commercial terms to protect the council’s investment in ACL
Interesting point that leads to a couple of questions:
1) could Wasps not have taken out a commercial loan to repay the council thus avoiding any accusations of CCC providing a loan in dubious circumstances.
2) did the council protect their investment or have they in fact lost money by selling to Wasps at such a low price.
You'll have to wait for the next court case to find out.
Interesting point that leads to a couple of questions:
1) could Wasps not have taken out a commercial loan to repay the council thus avoiding any accusations of CCC providing a loan in dubious circumstances.
2) did the council protect their investment or have they in fact lost money by selling to Wasps at such a low price.
The council (and anyone for that matter) can only sell an asset for the market value at that time. The same way house prices go up and down. the Value of ACL had been eroded from previous valuations and offers a they happened in the past. The council may well have lost money but they could not sell their share holding in ACL at a price that was not what could be considered roughly the market price.
But again if that is correct the council have not been truthful when talking about the health of ACL. Remember the outrage every time Fisher said anything about ACL needing CCFC or ACL not performing as well as was being made out. Seems he was right. I never in a million years thought I'd be saying something Fisher said was right but its looking like thats the case.
As i said previously, the accounts filed by ACL would have given an accurate picture on the date of filing. Many company ensure that their cash balance etc.. is at its best when the accounts due. It is a snap shot of the state of the company at that point in time. . The accounts show that they were making money and they would have had a business plan showing growth so that would be the line of ACL. So no lies just a positive outlook.
The basis for Mr Fishers claims ,as the judge pointed out in his findings, that it was the direct actions of the club that were designed to distress the business of ACL. If the revenues are down the net worth of the company come sale time would be less. His interest in promoting his point of view was to actively reduce what the market may view the value of ACL should somebody wish to purchase. They wanted to push it as close to zero as possible. Again no out and out lies but a point of view to promote their strategy.
Surely they would be accurate to the date the accounts cover not the date filed which can be months later. In fact checked at Companies House there are still no accounts filed that cover a period in which we weren't playing there so the same fact remains. CCC were claiming everything was fine with ACL while by your own admission the value of the company was in freefall, not usually a sign of a company doing well.
Agreed regarding the accounting period which shows them in profit. The rest we can only guess without the accounts and is open to spin and suggestion from both sides. I have not said it was in free fall as we do not know what the trading figures were, however I have seen other posts today where previously figures of £25m were offered and at the same time £12m from SISU so given the comments from SISU at high court they valued the business at a figure considerably less than their previous offers. Hence their strategy and statements. I don't thing either CCC/ ACL or SISU ever talked specifics regarding the yet un-published accounts just in generalities i.e. the business is unsustainable, or its does not need the football club and it turns a profit. SISU by their actions wanted the bank to foreclose on the business. The Yorkshire bank would then have owned a football stadium with no team. it would have been theirs to sell as quickly as possible and the council would have got £0.
But if what CCC were repeatedly stating was true why has the value of ACL dropped. You can't have it both ways, if CCC were being truthful they have sold at a price far below the true value, if you believe the amount Wasps have paid is correct then quite simply CCC have been far from truthful when claiming us not being at the Ricoh had little impact and the future was bright.
The loan what is its value and what are WASPS responsibilities to it, surely this is key in establishing the true value of the purchase price
So the Higgs share was worthless all along then?
So the Higgs share was worthless all along then?
It's not guesswork though, CCC and Higgs have clearly stated over and over again that their projections show ACLs business getting stronger and stronger. That shouldn't be plucked out of thin air it should be based on facts, some of which only they have access to as owners of the business.Agreed regarding the accounting period which shows them in profit. The rest we can only guess without the accounts and is open to spin and suggestion from both sides.
I have not said it was in free fall as we do not know what the trading figures were, however I have seen other posts today where previously figures of £25m were offered and at the same time £12m from SISU so given the comments from SISU at high court they valued the business at a figure considerably less than their previous offers. Hence their strategy and statements. I don't thing either CCC/ ACL or SISU ever talked specifics regarding the yet un-published accounts just in generalities i.e. the business is unsustainable, or its does not need the football club and it turns a profit. SISU by their actions wanted the bank to foreclose on the business. The Yorkshire bank would then have owned a football stadium with no team. it would have been theirs to sell as quickly as possible and the council would have got £0.
