking what it is worth to Wasps is not necessarily what it was worth to CCC & AEHC in October 2014. There could be a difference on the value of the lease extension, there might not be. You see part of the increase in the lease valuation could be due to the 50 year licence the Rugby club has from ACL to be play there - that couldn't have and didn't exist before Wasps bought ACL. Do the Net Present Value calculation of say a rent of £500k (a guess) at 4% discount and that licence adds around £11m to the lease value. So that would seem to account for part of the difference. Of course a major sports tenant also enhances other income streams for ACL derived through its subsidiary IEC a joint venture with Compass to run the events etc. I again do not have the exact figures but an increase in revenue from the site for the next 50 years of the licence would increase the lease value wouldnt it?
As for the bond security well that is based on current valuers opinions and in any case SISU are arguing the value should have been £48m from the start. The threat to Wasps is if they have to find significant funds to make additional payments. But as i said earlier assets can move around groups easily, its happened before in this dispute, and the leases are owned by ACL & ACL2006 so they in theory would be liable for the extra payments should they have to be met. The court could say the lease was worth more in October 2014 how does that change a valuers opinion in 2015 or 2017
In any case it is not the value to Wasps in May 2015 that is important, because that wasn't known in October 2014. A judicial review is a review of what was known at the time and the process to get there. The value of the lease and extension was how much both were worth to CCC at October 2014 that is where any potential loss to the public purse is not in a Wasps later valuation. The head lease had been paid to CCC already and had brought in £21m and ACL accounts showed a lease value of just over £18m. That leaves the extension. Now i would argue the value of extension, what ever it was, is the CCC value of such a lease extension to ACL as it was under CCC/AEHC - a company short of funds, not profitable, and needing major funding to carry on or to be invested in capital projects. That in its self should suggest a somewhat lower value than £30m (wasps paid £1m). Did ACL have a medium term let alone a long term future?
A method of valuing lease values is to calculate the Net Present Value of income streams derived from the lease. So at the date of share sale that would be some discounted value of the income streams agreed to be paid in 43 years time wouldn't it. CCC had already been paid the first 50 years. Could CCC have derived such income without Wasps or CCFC being there? CCFC were not committed long term, only 4 years at an artificially low rent. Wasps were not committed unless they owned it. So ACL were left with what they had, a business struggling to make ends meet and in need of investment. That business of course effectively runs out and the business stops after 50 years. So perhaps a peppercorn rent kicks in and the value of that creates a NPV calculation of extended lease value
Now i have always argued that the original lease was too short and that has contributed greatly to this mess. Had ACL had a 125 year lease them they could have financed things easier and importantly granted CCFC a 100 year lease so securing the club future and value. ACL would have needed less income to meet its commitments and therefore would not have needed to charge as high rent. There would still have been a reasonable rent to pay, at least to start with until CCFC sorted their finances out (dreaming perhaps!), but there would have been options and the prospect of ownership that others like Wasps would not have got a sniff of.
So grant ACL the lease extension before selling the shares is the suggestion. Nice idea but then we get in to State aid again at a time that SISU were looking for any opportunity to distress ACL - they were not worried about ACL surviving in fact they wanted ACL gone. The extension would have had to be valued and the purchase price seen to be paid, i would think it would have been hard for ACL to raise the £1m let alone the £29m+ demanded by SISU as being the value of the extension. You see the accounting entries have to work, not just the state aid law, value the extension at £1m upwards creates loans and liabilities plus a potential for increased interest charges that increase losses, and decrease cash flow of a business in a rocky place already. Accounting entries would be to create a value equally matched by a liability because ACL had no spare cash - which means the same share price. The value of the extension to ACL would be the value Wasps would have to pay for it, which effectively would be repaying the associated loans.
Market the shares and extension. Still yet to be convinced that this means advertise it far and wide, JR2 should tell us if the process was correct or not. But that is what a judicial review is about - a test of process. Which is why i find the judges insistence on mediation curious - you do not mediate process. I dont know about anyone else but i do not see mediation working to avoid a JR2 - they havent gone to court about the various disagreements they went to court over the valuation of the share deal and lease extension.
