Do anybody know what the yearly rent is for the new lease yet ?
Also what did ACL pay yearly for the old lease ?
Do anybody know what the yearly rent is for the new lease yet ?
Also what did ACL pay yearly for the old lease ?
Higgs and the Council were mad not to accept the offer on the table from Sisu before could also be said.
As I've never seen the ACL accounts and know nothing about the relative margins of different events I can't believe I ever said that. I may well have prefaced a statement like that with the something like "IF they can get more" because as I said I don't have any factual information to prove or disprove it.Well James I seem to remember that we had this debate some time ago and I did question the viability long term of the stadium. but you assured everyone the conferences and especially weddings were more profitable that the club renting the pitch.
Well that's great for Wasps then isn't it, not so good for us in fact that was the second main point of my post. You said that we're not going to build our own stadium, so that means we'll be tenants at the Ricoh for ever. Now as we all know thanks to TimWhen you say offered something you seem to conveniently forget they have offered far more back. A 180 year extension to the lease this of course has significant value.
Well I'm sure that the Higgs will be grateful of your ability to see into the future and the fact that despite the fact that they haven't sold anything yet, they won't be investigated for any sale of their shares in the future. As you said above I've only ever said that they "could" be subject to an investigation not that they definitely would or wouldn't be, my crystal balls clearly aren't as big as yours.Another thing you frequently stated is that the charity could be subject to an audit from the charity commission if it sold for less than the initial amount. Hogwash as we thought .
In fact if you look at the construct of the deal out together that the council blocked (see LS) it was arguably better and certainly no worse - remember we know nothing of the payment terms of the present deal and probably never will.
As for good deal for the taxpayer what does that mean. £9 per head is hardly good for 9 years into a project is it. If you are referring to discharging the loan then I would draw your attention to the fact the council said it would make a profit from that loan - something you and the many posters on here supporting the move were eager to point out.
I assume you're being sarcastic here. As I have said before I don't agree with Wasps coming in and think it is highly hypocritical of the council.Anne Lucas says ACL was washing its face.
Well she's washed her hands of the supporters of Coventry based sport.
Hurrah for the Great Leader
Http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threa...-a-new-Stadium?p=586854&viewfull=1#post586854James Smith said:what if they are approached by someone else who wants to buy the ACL lease and the board recommends the deal to the shareholders? The Higgs are apparently keen to sell and the council might decide that the financial position would be better if they sold their shares (or even the freehold if a sensible offer comes in). What if the buyer has deeper pockets than Sisu, where does that leave the club apart from in Northampton hoping that plan A wasn't BS?
No it wasn't.
Still at least you give me fond memories of vinyl and record players and the stylus getting stuck on the same bit, over and over and over again.
'CCC took out some prudential borrowing totalling 21m to help pay for the construction.'
This was the total amount that CCC put into the construction of the Ricoh ? if so, How on earth did they get to be in such a powerful position by putting in less that 1/5 of the capital to build the stadium?
The council were aware of SISU's plan to distress the mortgage. It has never been denied. As such they sought the alternative. Got cold feet or whatever.Do you mean like you still going on about CCC going behind the backs of SISU to refinance the mortgage instead of SISU attempting it when it was nothing to do with SISU?
It wasn't all they put in.
CCFC put in very little but were given an equally powerful position.
Do you mean like you still going on about CCC going behind the backs of SISU to refinance the mortgage instead of SISU attempting it when it was nothing to do with SISU?
At least I go on about things that actually happened, not just in your head.
You are missing the point. The Ricoh would belong to sisu not CCFC and the Club would be paying rent at whatever level sisu chose to implement.
It wasn't all they put in.
CCFC put in very little but were given an equally powerful position.
And twisting the truth to make out as though CCC were wrong to do what they did. Or trying to put an excuse together for SISU.
SISU have fucked up big time whatever way you try to word it.
Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!
Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!
I think you'll find they only put £2.7 million in.
CCFC had the option to buy which expired. CCFC never actually owned it the land purchase of £24m was eventually done by CCC
CCFC contracted for a lot of expenses for the project yes but also ended up owing for most of it. CCFC were allowed to net the costs against creditors and to have that net figure included as their initial investment in the build project. That in the end totalled a net £6.8m. When they ran out of money CCFC sold that investment to the AEHC for £6.5m taking a loss on investment of £300k - that is the amount if any that CCFC has "invested" in the build.
