Nick
Administrator
I don't think they have, have they?
Has ACL ever offered the rent deal to Otium or CCFC that it offered to administrator? (5 Viewers)
I don't think they have, have they?
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
OK they never say they want anything for free but they enjoy playing to the media / fans about their lack of revenue sources and the high rent - which were all known at the point of DD, they never refer to the fact that the club sold their rights to this to a charity.
skybluefred
New Member
When did they offer any money and how much was it??? By the fact they are to ignorant to respond to requests for
talks on the Stadia it's unlikely an offer will ever be made.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
All these financial transactions would have been subject to contract that should have been reviewed and understood before signing, Joy is making excuses for the incompetence of the former CCFC owners, they should have clarified it before signing. A poor excuse.
The Prefect
Active Member
A good point Godiva but neither Higgs or CCC are obliged to sell.
I spoke to Derek Higgs at a shareholders meeting and he said the buy back price was calculated using a formula. All the club needed to do was pay the price - and SISU have refused to do this and have lost the opportunity to buy back the Higgs shares.
Why sell all of ACL for say.. £12m when you can stay on for your lease poeriod and make much more money? Compensation for loss of a 40 year lease of the Arena would be huge and require the purchasers of the freehold (SISU?) to pay.
Third parties aren't obliged to support the club - the club's owners are providing they're willing to foot the bill. If Joy wants the Arena and all it's income and potential she can pay the proper price. I'd guess that would be between £90m and £120m.
I recon we will end up with a shitty stadium outside the City instead of a world class facility that stands there now.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
I don't think there will be any new stadium will need millions to be committed without any certainty of it being built whilst they are losing millions playing in Northampton. I think SISU will hold the club to ransom ie for sale at £20m or it will be liquidated, sounds a bit dramatic and far fetched but so is the whole northampton fiasco.
First you argue that sisu won't pay anything for revenue streams. When challenged to show evidence you back down.
Then you say they never refer to the fact that the club sold the rights to revenue streams. When presented with a quote from JS you back down again.
Then you say they should have reviewed the contracts before take over.
Sigh ... Why do you insist on introducing made-up accusations rather than actual facts?
Lol ... why 20m? Why not 50m?
The Prefect
Active Member
There is an arguement that SISU aremdoing this already with their stance on the Arena (owning the freehold) and moving to Northampton.
I think SISU have taken the club hostage. If CCC / ACL / Higgs don't do what SISU want the hostage will be killed - over time.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
What is the formula? Surely it isn't as simple as then paying this as it could be market price x 1000 for all we know..
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
Godiva you need to chill, I have no facts to support whether SISU would pay for the revenue streams that was my opinion based on their actions to date, this is a forum not a court of law but a the quote from JS is hardly something I've backed down over - the old CCFC didn't understand what they were selling when they sold off these revenue streams - how pathetic does that sound McGin & Robbo have been around the business world and and why wouldn't any normal business takeover review all contracts prior to acquiring the company.
Sigh all you want - SISU bought a club which had signed up to all this and chose not to tr to reverse any of these as a condition of sale. Wait a few years until they have run out of ideas on how to operate the club successfully than start all the rent northans nonsense.
Sigh all you want - SISU bought a club which had signed up to all this and chose not to tr to reverse any of these as a condition of sale. Wait a few years until they have run out of ideas on how to operate the club successfully than start all the rent northans nonsense.
The Prefect
Active Member
Remember Derek Higgs had the charity help the club. When I asked what the formula was he wouldn't give all the details. He did say it ensured the charity got a return on their money and it was fair on both the club and charity.
Nick, Sir Derek did nothing but support the club with his time and (some) of his money. Do you really think a thousand times market value is fair comment?
My priority no 1 is to re-unite club and stadium (ccfc and ACL) as this is the only way the club will ever become sustainable and able to fulfil the fans ambitions.
I don't know what your priority is, but I hazard a guess that you are with ACL and therefor protects their interests. That is fine with me - but quite frankly, ownership of ACL is what the club need. Not what CCC need. Not what Higgs Charity need.
Both CCC and Higgs should sell their shares in ACL to the club - no matter who the owners of the club are - better sooner than later and at a price that is not too far from what CCC and Higgs respectively have invested.
Anything else is profiteering on the club ... something that everyone accuses sisu for.
But if CCC/Higgs Charity thinks the stadium is better off without the club, then come clean about - and at least support any planning for a new stadium.
Yes I get that. Your priority is not bringing the club back home - your priority is to get rid of sisu.
