Labovitch calls for independent ACL valuation (3 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

I expressed an opinion, I still hold it.

I also think it would be very bad indeed for SISU to get hold of the Arena & surrounding land, another owner who will finance development is OK, but SISU are unsuitable.

Don't think it's a problem if CCC retain the freehold. They can put clauses is which, if breached by SISU, cause the lease to terminate. Things like any attempt to put us into admin, charge us rent, take out finance against the lease etc.

 

---

[olderskyblue]

You're wrong. More recently.

Who told you this Rob? Can you be sure it's accurate?

 

[skybluetony176]

AFAIK, the document is part of disclosures pertaining to the upcoming JR so they can't be made public by anyone except the owners (e.g. CCC, ACL, Higgs) until they are attached to the skeleton argument / used as evidence.

Obviously ML knows the valuation but can't disclose publicly without falling foul of the law so is trying to get it in the public domain by other means.

Ultimately this is the crux of the whole dispute. ACL's value is lessened without a tenant and CCFC's value is lessened without a lease / asset.

If only there was a way of working this out...

Rob, do you know if Sisu ever went to the european commission for england? the european commission for wales is looking into swansea's anangement of their stadium following a complaint of it being illegal state aid? it seems the mechanism is already in place to have the refinancing of ACL investigated without the expense of the JR but sisu dont seem to have taken it? do you know if they used this channel 1st or did they go straight for litigation? I cant recall seeing any reports of the ACL loan ever been investigated by the european commission.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Don't think it's a problem if CCC retain the freehold. They can put clauses is which, if breached by SISU, cause the lease to terminate. Things like any attempt to put us into admin, charge us rent, take out finance against the lease etc.

I do, it is not like their past form suggests they won't try & wriggle out of those clauses some way.

 

[duffer]

AFAIK, the document is part of disclosures pertaining to the upcoming JR so they can't be made public by anyone except the owners (e.g. CCC, ACL, Higgs) until they are attached to the skeleton argument / used as evidence.

Obviously ML knows the valuation but can't disclose publicly without falling foul of the law so is trying to get it in the public domain by other means.

Ultimately this is the crux of the whole dispute. ACL's value is lessened without a tenant and CCFC's value is lessened without a lease / asset.

If only there was a way of working this out...

There is mate. Drop the plan to distress ACL in the hope of picking up the whole thing on the cheap, and bring the club back to the Ricoh. In itself this will make the club a few million quid next season and rebuild a few bridges.

Once there, start negotiating in good faith, perhaps along the lines of the original roadmap. In other words look again at the Higgs share, clearing down some or all of the mortgage, and persuading the council to extend the lease. But don't expect to conduct these negotiations purely on the back of a valuation done on one part of all this, ACL, at the point when their business was at its lowest point due to SISU's own actions.

In fairness this isn't likely to be cheap. Between them Higgs and CCC have got around £20m tied up in ACL. But I still think it should come in at a lot less than the cost of another four seasons at Northampton and the building of a newer, smaller stadium somewhere outside Coventry.

Seems entirely plausible to me, but clearly SISU would rather persist with the JR and the hope of somehow getting the whole thing on a much cheaper basis, partly through the courts, partly by keeping CCFC in Northampton, partly by pressuring the Council through some kind of fans' group perhaps.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Part of the case yesterday was to have the Duff & Phelps valuation/assessment of ACL and loan included in the disclosures for the JR. It was rejected by Justice Hickinbottom as not relevant to the JR and specifically he wasn't going to get involved in arguments of opinion between professionals. So it would seem on that basis it will not be discussed or produced on 10th June.

What other means can ML use to get in the public domain a report that SISU commissioned and owned by them ?. The reason he nor anyone else cant publish is because it would be a basis for a case of damages to the ACL business. The report is an opinion based on the things that SISU know or think they know it is not an investigation in to the current state of ACL

The dispute?. The only thing currently in dispute is the actions of CCC in making the loan to ACL and that is being dealt with by the JR.

