Not for free. I have never said that! They would have to take on the mortgage as well. In addition - if there are free assets in ACL, sisu should pay for that too.
Golden Share Could Be In Holdings After All (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter inside track
- Start date
Not for free. I have never said that! They would have to take on the mortgage as well. In addition - if there are free assets in ACL, sisu should pay for that too.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone here disagrees with wanting the club to ultimately have full control of the Ricoh (which it would when the mortgage is paid). The problem we have is the council's bizarre reluctance to sell to the club regardless of ownership-maybe the change of council leadership will offer a different slant on it.
No reason why the Higgs share can't be taken up though-but I think SISU have burnt all bridges with them which is why their departure is vital for us to ultimately get what we need.
The last ACL accounts showed:
Net assets balance: £6.6m - the mortgage was down to £15.6m
The profit stated was: 1m - the club contributed £1.2m in rent
But the next accounts will add approximately:
Olympics profit £1m
ccfc rent 0
... so the profit will show approximately zero (when they write off the rent owed by ccfc).
But the net assets will drop £1.2m as ACL will have to write off the rent owed.
So net assets balance will be around £5.5m with zero profit and the prospect of major losses going forward without the rent income from ccfc.
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
They seemed happy to cut the rent down by £900k which suggests that it's not as vital to the business as it might otherwise be. The more lenient interest rate set by the council enables it-which is why I don't get the high court challenge. The bailout allowed ACL to offer better terms to the club.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
You misunderstand me dear chap. The King Power stadium - which ignores all the non-footballing baubles at The Ricoh - cost some £37m to build. So, let's go more modest and say £30m to build someting appropriate for our medium-term needs.
The try financing that at, say 2%, over 30 years. The net effect of the compound interest would mean a loan would cost in excess of £3m per annum to repay over that term.
So, the real cost of building a football stadium with a loan over reasonable term is way, way higher than we're paying in rent. Even before reductions.
I'm trying to understand why you seem to think the football club - or any footballing club for that matter, being a privately owned concern - thinks it has a devine right to be housed in a subsidised location; and anyone not prepared to do so is 'ripping them off'?!?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
It should be made clear that the Council have never vetoed the Charity share being sold to SISU, that was just TF with another of his 'inaccuracies'. PWKH said so here http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844
Now the council share is a different matter but not paying the rent for a year might have something to do with that but I'm just guessing.
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The councillor was talking about their own share, not the charity's.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
I've added a bit to my original post but the shop internet connection just dropped for a while, no idea why.
Was this Mr Maton by any chance as I heard him say something about ownership of the Ricoh on CWR and wondered if what he was saying was council policy.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Think so-it was on a post match phone in last month I think.
I am not saying anything about the club having a divine right to be subsidised. On the contrary! I say let the club buy ACL for the net asset value. That is not subsidising, that is paying a fair price.
The ccc will still own the properties, but the club will be able to finanse itself going forward.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
Yeah that was where I heard it too, I can't imagine that he was actually speaking on behalf of the council though, or describing council policy.
James Smith
Well-Known Member
There is a forumla for the sale of the Charity share to CCFC and that again is spelled out as far as he can by PWKH here
Source http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/28335-Another-question-for-PKBH?p=398194&viewfull=1#post398194
I personally don't see why the Charity should lose out, having bailed us out years ago which is how they got the share in the first place.
The existence of the formular has been known a long time and using it will put the price at approx £8m. ACL have said they are willing to negotiate, so maybe they will be happy with £5m-£6m.
But if ACL is only worth about £6m why would anybody spend £5m-£6m on buying 50%?
James Smith
Well-Known Member
You are missing out what the market rate for ACL is, this may and probably is more than the assets on the balance sheet*.
*although as I have already said not amazing on balance sheets.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Again, I don't see why the club should be able to buy at net asset value. ACL has built a business that a lot more rounded than the football alone. Why should that be gifted to whoever runs the football club?
SISU, or whoever owns the club for that matter, could strike a deal that was cheaper than building new; and could bring the added benefit of the additional income streams ACL has developed over the years. That would also boost turnover and alleviate FFP. That's a big advantage and isn't likely to be given away for free. And certainly shouldn't be seized via the mechanism of a distressed-business fire-sale.
This peripheral income is not an advantage enjoyed by any other club in this division. And I can't think of anyone in the Championship who derive as much revenue as ACL have from non-football related activities?!?
There's a value somewhere between 'net asset value' and the crazed notion of building anew that would, and should suit all parties.
However, Fisher's inflammatory recent assertions indicate at least one party has no desire to step ashore to the peninsular of common sense; and so the pantomime will continue
To find a market rate you'll need a market. Only the club seems interested although some would claim that Haskel may also be interested.
Haskel can only buy the shares if they also buys the club - as club and ACL ownership is desired under one owner by all involved (ACL and CCC). So as long as Haskel doesn't own the club, there is only one potential buyer to Higgs shares: ccfc.