The Charity shares. There seems to be a focus on CCC being due an extra £29m so does that mean the Charity is due similar or is it caveat emptor (buyer beware). You see put the lease extension in to the value of ACL and that value is split 50:50. Only ACL & ACL 2006 can have the extension. Or are we saying that it is two separate deals?
Mediation - now everything is on the table with two months to clear it all. It took that to get a simple rent deal! Mediation implies compromise, as Ms Seppala once said "I don't do compromise I tell people what I want". Not a positive attitude with the gulf in perception and values between the parties
This court case all seems very muddled to me. I dont think mediation will work but mediate what exactly. If mediation is not focussed on particular issues then it very often becomes hopeless. I think most people hold little hope of its success. In any case were not the judges asked to consider the lease extension not all of the various other issues. Mediation should cover everything it seems including future civil claims and planning permission on sites the club doesnt have or own, it is to me setting it up to fail.
Did anyone else get the impression that the courts didnt seem to understand a lot of things. I can only think they are waiting for clarity at the JR2 or the elusive missing bundles and everything so far has been procedural and ticking boxes. Just my opinion of course. This is a muddle and a mess and that suits one party.
I dont have a problem with things being challenged by a JR....... just get on with it
What we know
- ACL & ACL 2006 own the head lease and extension, before & after the share deal. Yes Wasps Holdings own ACL but they are separate companies under the same control (heard that before havent we)
- There is a lease extension granted to ACL not Wasps Holdings and the judges have made that the focus of the JR2
- SISU/ccfc believe the value of the head lease and extension is roughly the same as the Strutt & Parker bond valuation at £48m
- SISU/CCFC have their own experts to back up their valuation but not not a valuation for May 2015 but October 2014 when the shares were sold.
- The argument is that the extension of the lease was inextricably linked to the share sale and it should all have been marketed differently. ie SISU should have been offered similar terms and had first bite (or at least been allowed to compete- what were they doing for seven years?)
- they want Wasps to pay 29m more to the CCC and then compensation to SISU because they missed out
- The judges have allowed things to proceed subject to mediation first
thats the major points isnt it.
There seems to be a fixation on the Wasps bond valuation used as security to the bond issue. But to my way of thinking what it is worth to Wasps is not necessarily what it was worth to CCC & AEHC in October 2014. There could be a difference on the value of the lease extension, there might not be. You see part of the increase in the lease valuation could be due to the 50 year licence the Rugby club has from ACL to be play there - that couldn't have and didn't exist before Wasps bought ACL. Do the Net Present Value calculation of say a rent of £500k (a guess) at 4% discount and that licence adds around £11m to the lease value. So that would seem to account for part of the difference. Of course a major sports tenant also enhances other income streams for ACL derived through its subsidiary IEC a joint venture with Compass to run the events etc. I again do not have the exact figures but an increase in revenue from the site for the next 50 years of the licence would increase the lease value wouldnt it?
As for the bond security well that is based on current valuers opinions and in any case SISU are arguing the value should have been £48m from the start. The threat to Wasps is if they have to find significant funds to make additional payments. But as i said earlier assets can move around groups easily, its happened before in this dispute, and the leases are owned by ACL & ACL2006 so they in theory would be liable for the extra payments should they have to be met. The court could say the lease was worth more in October 2014 how does that change a valuers opinion in 2015 or 2017
In any case it is not the value to Wasps in May 2015 that is important, because that wasn't known in October 2014. A judicial review is a review of what was known at the time and the process to get there. The value of the lease and extension was how much both were worth to CCC at October 2014 that is where any potential loss to the public purse is not in a Wasps later valuation. The head lease had been paid to CCC already and had brought in £21m and ACL accounts showed a lease value of just over £18m. That leaves the extension. Now i would argue the value of extension, what ever it was, is the CCC value of such a lease extension to ACL as it was under CCC/AEHC - a company short of funds, not profitable, and needing major funding to carry on or to be invested in capital projects. That in its self should suggest a somewhat lower value than £30m (wasps paid £1m). Did ACL have a medium term let alone a long term future?