- there is no dispute about rent at the Ricoh...... unfortunately CCFC have no legal right to be there any more the lease is defunct and disclaimed by the liquidator
- there is no dispute about ownership ..... it is fact that CCC own the freehold, ACL the lease and CCFC nothing at the Ricoh
- there is no CCFC interest in any contracts at the Ricoh so no dispute there
- the Ricoh freehold nor its leasehold has not been offered for sale so no dispute on price or valuation
- There is no dispute about the value or deal for the Higgs shares ..... there is no deal a judge ruled since August 2012
- there is now no dispute about conspiracy following the Higgs case .....the judge ruled the Trustees acted beyond reproach and were free after 31/07/12 to pursue other options if any
- no valuations are being disputed between the parties (except on here) because they don't have to, it just is not relevant. The owners of lease and freehold do not need to have a for sale valuation because no one is bidding for it

perhaps that might bring home how just far out on a limb our club is ........ other than a fans need there is no longer a right or dispute to be at the Ricoh

The crux of what dispute is left is whether CCC have acted properly in providing the loan to ACL - nothing else

final question if the council deal depended on SISU purchasing the Higgs shares and no such deal was possible for those shares how could there have been any deal between CCC and SISU?

 

[Rob S]

I expressed an opinion, I still hold it.

I also think it would be very bad indeed for SISU to get hold of the Arena & surrounding land, another owner who will finance development is OK, but SISU are unsuitable.

I agree with you.

I think a lot of the confusion comes with the different ownership terms for any property. In my mind, I own my flat, but technically I have a lease and the building is owned by a freeholder.

In the same way, 'owning the Ricoh' can be seen as your interpretation ('the Arena & surrounding land') or mine ('long lease') which is where the wires get crossed.

So for the record, IMO, negotiations should only be around taking on a leasehold, not complete ownership.

And there need to be negotiations to get started. We've all seen how everything collapsed when the Higgs share buyout ran into problems with valuations etc. so it would make sense to negotiate exactly what would be on the table and how valuations would be worked out, timelines planned etc. before any figures get bandied about.

E.g. Sisu want 199 year lease, CCC only prepared to do 99 = big difference in value & subsequent offer. Compromise = 125 years = yet another value.

Talks about talks always sound a bit silly but they have to be the way forward. Anything to get things moving in a positive direction.

 

[Rob S]

There is mate. Drop the plan to distress ACL in the hope of picking up the whole thing on the cheap, and bring the club back to the Ricoh. In itself this will make the club a few million quid next season and rebuild a few bridges.

Once there, start negotiating in good faith, perhaps along the lines of the original roadmap. In other words look again at the Higgs share, clearing down some or all of the mortgage, and persuading the council to extend the lease. But don't expect to conduct these negotiations purely on the back of a valuation done on one part of all this, ACL, at the point when their business was at its lowest point due to SISU's own actions.

In fairness this isn't likely to be cheap. Between them Higgs and CCC have got around £20m tied up in ACL. But I still think it should come in at a lot less than the cost of another four seasons at Northampton and the building of a newer, smaller stadium somewhere outside Coventry.

Seems entirely plausible to me, but clearly SISU would rather persist with the JR and the hope of somehow getting the whole thing on a much cheaper basis, partly through the courts, partly by keeping CCFC in Northampton, partly by pressuring the Council through some kind of fans' group perhaps.

We both know that the club won't come back before negotiating. Both sides are trying to distress each other and both sides need each other.

 

[chiefdave]

How are talks going to start when SISU are insisting they are building a new ground and are only interested in the freehold? If that stance has changed they need to make that known publically, state there is no new ground, they are interested in a leasehold and they will pay a fair price (whatever that is defined as) for it.

At the moment why would any of the other parties involved enter talks with SISU when they can't offer the only thing they say they want? That's before you even consider the fact CCC would be expected to enter talks with someone who is taking them to court, similarly for Higgs someone who has just tried to obtain a very large sum of money from them through the courts..

 

[martcov]

Part of the case yesterday was to have the Duff & Phelps valuation/assessment of ACL and loan included in the disclosures for the JR. It was rejected by Justice Hickinbottom as not relevant to the JR and specifically he wasn't going to get involved in arguments of opinion between professionals. So it would seem on that basis it will not be discussed or produced on 10th June.

