Nick
Administrator
I personally think Higgs have been doneover by CCC also.
haha, ok. I'm sure Higgs are kicking themselves.
Don't think that they had much choice in the matter.
They should certainly have got an awful lot more for a 50% share of a 250 year lease on the Ricoh and surrounding land than they did get.
Of course, neither they, nor the Council had to sell an allegedly profitable enterprise at all, and ACL should have negotiated a much longer lease than they had when the loan was rejigged.
As OSB said, this would have added far more value to the ACL asset, value that would have been in the hands of a local charity and local authority, rather than a London Rugby club backed by a Maltese Financial Services company.
This isn't saying that it should have been sold to Sisu at all by the way, just bad business for local taxpayers and charities.
Were Higgs selling a 250year lease with their share of ACL or were they just selling their share which only ever had the remainder of the original lease?
Don't think that they had much choice in the matter.
They should certainly have got an awful lot more for a 50% share of a 250 year lease on the Ricoh and surrounding land than they did get.
Of course, neither they, nor the Council had to sell an allegedly profitable enterprise at all, and ACL should have negotiated a much longer lease than they had when the loan was rejigged.
As OSB said, this would have added far more value to the ACL asset, value that would have been in the hands of a local charity and local authority, rather than a London Rugby club backed by a Maltese Financial Services company.
This isn't saying that it should have been sold to Sisu at all by the way, just bad business for local taxpayers and charities.
I personally think Higgs have been doneover by CCC also.
Their share. The council never allowed such a lease when they had the shares. How charitable
Did Higgs seek a 250 year lease for their share when they had it then?
If I'd been them I'd have kept the 50% share as soon as the lease was extended to 250 years by CCC for Wasps, instant jump in value of their share without having to do anything.
Did the lease on their half automatically get extended to 250 years when Wasps bought the council share with a 250 year lease? I can see how the council could issue a 250 year lease with their share as they own the freehold but i would imagine Higgs share only had the original lease attached to it.
As confirmed by intheknowThe lease is on the property so they would be the same. As stated from the beginning this was a 100% deal for wasps.
It amazes me that you are all still discussing this.
Were Higgs selling a 250year lease with their share of ACL or were they just selling their share which only ever had the remainder of the original lease?
No the charity never owned the lease or part of it. The lease is an asset of the company it is not directly attached to the shareholders
ACL owned the original lease which was granted. The Charity did not. The charity owned the 50% shares in ACL, which were represented by the combined value of the assets and liabilities
Not sure the timings of the lease and who got it. Did London Wasps holdings get it? or did ACL? Was that before or after Wasps getting 50% or 100% of the shares. What became of the old lease? If the old lease were cancelled then where is the refund on the premium paid? Was the refund added to the extra payment by Wasps? Did the old lease provide extra value transferred to the new lease? Was a refund infact due? etc etc
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?