A method of valuing lease values is to calculate the Net Present Value of income streams derived from the lease. So at the date of share sale that would be some discounted value of the income streams agreed to be paid in 43 years time wouldn't it. CCC had already been paid the first 50 years. Could CCC have derived such income without Wasps or CCFC being there? CCFC were not committed long term, only 4 years at an artificially low rent. Wasps were not committed unless they owned it. So ACL were left with what they had, a business struggling to make ends meet and in need of investment. That business of course effectively runs out and the business stops after 50 years. So perhaps a peppercorn rent kicks in and the value of that creates a NPV calculation of extended lease value
Now i have always argued that the original lease was too short and that has contributed greatly to this mess. Had ACL had a 125 year lease them they could have financed things easier and importantly granted CCFC a 100 year lease so securing the club future and value. ACL would have needed less income to meet its commitments and therefore would not have needed to charge as high rent. There would still have been a reasonable rent to pay, at least to start with until CCFC sorted their finances out (dreaming perhaps!), but there would have been options and the prospect of ownership that others like Wasps would not have got a sniff of.
So grant ACL the lease extension before selling the shares is the suggestion. Nice idea but then we get in to State aid again at a time that SISU were looking for any opportunity to distress ACL - they were not worried about ACL surviving in fact they wanted ACL gone. The extension would have had to be valued and the purchase price seen to be paid, i would think it would have been hard for ACL to raise the £1m let alone the £29m+ demanded by SISU as being the value of the extension. You see the accounting entries have to work, not just the state aid law, value the extension at £1m upwards creates loans and liabilities plus a potential for increased interest charges that increase losses, and decrease cash flow of a business in a rocky place already. Accounting entries would be to create a value equally matched by a liability because ACL had no spare cash - which means the same share price. The value of the extension to ACL would be the value Wasps would have to pay for it, which effectively would be repaying the associated loans.
Market the shares and extension. Still yet to be convinced that this means advertise it far and wide, JR2 should tell us if the process was correct or not. But that is what a judicial review is about - a test of process. Which is why i find the judges insistence on mediation curious - you do not mediate process. I dont know about anyone else but i do not see mediation working to avoid a JR2 - they havent gone to court about the various disagreements they went to court over the valuation of the share deal and lease extension.
The Charity shares. There seems to be a focus on CCC being due an extra £29m so does that mean the Charity is due similar or is it caveat emptor (buyer beware). You see put the lease extension in to the value of ACL and that value is split 50:50. Only ACL & ACL 2006 can have the extension. Or are we saying that it is two separate deals?
Mediation - now everything is on the table with two months to clear it all. It took that to get a simple rent deal! Mediation implies compromise, as Ms Seppala once said "I don't do compromise I tell people what I want". Not a positive attitude with the gulf in perception and values between the parties
This court case all seems very muddled to me. I dont think mediation will work but mediate what exactly. If mediation is not focussed on particular issues then it very often becomes hopeless. I think most people hold little hope of its success. In any case were not the judges asked to consider the lease extension not all of the various other issues. Mediation should cover everything it seems including future civil claims and planning permission on sites the club doesnt have or own, it is to me setting it up to fail.
Did anyone else get the impression that the courts didnt seem to understand a lot of things. I can only think they are waiting for clarity at the JR2 or the elusive missing bundles and everything so far has been procedural and ticking boxes. Just my opinion of course. This is a muddle and a mess and that suits one party.
I dont have a problem with things being challenged by a JR....... just get on with it
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
OK, keep seeing this so let’s see if I can explain why mediation isn’t always a benign thing everyone should agree to.
Mediation is there to help two sides reach an agreement they both want. If one side already has what it wants then there’s no good to come for it from mediation.
Let’s say I want to punch you to death and you don’t want to be punched at all. Any move, however slight, from your position is a loss for you and mediation wouldp be of no use.
Rightly or wrongly CCC believe Sisu have nothing positive to offer so why would they ever agree to mediation?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Said it before, and I'll say it again. SISU will go through mediation whilst just paying "Lip service" with no interest whatsoever. Mark my words.
Moff
Well-Known Member
I don't think your are alone in thinking that. I think they all will.
Its a never ending sack of shite.
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
yes. years to run in this fun and games yet
stupot07
Well-Known Member
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
sadly its more chess than boxing
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
what do you think ccfc should do now, is it time to look at places like Nuneaton or stick at a 1/5th full wasps stadium ?