I also remember PWKH explaining the formular - not in details, but I think a few of us concluded the price would be around £8m.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
Didn't SISU have the opportunity to buyback the 50% share but decided not to, please don't ask me to reference my sources and produce hard facts to support it. Should the charity sell back to the club at the cost it paid for their share is a reasonable question but I don't think SISU are interested in ACL (again just an opinion) - the freehold and a potential profit on sale.
Paxman II
Well-Known Member
Over time facts get blurred. The 50% share has a buy back option that may still be in place. It does not provide access to income streams.
The 10 year rent deal was never formally offered to the football club.
JP made reference to ownership, this may infer leasehold not necessarily freehold.
Sent from my ST25i using Tapatalk 2
The 10 year rent deal was never formally offered to the football club.
JP made reference to ownership, this may infer leasehold not necessarily freehold.
Sent from my ST25i using Tapatalk 2
ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Agree facts get blurred- here's another.
"No Freehold- No Talks"- Joy Seppala.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-city-fc-owner-joy-6096912
Kind of a roadblock I think?
The Prefect
Active Member
Good point Godiva, I don't disagree with the £8m although I think that is about the price the club was paid when they sold to the charity. Ten years on that figure might be closer to £12m for a buy-back. If that were the case it would value ACL at £20+ million which you might pay to a willing seller. As Higgs and CCC are not willing sellers then the price would be much higher. Higgs and ACL don't have to subsidise SISU's running of the club so they would have to meet on commercial terms. Acquiring businesses at commercial or market value isn't what SISU do.
Add the price of ACL to the freehold and compensation to Compass and it's easy to see a figure very close to £100m.
I am always suspicious of owners that had no money to keep us in the Championship and pay their rent and who now suggest they have tens of millions to keep the club alive in Northampton where they've lost 80% of their home support. If that doesn't define an 'alternate agenda' I really don't know what does...
Seppala's freehold or no talks stance is posturing and it will go on for the next two years at least. My guess is that she'll build the cheapest stadium ever at the last possible minute (year 5 or 6) if she can't get the Ricoh.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
also wasn't it mentioned that the offer Higgs accepted from SISU (that they then never heard anything about again) was well under the formula price?
if it's still in place who does it lie with? I was under the impression it would cease to exist as part of the liquidation process.
Hmm - 'Ten years on that figure might be closer to £12m for a buy-back.'
I am having a little bit of mixed signals going through my head. On one side I think Higgs stepped in to help out the club (think they paid £6.6m). On the other side you say they would expect to be rewarded as investors. So what is it? Did they help out the club or did they enterprise as another sisu-clone?
Same with CCC - did they step in to help us or to profit on our predicaments?
Why should Comapss be compensated? In my mind taking over ACL is not the same as ripping up all existing contracts - just taking them over.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
Godiva you have a point they both helped but can see the opportunities that the Ricoh offer and may be reluctant to let go. My problem is SISU paid cash to MCGin & Robbo for a business with no assets losing money and signed up to the £1.2m rent and the loss of revenue sources. Had there been a proper sale process where the rent/ the revenue sources potential acquisition of the freehold were up for negotiation then other parties would have been involved as it is a better commercial proposition. They bought this company knowing it was in a mess, failed to make a go of it and now want to negotiate for the freehold etc.. 6 years later to recoup their losses, I doubt even SISU expect to make a profit on this.
Nick
Administrator
When did ACL give any figures to the club to sell it? They didn't mention money so it must mean they will give it away for free surely?
I don't remember reading sisu paid the previous owners anything - they paid off all external creditors at a discount, but the previous owners were not to receive anything unless the club returned to the PL within a timeframe (now passed).
The negotiations around the take over ended just short of the club entering administration. That suggests there might have been a real rush in the final weeks to get a lot of stuff done. That always leads to errors and mistakes. Not that it relieves sisu from their duty to do their work properly, but it may explain why they didn't use enough energy on the whole stadium side of the business. They might have been satisfied they would always have exclusive option to buy the Higgs shares.
But failing to buy ACL and/or the freehold six years ago - or failure to try to buy the Higgs shares and get rent reduced through the 'Ranson/Hoffman/Elliott years' doesn't mean they have forefeited any right to seek to acquire ACL now. Not in my book - better late than never.
