bawtryneal
Well-Known Member
Putting your opinion of Mr Johnson to one side, what do you disagree or believe not to be factually accurate within his article.
Bump.
Putting your opinion of Mr Johnson to one side, what do you disagree or believe not to be factually accurate within his article.
Bump.
That is a question not an answer.Well let’s start at the top - who is THJW?
As for credibility on this forum let’s be honest you’ve never had any. How’s Rich and Ginetta these days?
That is a question not an answer.
Where is your analysis?
Lol, you don't actually think I am David Johnson.It’s starting - it’s already started but when the author cannot even get his name right you become somewhat curious
Sure, lets hear it.This article is just an opinion piece based on quotes. The rather long turgid interpretation of Lucas is just that - interpretation - I have a very different interpretation as you i am sure would expect
Sure, lets hear it.
No thanks. Crack on.Perhaps you’d like to comment on my other observations first
Perhaps you’d like to comment on my other observations first
No thanks. Crack on.
Shockingly the rent was based on circa £800k annual cost of running Highfield Rd, ignoring the income the club had full access to there.No I’d like you to answer some questions
You declare 100% accuracy
So can you confirm the formula price was £6.5m at the point of takeover. Can you also confirm with the purchase price what the club would have actually have been entitled to interns of F and B income. When I say club I mean the club and not a shareholding in ACL
The reality is this;
The price (I think it was higher at the time) was a grotesque over valuation
The club would still have had to have paid £1.3 million rent a year
The F and B share was a share for ACL I’m compass and I can see no mechanism that I done would or could have gone to the club
The purchase of these shares would have meant a minority boardroom interest which meant none of the above could have been remedied
The share valuation was on a pitiful lease period which again makes the purchase price laughable
The purchasers of the shares were buying into half the debt
Wasps would NEVER have paid even £2 million for the Higgs shares in isolation as they were worthless on their own
Can you point any inaccuracies in the above?
It was also based on what we were paying when we left. By that time we were paying a large annual penalty for not having vacated the ground at the time promised when it was sold and rented back.Shockingly the rent was based on circa £800k annual cost of running Highfield Rd, ignoring the income the club had full access to there.
The formula price was the maximum price, lower offers could be offered and accepted. The original SISU/Higgs deal was not a formula price.No I’d like you to answer some questions
You declare 100% accuracy
So can you confirm the formula price was £6.5m at the point of takeover. Can you also confirm with the purchase price what the club would have actually have been entitled to interns of F and B income. When I say club I mean the club and not a shareholding in ACL
The reality is this;
The price (I think it was higher at the time) was a grotesque over valuation
The club would still have had to have paid £1.3 million rent a year
The F and B share was a share for ACL I’m compass and I can see no mechanism that I done would or could have gone to the club
The purchase of these shares would have meant a minority boardroom interest which meant none of the above could have been remedied
The share valuation was on a pitiful lease period which again makes the purchase price laughable
The purchasers of the shares were buying into half the debt
Wasps would NEVER have paid even £2 million for the Higgs shares in isolation as they were worthless on their own
Can you point any inaccuracies in the above?
Thought I'd give it a go but there was so many inaccuracies in the opening section alone I lost the will to live.I don't think an idiot could put together an article like that, if you think you can do something that is as comprehensive yet more accurate and illuminating then maybe you could share your considered thoughts with this forum. Even a few paragraphs which illustrate how the JHW article is in some way nonsensical would be worthwhile as an exercise to prove your credibility on this matter.
Dubious factually to say the least. Wasps claim they will not talk unless legal action is dropped however there is nothing in the slightest stopping them. They claimed the same last season and then changed their minds.Legal action that endangers the business of the landlords, Wasps Rugby Club, is preventing negotiations from taking place for the Sky Blues to play at the Ricoh in 2019/20 and beyond.
Johnson states these claims are not supported by the facts, that is factually incorrect.The arguments from CCFC Chief Executive, Dave Boddy are that:
These claims are not supported by the facts. The first is a false premise, because Sisu could and should cease action which has failed at all points to date. The second is an exaggerated interpretation of comments made in the context of Council debate and public relations.
- Sisu won’t stop their relentless litigation over the sale of shares to Wasps in Arena Coventry Limited (“ACL”), which is the leaseholder for the Ricoh Arena, so fans need to turn their attention onto Wasps.