What other means can ML use to get in the public domain a report that SISU commissioned and owned by them ?. The reason he nor anyone else cant publish is because it would be a basis for a case of damages to the ACL business. The report is an opinion based on the things that SISU know or think they know it is not an investigation in to the current state of ACL

The dispute?. The only thing currently in dispute is the actions of CCC in making the loan to ACL and that is being dealt with by the JR.

- there is no dispute about rent at the Ricoh...... unfortunately CCFC have no legal right to be there any more the lease is defunct and disclaimed by the liquidator
- there is no dispute about ownership ..... it is fact that CCC own the freehold, ACL the lease and CCFC nothing at the Ricoh
- there is no CCFC interest in any contracts at the Ricoh so no dispute there
- the Ricoh freehold nor its leasehold has not been offered for sale so no dispute on price or valuation
- There is no dispute about the value or deal for the Higgs shares ..... there is no deal a judge ruled since August 2012
- there is now no dispute about conspiracy following the Higgs case ..... the Trustees acted beyond reproach and were free after 31/07/12 to pursue other options if any
- no valuations are being disputed between the parties because they don't have to, it just is not relevant.

perhaps that might bring home how just far out on a limb our club is ........ other than a fans need there is no right or dispute to be at the Ricoh

The crux of what is left is whether CCC have acted properly in providing the loan to ACL - nothing else

final question if the council deal depended on SISU purchasing the Higgs shares and no such deal was possible for those shares how could there have been any deal between CCC and SISU?

SISU's ACL valuation according to Deering in court is 0,00. joy wanted to, in effect, donate 2 Million. Any valuation above 0,00 would help ACL ;-)

 

[sky blue john]

I expressed an opinion, I still hold it, it is irrelevant if you think you are doing something else, you are not, what i see is that you are supporting SISU & attacking the council/ACL.

I also think it would be very bad indeed for SISU to get hold of the Arena & surrounding land, another owner who will finance development is OK, but SISU are unsuitable.

It would be best for SISU to write off their loses and sell up to someone who wants to run a football club.

Any negotiation which results in SISU still owning the club isn't an outcome I would like to see.

Also, compromise doesn't seem to be a word that is in Joy Seppala's dictionary.

This is exactly how I also feel.
Because of Sisu we are already have to service unaffordable 1.8 million yearly interest payments to Arvo.
God only knows what repayments including rent CCFC would have to pay if the ever got their hands on the Ricoh or ACL.
There is no good situation what so ever with Sisu owning CCFC !!!!

 

[Rob S]

This is exactly how I also feel.
Because of Sisu we are already have to service unaffordable 1.8 million yearly interest payments to Arvo.
God only knows what repayments including rent CCFC would have to pay if the ever got their hands on the Ricoh or ACL.
There is no good situation what so ever with Sisu owning CCFC !!!!

The problem is they do and they have the golden share. You can be as fearful as you like as to what horrors may befall us when we're back at the Ricoh but I'd rather be in that position than the one we're in now.

And if nothing else, they are business people who want to make a profit (or avoid too big a loss). A relatively successful club with a secure home is a far more valuable and sellable asset. It doesn't make any business sense to go back to the rent only situation.

Sure, get Sisu to sell the club without a stadium. First you've got to find a buyer who will see that as an attractive prospect. Good luck with that.

Joy gets bored, gives up on a £60m black hole of debt and just gives it away? Really??? In what acid-fried reality does that happen?

 

[Astute]

You're wrong. More recently.

Tell us why I am wrong then. You seem to be so sure.

They haven't made an offer to Higgs.

They haven't made an offer to ACL.

So what offer have they made and to who? And they have said they don't trust CCC enough to deal with them :thinking about:

 

[Rob S]

Who told you this Rob? Can you be sure it's accurate?

Reliable sources. I was expecting to see something come out this week in the media.

 

[Astute]

We both know that the club won't come back before negotiating. Both sides are trying to distress each other and both sides need each other.

How about taking your SISU hat off now?

Both sides trying to distress each other? So who has tried to distress SISU?

 

[martcov]

No it hasn't. It would be perfectly sensible to make dropping all or part of the JR part of the conditions for negotiating.

How do I know this? Because that is exactly what a third party has been trying to do. There have also been offers for talks from Sisu which have been turned down by the council.