I actually couldn't care if sisu make a profit or not - they are speculators and know sometimes you win sometimes you lose. But then - if I think it through - I come to the conclusion that if sisu walks away with a nice return on their investments it actually means 1) They walk away! 2) We get new owners and 3) the club is worth much more than 6 years ago. If it's worth more it must mean it is doing better both financially and on the pitch and that new owners think there's a bright future ahead.
So I think I can live with sisu walking away with a nice return on their investments.
The Prefect
Active Member
Good points all. But you have to look at how money devalues over time. If the Higgs Charity could get 5% interest by holding funds on deposit then it is likely that a 5% return on their investment would have been guaranteed by the club. At the time the club was in such a bad financial position that they couldn't get funds from anywhere else to keep going. If the bank wouldn't help then the club should get commercial terms elsewhere - which is what they did.
You give off a vibe that you believe third parties should deal with the club on non-commercial terms. I'm not really sure why. CCC wanted to regenerate the area and contributed huge sums to the stadium development. Council Tax payers in Coventry should DEMAND a return on that investment if it is to be sold for commercial gain - as it would if they sold to SISU.
Taking over ACL doesn't give the club rights to F&B revenues because Compass have paid for these rights through a joint venture company (with ACL). If the club want these revenues they will have to pay compensation to Compass.
The extreme posturing of all sides needs to stop. I'd like the council to state their commercial terms to sell ACL to SISU and the freehold of the Ricoh. If Compass chipped in with their sell-out price then it is simple for example, Ricoh freehold £50m, ACL £25m and £8m to Compass (figures are a guess but I suspect that the reality would be far more). If SISU can provide proof of funds for £80m+ then talk.
TBF, we really need the council to name the figure. SISU can then take it or leave it. No doubt they'll leave it.
shy_tall_knight
Well-Known Member
I have a problem with SISU walking off into the sunset with a big fat profit. Had they got us promoted to the premiership, they would have demonstrated that they could run a football club, us fans would have seen some good times, wins promotion etc...
As far as I am concerned SISU have demonstrated any business acumen when operating at this club, how much of these huge operating losses are to pay for Brody, Igne and Ken Diddlydoo's consultancy fees (used to stay at the Combe Abbey Hotel) Now they have seen us relegated, moved us out of the City to which the true costs is incalculable and IMO just want to benefit from the equity in the freehold of the stadium. If they pay the market price and walk away with a big profit it is just but we all know that there offer will be well short as the further strangle the club in Northants - its dirty and underhand.
As far as I am concerned SISU have demonstrated any business acumen when operating at this club, how much of these huge operating losses are to pay for Brody, Igne and Ken Diddlydoo's consultancy fees (used to stay at the Combe Abbey Hotel) Now they have seen us relegated, moved us out of the City to which the true costs is incalculable and IMO just want to benefit from the equity in the freehold of the stadium. If they pay the market price and walk away with a big profit it is just but we all know that there offer will be well short as the further strangle the club in Northants - its dirty and underhand.
Ah, but then it seems you miss the logic: If sisu are to ever get a positive return of their investments, it would almost certainly require they take the club to the PL. If they do that - I can forgive them a lot. Owning the freehold and playing in division three won't be enough - far from it.
I don't believe any third parties should deal with CCFC on non-commercial terms. But I do believe CCC are different to other third parties. The club is much more than another business - it is an integral and historic part of the city and the community. When we won on Wembley it was Coventry who won, right? So the club is different and it should be treated differently.
But it's a very complex discussion and depending on who you talk to the arguments will be different.
I keep saying - my priority no 1 is to re-unite club and stadium. My priority no 1 is not to retain a personal professional position. It's not to secure a return of investments for sisu. It's not to get rid of sisu. It's nothing of the many agenda's by different people on this board.
It's simply to re-unite club and stadium under the same ownership. That will help make the club financially viable as the profit made by ACL will benefit the club. All revenues made by ACL will contribute towards the FFP calculation making it possible to have a team of more and better players.
If ACL budget for £14m turnover and £1m profit that would make a huge difference for the club - if ACL was part of the Otium/SBS&L group.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Sorry help me with that logical leap at the end. We need access to ACLs revenues, so why does that mean club and stadium must be under the same ownership? Why not just buy ACL?
Yes, it's confusing isn't it? All day I have been going on about the club needing to own ACL and that I am lost as to why JS keep talking about ownership of the freehold.
So when I say 'stadium' I actually mean the stuff that matters ... the businesses, not the Bricks and mortars. I mean ACL.
Oh, and for the record - this is not a new opinion of mine. I think I mentioned it first in one of the three FAQ's I made with OSB a couple of years ago.