- Coventry City Council gave a cast-iron assurance that the Football Club wouldn’t be adversely affected by Wasps’ acquisition.
Seems to have missed the role the council, who were telling us at every opportunity how disgraceful it was for a club to be playing away from its traditional home location, played in moving a rugby club halfway across the country.The fundamental reasons that Wasps now occupy the stadium built for our football club which faces a homeless future, if not extinction, are:
- The failed strategy of Joy Seppala and Tim Fisher to get the Ricoh on the cheap, thereby leaving the way open for Wasps to make a purchase at value acceptable to the shareholders in ACL;
- The insistence on legal action, taken partly in the name of Otium Entertainment which trades as Coventry City FC, which poses a direct threat to Wasps’ survival, yet has little apparent chance of success.
So you agree then that the suggestion from Johnson that SISU should have paid the formula price for ACL with the existing lease is laughable.The formula price was the maximum price, lower offers could be offered and accepted. The original SISU/Higgs deal was not a formula price.
50% is not a minority shareholder, and both shareholders would hold a veto. A good place to be in to negotiate a new rent deal.
The Council were going to extend the lease to 125 years for no extra payment, as part of the original SISU/Higgs deal.
Certainly, and it doesn't appear that either of the shareholders were expecting the formula price to be paid.So you agree then that the suggestion from Johnson that SISU should have paid the formula price for ACL with the existing lease is laughable.
The formula price was the maximum price, lower offers could be offered and accepted. The original SISU/Higgs deal was not a formula price.
50% is not a minority shareholder, and both shareholders would hold a veto. A good place to be in to negotiate a new rent deal.
The Council were going to extend the lease to 125 years for no extra payment, as part of the original SISU/Higgs deal.
So you agree then that the suggestion from Johnson that SISU should have paid the formula price for ACL with the existing lease is laughable.
By that argument the other 50% shareholding also gave a minority number of directors. The shares are equal, and have equal rights. No majority, no minority.We’ve had this discussion before and 50% shareholding gave a minority number of directors on the board
The only observation I can make is that this is the only subject you ever discuss on here
Both sides had the veto. This is something you have agreed with before. I believe the judge in the recent court case said Higgs held the power as they would only sell to Wasps, he'll probably feel foolish if he finds out that you disagree with him.No business would have bought the Higgs share - that’s the point it was worthless and it’s why wasps purchased the council share - Higgs would always then do what they were told.
Rusty once claimed that the veto worked both ways and the council were second partners as Higgs owned a pub in the town and could threaten to close it and the council would lose the rent
A highly coherent argument
By that argument the other 50% shareholding also gave a minority number of directors. The shares are equal, and have equal rights. No majority, no minority.
Both sides had the veto. This is something you have agreed with before. I believe the judge in the recent court case said Higgs held the power as they would only sell to Wasps, he'll probably feel foolish if he finds out that you disagree with him.
They didn't so I guess not.Do you think Wasps would have purchased Higgs shares in isolation?
The council clearly disagree with you as well
I read the first two paragraphs and couldn't be arsed after, it comes across like a council PR piece, competently ignoring why SISU was the council's favoured buyer for CCFC in the first place.
The Captain has left the building
The F and B share was a share for ACL I’m compass and I can see no mechanism that I done would or could have gone to the club
Can you point any inaccuracies in the above?
The Hill Jimmy Way - a dyslexic group who are keen to see the back of SUSHIWell let’s start at the top - who is THJW?
As for credibility on this forum let’s be honest you’ve never had any. How’s Rich and Ginetta these days?
Shockingly the rent was based on circa £800k annual cost of running Highfield Rd, ignoring the income the club had full access to there.
The idea that the council saved the club is nonsense, CCFC Holdings still had the right way beyond the time the council took over the arena project to buy Highfield Rd back. They sold that right in 2004/05. Derek Higgs was an approx 50% shareholder in CCFCH
Are then agreeing with Grendel that it is nonsense for Johnson to suggest SISU should have paid the formula price?
Would also like to know what interest rate Higgs were using given that they paid £6.5m but the formula gave the buy back price, as confirmed on here by PWKH, in the region of £10m.