A no brainer. They don't need to offer talks on that basis. It is obvious that CCC cannot and will not negotiate with the JR looming and Joy having said that negotiations are a waste of time. SISU have to announce the dropping of the JR. - its their baby - and affirm that they are willing to negotiate a way out of this impasse. That's all that is needed to move forward. Please mention it at your next Meeting with SISU. If the council refuse to negotiate, I'm with you.

 

[Grendel]

A no brainer. They don't need to offer talks on that basis. It is obvious that CCC cannot and will not negotiate with the JR looming and Joy having said that negotiations are a waste of time. SISU have to announce the dropping of the JR. - its their baby - and affirm that they are willing to negotiate a way out of this impasse. That's all that is needed to move forward. Please mention it at your next Meeting with SISU. If the council refuse to negotiate, I'm with you.

Will the council reverse the decision to reject the CVA then? Or do you think that was a helpful negotiating tactic?

 

[Rob S]

A no brainer. They don't need to offer talks on that basis. It is obvious that CCC cannot and will not negotiate with the JR looming and Joy having said that negotiations are a waste of time. SISU have to announce the dropping of the JR. - its their baby - and affirm that they are willing to negotiate a way out of this impasse. That's all that is needed to move forward. Please mention it at your next Meeting with SISU. If the council refuse to negotiate, I'm with you.

In that case you're with me. It's happened.

 

[torchomatic]

FFS, you are better than that.

How about taking your SISU hat off now?

 

[Astute]

FFS, you are better than that.

And so is Rob. He makes many good points then makes out that ACL/Higgs/CCC have been trying to distress SISU. Most of us know it isn't true. The worse thing you can do is want the fans behind you but make false claims.

 

[sky blue john]

Will the council reverse the decision to reject the CVA then? Or do you think that was a helpful negotiating tactic?

Lol !!!
You seem to conveniently forget that Sisu put the club into administration causing anything that followed !!

 

[martcov]

Will the council reverse the decision to reject the CVA then? Or do you think that was a helpful negotiating tactic?

I don't think they can anyway ( reverse the CVA ), but they had just been ripped off by their anchor tennent. If you remember, CCFC Ltd. became a dormant property company, the players registrations vanished into another company ( we will never know how and when as they don't have to publish the last accounts ) and the golden share vanished ( couldn't be found by Appleton ) and then reappeared after the admin in another company. So, in the circumstances, I think I would have done the same. SISU could have dropped the JR then as a helpful negotiating tactic, but have chosen this expensive and time consuming path of trying to get a JR decision against CCC. All to no avail - as yet. All in all, it is SISU's helüful negotiating tactics that you should be calling into question.

 

[sky blue john]

The problem is they do and they have the golden share. You can be as fearful as you like as to what horrors may befall us when we're back at the Ricoh but I'd rather be in that position than the one we're in now.

And if nothing else, they are business people who want to make a profit (or avoid too big a loss). A relatively successful club with a secure home is a far more valuable and sellable asset. It doesn't make any business sense to go back to the rent only situation.

Sure, get Sisu to sell the club without a stadium. First you've got to find a buyer who will see that as an attractive prospect. Good luck with that.

Joy gets bored, gives up on a £60m black hole of debt and just gives it away? Really??? In what acid-fried reality does that happen?

Plenty of buyers out there for CCFC if Sisu are realistic in their valuations.
Turning a blind eye now to 1.8 million a year interest and further rent & interest from Sisu/Arvo isn't worth decades of pain for CCFC fans.
Just because your happy to take that scenario because we would be back at the Ricoh.
I want CCFC back at the Ricoh but it has to be sustainable not at any cost !!!!

 

[martcov]

In that case you're with me. It's happened.

Great. Has Simon reported it yet?. Let's have a drink to common sense and hope that SISU have seen the light. I trust that SISU are covering the council's legal costs as a "helpful negotiating tactic".

Will now enjoy the "Relegationspiel" tonight - HSV Hamburg v Fürth - in probably the only Coventry themed pub in Germany.... My heart is CCFC, but my wallet profits from HSV...

 

[duffer]

We both know that the club won't come back before negotiating. Both sides are trying to distress each other and both sides need each other.

I'm sorry, in what way are ACL or CCC trying to distress SISU?