In the absence of a 'market' the price is down to what the potential buyer and the seller can agree. So far they don't agree.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
As long as the price asked is the same whoever owns ccfc, this is all I ask.
And the statements from CCC as well as ACL rubbing shoulders with Hoffman/Elliot/Haskel indicate that the last two parties aren't ready for common sense either.
It's not one sided, it's not evil against good - it's finance and politics mixed up ... and messed up.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't greatly argue with that statement. It's a shades-of-grey debate from which nobody comes cast in any fine light.
The business ACL have developed will need to be recognised in any outcome though. It's a tangible benefit to whoever owns what much be the only sensible model from hereon in: one party owning the club, and stadium, it's match-day revenues, and other income beyond. The latter makes a whole lot of sense. And most frustratingly; could still be secured for much, much less than building afresh.....:facepalm:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Imagine being able to count all that turnover toward the club. Wolves aside we'd outspend the rest of the league...
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
One of the many 'if onlys' in this whole sad affair, dear chap.
Imagine Leicester fans coming to see Muse, in effect, supporting our promotion push
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
One of the many 'if onlys' in this whole sad affair, dear chap.
Imagine Leicester fans coming to see Muse, in effect, supporting our promotion push
Haha I hadn't considered that! Perhaps Kasabian would be more to their (and my) liking.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree, current events would surely suggest our luck would gift us Leicester's other 'topline' act, Showaddywaddy....
Remember when oasis played the ricoh 4 years ago? Kasabian refused to support them cos they didn't want to play here:jerkit:
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
That is exactly what the Higgs charity did some years ago to save CCFC, now the club want to turn round & kick them in the teeth.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Didn't know that. Shame really as I've liked them for years.
I was looking forward to seeing them until my mate told me they weren't playing. They'll be a proper band up there in a couple of weeks though.
duffer
Well-Known Member
I've got to admire someone who does the maths
but I'm still not sure I understand how you've come to a valuation of ACL of £6m.Perhaps it's because I haven't grasped what you mean by net assets. My understanding is that is the what the company could pay the shareholders after all of its liabilities are met, on an annual basis. I don't think that relates directly to the value of ACL, which I would suggest would be better defined by the value of the property they own or lease, their turnover, and their potential for profit.
Admittedly, their potential for profit is damaged by SISU's current actions, but the contract for rent is still in place. Either a deal will be struck, in which case they'll be something to put back on the plus side of the books, or it won't.
If there is no deal, and no football club as a tenant next season, I'd presume ACL would look to develop their income in other ways. I'd imagine that if nothing else the stadium and land has value without the club, given it could be redeveloped for other commercial and/or residential use. It's not a nice thought, but from a purely financial point-of-view I'd suggest ACL could value themselves far above £6m, with or without the club.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I was looking forward to seeing them until my mate told me they weren't playing. They'll be a proper band up there in a couple of weeks though.
Really? Are Marillion there?
Actually I would prefer to think of the net assets as the money you get in hand if you wind up the company, pay off all debts and sell off all assets.
If ACL are making a profit around £0.6m-£1m in a 'normal' year with the club paying £1.3m in rent it won't be too difficult to see that if you take away the rent entirely ACL will get into serious trouble. Not only will they miss the rent money, but the club brings in a lot of turnover to Comapss as well and so on. If sisu really takes the club away then ACL will have a very hard time to survive.
If they agree a lower rent ... say 250k per year, it will also effect ACL heavily.
In either case, there's not much profit going forward and a potential buyer of ACL will probably estimate the value equal to the net assets.
There have already been many threads with all kind of suggestions how ACL can survive without the club as tenant. But in reality it will be very difficult and not only ACL will be hurt, their other tenants may also be adversly effected. It could very easily become a downward spiral.
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that ACL already have a better deal in place to finance its debt. As a result of the refinancing, the £400k a year rent is the shortfall that ACL would now have to overcome, so I would expect them to be showing a reduced profit, rather than a loss, until such time as they can generate revenue from other sources.
Nah but rush are at the LG on the 26th. Come and see a proper band
So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before.
And in any case, as long as the court haven't decided the loan is legal it is really quite irrelevant.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The rent isn't the only income the club contributes so I suspect they would take a fairly substantial hit.
What is called "rent" is not rent. It is the sum of the rent that should be paid under the lease and the fees that should be paid under the licence. The significance of this is that much of the licence fee covers direct costs. Thus if the Club doesn't play much of the cost is not incurred and thus the reduction in revenue is matched in part by a reduction in cost.
Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?
Godiva says "So far I haven't heard the mortgage terms have changed ... only that the mortgage is now owned by CCC and not Yorkshire Bank. There are no words that the conditions have been changed, as CCC haven't yet refinanced it. So ACL continue to pay exactly the same as before." It would seem to say that because he hasn't heard that there is any change there can't be. The first part of his statement is presumably fact. He doesn't know. How then can he make a firm statement that there is no change in what ACL pay?
If Godiva is Fisher I don't have a problem because I can simply ignore it, if Godiva isn't Fisher why is he making unsupportable statements that he wishes people to see as fact?