CCC sold some of the land to Tescos who paid CCC £42m and took over the decontamination costs etc £17m. The £42m was invested by CCC in the build cost of the stadium. CCFC never owned the land
Total build cost £115m including original land purchase £24m and decontamination £17m.
Main elements of Funding were Tesco sale for cash £42m, decontamination and other cost taken on by Tesco £17m, Council equity £10m, Prudential loan (that was repaid by lease granted to ACL for same amount ) £21m, various other grants etc were the balance.
It is a myth that CCFC actually paid net cash in to the project in the end................. other than £300k that they did not get back when they sold their interest to the Charity
Source council docs and CCFC ltd & CCFCH accounts
there is also info here
http://www.skybluetrust.co.uk/index...c-ltd-holdings-ricoh-build-years-1993-to-2007
Didn't CCFC buy and decontaminate the land and sell part of it to Tesco for a very large profit, the majority of which was spent on building the ground? I think CCFC put in a far larger amount than CCC for what has turned out to be no position(other than a shitty one) at all!
Just listened to the PWKH interview for the first time. I don’t pretend to be an expert, so apologies if I’ve got any of this wrong (and especially if I’m sowing false seeds of hope).
1) He said that Higgs “would like to accept” the Wasps offer for their shares – that suggests to me that no formal or enforceable deal has been done. Anyone know?
2) He said that the offer from Wasps had triggered a contract clause to give the liquidator of CCFC Ltd. “an opportunity make the purchase” (presumably by at least matching the Wasps offer?). I believe that within ACL each party has the right to veto any sale of the other party’s shares, and that the Council’s right of veto has now passed to Wasps. But does that really extend to vetoing the company which has a contractual option to purchase? What I’m asking is – could Wasps actually veto a sale of the Higgs shares to CCFC Ltd? Has anyone got access to the contract documents for a definitive answer to that?
3) He said that the liquidator can “pretty much do what he likes” if it benefits the creditors of CCFC Ltd. If correct, that seems to provide quite a lot of leeway and room for manoeuvre.
4) The 30 days is just an interpretation of the legal requirement for a “reasonable time”. Higgs wouldn’t expect a deal to be completed within that time – in fact if I got it correctly, all they need within 30 days is an indication of whether CCFC Ltd. INTEND to make an offer. If that’s right, the time frame isn’t as impossible as some people have said on this thread (or has been reported by the Telegraph). Again – can anyone clarify this?
5) The option still rests with CCFC Ltd. because no-one asked Higgs to reassign it when SISU set up the new company structure for the club. WHAT?!
6) A final thought, nothing to do with anything said by PWKH. Just supposing a far bigger bid came in for the Higgs shares from a completely new party – would Wasps really veto it at the expense of the charity? I believe the charity is bound to do the best thing for itself financially, and under those circumstances, might they not just refuse to sell their shares to Wasps?
The Council and the Higgs have both basically said that the ball is now in SISU’s court, to decide whether they want to bid for the shares or not. Even by the standards of this sickening and bitter dispute, if that turns out to be a piss-take (of the fans as well as SISU) they will have plumbed new depths. And if there really is still a way for the club to get a half share in the Arena, and SISU pass it up in favour of their new stadium, they can stuff it. I’ve had enough of these games now.
Can sell the shares to a liquidated company if it benefits the creditor.
Was there an interview on Sky Sports where Ann Lucas mentioned higgs share?
Sadly Fred, I don’t – I came along just a few years too late! But I have it on good authority (the very best authority in fact) that Norman was a fine player, and it’s great that his playing days are still remembered.
Thanks for the response.
Yes I saw that, she said it was for sale and that the club could purchase it if they wished.
The councillors don't seem to know this the way they have been tweeting, I wonder what their advisor actually told them when they were told how to vote.I missed it and cant find online...
Surely she must know this is now practically impossible unless either 1. She knows something we don't re veto or 2. She completely misunderstands sale??
The councillors don't seem to know this the way they have been tweeting, I wonder what their advisor actually told them when they were told how to vote.
I missed it and cant find online...
Surely she must know this is now practically impossible unless either 1. She knows something we don't re veto or 2. She completely misunderstands sale??
Any other suggestions?
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?