 

[Rob S]

Plenty of buyers out there for CCFC if Sisu are realistic in their valuations.
Turning a blind eye now to 1.8 million a year interest and further rent & interest from Sisu/Arvo isn't worth decades of pain for CCFC fans.
Just because your happy to take that scenario because we would be back at the Ricoh.
I want CCFC back at the Ricoh but it has to be sustainable not at any cost !!!!

Sustainable:
Negotiate, say, 125 year lease for CCFC etc.
Sisu offer club + lease (full exit) for, say, £35m
New owners, club debt-free, playing at Ricoh. CCC have valuable asset and an extra £14m in the bank. Possible fan ownership/director options.

Any problem?

 

[martcov]

Sustainable:
Negotiate, say, 125 year lease for CCFC etc.
Sisu offer club + lease (full exit) for, say, £35m
New owners, club debt-free, playing at Ricoh. CCC have valuable asset and an extra £14m in the bank. Possible fan ownership/director options.

Any problem?

ARVO? Investors? Joy SISU Capital? Debt clearance?

 

[Rob S]

I've had to get a train so sporadic posting for the rest of the day and I've been ill for the past week hence not being around here much but will try to catch up properly tomorrow.

There definitely seems to be some favouring of some kind of leasehold deal. I may be mistaken but I think I remember seeing Astute, cheifdave and Lewis33 all mention something along that line.

 

[chiefdave]

Sisu offer club + lease (full exit) for, say, £35m

Ignoring the fact you've said no one is interested in buying the club what indication is there that SISU, who already claim to have put in £60m (plus last seasons losses and the cost of purchasing the freehold) would be prepared to sell the whole lot at a huge loss?

 

[wingy]

Sustainable:
Negotiate, say, 125 year lease for CCFC etc.
Sisu offer club + lease (full exit) for, say, £35m
New owners, club debt-free, playing at Ricoh. CCC have valuable asset and an extra £14m in the bank. Possible fan ownership/director options.

Any problem?

I'll humour you ,what outlay's required to achieve a very ambitious £35M.

 

[Rob S]

ARVO? Investors? Joy SISU Capital? Debt clearance?

Those are indeed words. With question marks.

 

[chiefdave]

There definitely seems to be some favouring of some kind of leasehold deal. I may be mistaken but I think I remember seeing Astute, cheifdave and Lewis33 all mention something along that line.

It's the best of both worlds, CCC retain security and the club, well hopefully the club and not SISU, get all the benefits of ownership. However at present SISU have given no indication that they would consider such a deal, stating they won't deal with the council and are only interested in the freehold, and it doesn't seem to offer a route to SISU even getting their money back let alone making a profit for their investors which Seppala has stated is of the most importance to her over and above our club.

 

[Danceswithhorses]

Both sides are trying to distress each other and both sides need each other.

Still haven't noticed a response to back up the accusation that ACL or CCC are trying to distress SISU, so just thought i'd bump this, in case you had forgotten :thinking about:

 

[Rob S]

Ignoring the fact you've said no one is interested in buying the club what indication is there that SISU, who already claim to have put in £60m (plus last seasons losses and the cost of purchasing the freehold) would be prepared to sell the whole lot at a huge loss?

No interest in buying the club without an asset. A lease would be an asset.

They're a hedge fund. Now we don't know if there is something hedged against CCFC or CCFC is a hedge itself. Or something else.

Make the assumption that they would reduce their losses rather than take the further risk of trying to make all of the money back over a long period of time.

Also, a deal could be done whereby a future owner comes in before the leasehold deal is made.

There are lots of options. The bottom line is, as things stand, Sisu only have the golden share so their only option is build a new place to use it.

This is what Joy intends to do. I want to fight that by getting us back to the Ricoh.

For all the 'you're just a Sisu puppet' banter, I'm actually fighting against them too.

 

[Rob S]

It's the best of both worlds, CCC retain security and the club, well hopefully the club and not SISU, get all the benefits of ownership. However at present SISU have given no indication that they would consider such a deal, stating they won't deal with the council and are only interested in the freehold, and it doesn't seem to offer a route to SISU even getting their money back let alone making a profit for their investors which Seppala has stated is of the most importance to her over and above our club.

Conversely, have CCC given any indication that they would deal with Sisu?