Adge
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
SISU got the go ahead for a full hearing of JR2 but the judge ordered Wasps / ACL, CCC and SISU / CCFC to have independent arbitration before the hearing to try and solve things. Not heard anything about that since.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Presumably to settle the issue out of court, one method of settlement could be an advantageous long term deal for the club but I doubt SISU want that.
christonabike
Well-Known Member
How about a long term deal at the Ricoh that makes us more attractive to any buyer, Wasps could then attract a major sponsor of the stadium and CCC help the club get a decent training facility at Allard Way or similar.
CCC and Wasps might say fook that why should they but in the long term it could see the pain in the arse Sisu sell up and fook off and let everyone get on with their lives.
Only thinking like .......
CCC and Wasps might say fook that why should they but in the long term it could see the pain in the arse Sisu sell up and fook off and let everyone get on with their lives.
Only thinking like .......
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I would guess that a report will be made back to the court so if you have two sides seemingly being co-operative and open to a deal and the other not the judge won't be too impressed.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Reading about West Ham’s predicament I get the impression that the stadium naming bubble has burst. The Olympic stadium which is high profile for non footballing reasons and has a premier league football club for a tenant is struggling to attract a sponsor. Vodafone being the latest to pull out of a £20M deal, even the amount is paltry compared to say the Arsenal £150M deal.
Even without the legal noise and all the crap that goes with it I’m not convinced that there is a high profile multi million pound stadium sponsorship deal floating around for the Ricoh anymore. There might be a high profile sponsor but I wouldn’t bank on it being for multi million’s looking at the London Olympic stadium.
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
They each have come up with three names now as an a arbitrator.
There is more chance of NI getting sorted before this mess
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Not sure naming rights for the stadium are as big as some think away from the Premiership.
The Ricoh is occupied by a rugby team, some would say a minority sport, and a league 2 football club. It might in those circumstances be better to concentrate on getting elements sponsored so the total pot equates to a sizeable number. It is not that the Ricoh is not sponsored ............. and therefore a total gap in the finances.
Some info on stadium sponsorship (try to ignore Premiership club deals that's way out of reach and not in the real world)
Germany
Stadium naming rights revenue German Bundesliga 2017/18 | Statistic
List of some of the sponsored stadia
Stadium Sponsporship and Football Ground Naming Rights | Football-Stadiums.co.uk
modern approach?
Monetizing Modern Naming Rights | Nielsen Sports
bit out dated but
Ranking Every Premier League Club by Stadium Naming Rights Potential
a national stadium worth £1.5m per year
Everything you need to know about the Millennium Stadium naming rights deal
Rugby stadium sponsorship
Stadium Sponsorship In Rugby On The Rise | GlobalSportsJobs
Peterborough
Posh sell their stadium naming rights for £500k
View of Sheffield Wednesday Chairman
ASK THE CHAIRMAN - PART 9 - Catering and stadium naming rights
The Ricoh is occupied by a rugby team, some would say a minority sport, and a league 2 football club. It might in those circumstances be better to concentrate on getting elements sponsored so the total pot equates to a sizeable number. It is not that the Ricoh is not sponsored ............. and therefore a total gap in the finances.
Some info on stadium sponsorship (try to ignore Premiership club deals that's way out of reach and not in the real world)
Germany
Stadium naming rights revenue German Bundesliga 2017/18 | Statistic
List of some of the sponsored stadia
Stadium Sponsporship and Football Ground Naming Rights | Football-Stadiums.co.uk
modern approach?
Monetizing Modern Naming Rights | Nielsen Sports
bit out dated but
Ranking Every Premier League Club by Stadium Naming Rights Potential
a national stadium worth £1.5m per year
Everything you need to know about the Millennium Stadium naming rights deal
Rugby stadium sponsorship
Stadium Sponsorship In Rugby On The Rise | GlobalSportsJobs
Peterborough
Posh sell their stadium naming rights for £500k
View of Sheffield Wednesday Chairman
ASK THE CHAIRMAN - PART 9 - Catering and stadium naming rights
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The Premier League ones skewed by club owners using it as a mechanism for pumping money into the club, Man City being the obvious one but Newcastle and Stoke too.