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.
Problem is Godiva that neither the charity nor the council are able to justify just handing over their shares in ACL for nothing. As I said before, SISU seemed set to buy the charity's stake last summer but never followed it up-perhaps they saw it as cheaper to try and bust ACL through Timbo's boycott.
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.
Why would the whole of ACL be worth £6-8m are you just going solely on the value of the mortgage?
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 operating profit will show approximately zero.
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.
I haven't seen the calculation, but it's probably not far off.
I can't explain why it would be a financial better - more robust - investment to build a new stadium, but I am sure that sisu's spreadsheet monkeys know everything they need to construct an investment case. Based on that they will know what is the best solution financially - to stay or to move. I couldn't tell if they're right or wrong as I haven't seen their caculations.
What I can say is that it would be a disaster for the fans and for ACL if the club moves away. A much better solution would be to sell ACL to the club. That is what I am advocating.
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#post372844I 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.
It should be made clear that the Council have never vetoed the Charity share being sold to SISU. PWKH said so here http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...Fisher-tonight?p=372844&viewfull=1#post372844
I've added a bit to my original post but the shop internet connection just dropped for a while, no idea why.The councillor was talking about their own share, not the charity's.
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.
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'?!?
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.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.
There is indeed no harm in asking. The purchase price paid by the Charity is well known: £6.5m. The formula within the Option Agreement is commercial in confidence, both parties, the AEHC and CCFC are bound by the Agreement not to disclose the detail. I don't think it would be out of order if I said that 75% of the price would be based on the original purchase price plus interest and the remaining 25% on the value of ACL. Further than that I cannot go.
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.
You are missing out what the market rate for ACL is, this may and probably is more than the assets on the balance sheet*.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%?
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.
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.
there is only one potential buyer to Higgs shares: ccfc.
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
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.
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:
Imagine being able to count all that turnover toward the club. Wolves aside we'd outspend the rest of the league...
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.
Haha I hadn't considered that! Perhaps Kasabian would be more to their (and my) liking.
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%?
Remember when oasis played the ricoh 4 years ago? Kasabian refused to support them cos they didn't want to play here:jerkit:
Didn't know that. Shame really as I've liked them for years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really? Are Marillion there?
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.
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.
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?