The market price is what someone is willing to pay for it. (not what has been spent on it or what we would like to think its worth) WASPS offered £2.77 for ccc's share SISU offer roughly the same so by at least two points of reference the market said that a 50% stake in ACL was worth about £2.77 million in October 2014.
I suspect that the value on 22nd Dec is somewhat more than a couple of months ago that with a 100% owner, a rugby team and a football team in residence and two parties interested in ownership
Your not answering my question, I genuinely don't know what the position is with the loan, in my understanding if they have paid £5.2m plus taken on responsibility for a £10m loan, then the total purchase price is £15.2m not just £5.2m, I'm not trying to score points just understand what WASPS have actually paid for a 250 year lease
Your not answering my question, I genuinely don't know what the position is with the loan, in my understanding if they have paid £5.2m plus taken on responsibility for a £10m loan, then the total purchase price is £15.2m not just £5.2m, I'm not trying to score points just understand what WASPS have actually paid for a 250 year lease
£5.2m is crazy when you consider in a few months they are likely to get at least double that for the stadium naming rights renewal.
The loan what is its value and what are WASPS responsibilities to it, surely this is key in establishing the true value of the purchase price
Is the loan now with wasps or ACL? If it's with wasps they have responsibility, if it's still with ACL Ltd, then it's them (the stadium company) responsibility.
Apparently not every time I correct someone saying the deal is worth around £20 million I keep getting reminded that it is only worth £5.5 Million.
Is the loan now with wasps or ACL? If it's with wasps they have responsibility, if it's still with ACL Ltd, then it's them (the stadium company) responsibility. Wasps are just the major share holders. The problem is, that the loan is built within ACL's operating costs, like any bill or standing order. That would have likely remained in ACL regardless of who took over. So then it boils down to upfront cash. And in upfront cash terms they paid around £5.5m.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Apparently not every time I correct someone saying the deal is worth around £20 million I keep getting reminded that it is only worth £5.5 Million.
Apparently when someone asks you what you bought your house for it the deposit you paid, not the other say 200k of mortgage or whatever figure. You agreed to be responsible for. Apparently we can just forget that figure.
Apparently not every time I correct someone saying the deal is worth around £20 million I keep getting reminded that it is only worth £5.5 Million.
Apparently when someone asks you what you bought your house for it the deposit you paid, not the other say 200k of mortgage or whatever figure. You agreed to be responsible for. Apparently we can just forget that figure.
Look at it this way, you lend me £1m to buy a factory. I then sell that factory to Coca Cola, they pay me £200K and will continue to make the loan payments to you, there's £500K outstanding on the loan. Have Coca Cola just paid you £500K to buy my factory or have they paid me £200K to buy it?
I would say they have paid £200K to me and taken on £500K in liabilities which they will pay out of the money their newly acquired factory generates.
Look at it this way, you lend me £1m to buy a factory. I then sell that factory to Coca Cola, they pay me £200K and will continue to make the loan payments to you, there's £500K outstanding on the loan. Have Coca Cola just paid you £500K to buy my factory or have they paid me £200K to buy it?
I would say they have paid £200K to me and taken on £500K in liabilities which they will pay out of the money their newly acquired factory generates.
I bought a flat with a 100% mortgage. So I got it for nothing - except a liability. On my deeds the purchase price is recorded as 130000 ( coincidentally the price of my mortgage.... ), and I paid stamp duty on that amount - although I didn't part with a penny. In ACLs case they will repay the loan out of their income and I pay my flat off out of my income. So did I pay 130,000,00 for my flat - as the taxman says - or did I get a free flat? - according to you guys.
If you rented it out and paid back the mortgage out of your rental income then yes it looks like you got it completely free. What a bargain a flat worth £130000 sold for nothing. I need to get in on that game.
Sounds a bit Fugazi to me.
I bought a flat with a 100% mortgage. So I got it for nothing - except a liability. On my deeds the purchase price is recorded as 130000 ( coincidentally the price of my mortgage.... ), and I paid stamp duty on that amount - although I didn't part with a penny. In ACLs case they will repay the loan out of their income and I pay my flat off out of my income. So did I pay 130,000,00 for my flat - as the taxman says - or did I get a free flat? - according to you guys.
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?