Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Would you like me to point out if were not for CCC/ACL/HIGGS. CCFC wouldn't exist now. Or does that conveniently slip your mind?
More news on Ryton (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter oldskyblue58
- Start date
Would you like me to point out if were not for CCC/ACL/HIGGS. CCFC wouldn't exist now. Or does that conveniently slip your mind?
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I can see why CCC will do nothing to help CCFC at the moment. I am sure that the strategy is to squeeze the life out of Sisu so that nothing is left for them here. I am not saying I agree with this as it is obviously CCFC that is suffering most. When Sisu have gone it will be totally unacceptable if CCC do not do all in it's power to help repair the damage done.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/council-chief-need-time-rebuild-7651892
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Because it wasn't worth that much. It is only the presence of anchor tenants who invest money that add value.
The contradictory arguments on here are unbelievable, one minute there is an argument stating CCC should leave the Arena empty so SISU can pick it up for next to nothing, then there is one that says CCC should sell it for £42M to Wasps. Personally I believe that professional valuations were carried out and the sale was at a 'reasonable' price especially considering the transfer of outstanding debt in whole which I doubt SISU were ever prepared to accept.
For me that winning argument is different, it is that SISU are not interested in football and have no interest in Coventry City as a football team, they are wholly unsuitable owners.
I think so too, I think CCC need to help CCFC in the future but I do not believe there will be any assistance till SISU are gone and they've dropped all court cases. I look forward to that day but I don't think it will come soon.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
This is the one defining sentence. Let's wait and see if they do. I personally think CCC will bend over backwards to help, but let's wait and see eh?
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Would you like me to point out if sisu hadn't taken us over we wouldn't exist? Or would that just be me being melodramatic like you are? As for your abuse. It just nullifies your opinion. So say what you want. You just show yourself up.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
What if they don't? What if there as hellbent on a city of rugby then as they are now? What if destroying ccfc is about making sure wasps succeed and not much to do with sisu? What if it's about justifying their decision?
ccfcway
Well-Known Member
I wonder where we would have been if it fell through.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Don't talk out of your backside.. SISU were the "Prefered" buyer. Infering more than ONE Or did that (Yet again) slip your mind?
Er......8 points clear at the top of League 2, playing in front of 15,000 + attendances as a fan owned club at Ricoh Arena and looking forward to promotion?
(sigh)
Sent from my SGP611 using Tapatalk
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
QUOTE="Warwickhunt, post: 1179437, member: 4907"]In all this banter no one is questioning why the council sold our assett(Coventry Taxpayers) so cheaply to the WASP's! All this About SISU shit is not giving me that answer. If they had sold it for £42 million the correct valuation I would not have a problem with WASP ownership. Instead the Nationals rags putting out shit headlines this morning about Southgate being involved some tax avoidance scheme these fucking hacks need to dig into the goings on in this deal that's where the good stuff is.[/QUOTE]
In May 2015 lease was re-valued to £48.5m months after Wasps bought the shares of ACL
The shares of ACL were never worth anything like that value. It was the shares not the lease that Wasps bought in September/October 2014
The value of the shares sold in September/October 2014 was the value of all the assets (including the lease which was valued at that time at around £19m) less the value of all the liabilities (including the 14m loan to due CCC) at that time.
The balance sheet value of the ACL group in the 2014 financials (last year before share disposal) was £6.8m.
The group was I would think struggling so was there a premium due on the shares? doubtful. That and when the value of the 250 year lease was attributable is the subject of JR 2
Other stuff
It seems on the face of it CCC/AEHC had a simple financial choice, -
Their shares, that had an ACL balance sheet value of 6.8m, could be sold for £5.4m (in reality both paid a premium on the shares so would make a bigger loss than that, eg AEHC paid £6.5m).
or they could allow ACL to go bust which could allow the owners of CCFC to acquire the site but would certainly mean CCC/AEHC lose their shares for £nil, with the prospect of SISU making profits on the deal when they sold it on sometime in the future.
so in very simplistic terms £5.4m or nothing................. There was no one else actively looking to buy other than wasps it would seem
In May 2015 lease was re-valued to £48.5m months after Wasps bought the shares of ACL
The shares of ACL were never worth anything like that value. It was the shares not the lease that Wasps bought in September/October 2014
The value of the shares sold in September/October 2014 was the value of all the assets (including the lease which was valued at that time at around £19m) less the value of all the liabilities (including the 14m loan to due CCC) at that time.
The balance sheet value of the ACL group in the 2014 financials (last year before share disposal) was £6.8m.
The group was I would think struggling so was there a premium due on the shares? doubtful. That and when the value of the 250 year lease was attributable is the subject of JR 2
Other stuff
It seems on the face of it CCC/AEHC had a simple financial choice, -
Their shares, that had an ACL balance sheet value of 6.8m, could be sold for £5.4m (in reality both paid a premium on the shares so would make a bigger loss than that, eg AEHC paid £6.5m).
or they could allow ACL to go bust which could allow the owners of CCFC to acquire the site but would certainly mean CCC/AEHC lose their shares for £nil, with the prospect of SISU making profits on the deal when they sold it on sometime in the future.
so in very simplistic terms £5.4m or nothing................. There was no one else actively looking to buy other than wasps it would seem
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
In May 2015 lease was re-valued to £48.5m months after Wasps bought the shares of ACL
The shares of ACL were never worth anything like that value. It was the shares not the lease that Wasps bought in September/October 2014
The value of the shares sold in September/October 2014 was the value of all the assets (including the lease which was valued at that time at around £19m) less the value of all the liabilities (including the 14m loan to due CCC) at that time.
The balance sheet value of the ACL group in the 2014 financials (last year before share disposal) was £6.8m.
The group was I would think struggling so was there a premium due on the shares? doubtful. That and when the value of the 250 year lease was attributable is the subject of JR 2
Other stuff
It seems on the face of it CCC/AEHC had a simple financial choice, -
Their shares, that had an ACL balance sheet value of 6.8m, could be sold for £5.4m (in reality both paid a premium on the shares so would make a bigger loss than that, eg AEHC paid £6.5m).
or they could allow ACL to go bust which could allow the owners of CCFC to acquire the site but would certainly mean CCC/AEHC lose their shares for £nil, with the prospect of SISU making profits on the deal when they sold it on sometime in the future.
so in very simplistic terms £5.4m or nothing................. There was no one else actively looking to buy other than wasps it would seem[/QUOTE]
Yet some feel they should have carried on down the route waiting for SISU. To suddenly hand over the cash. When in reality if they stayed at Northampton and waited 3 years they would have possibly got it for free.
The head of the council warned SISU she was no longer going to wait and told them to put in their best offer.
Otherwise she was going to go a different route.
SISU called their bluff and the football club lost out.
Sorry but SISU took a gamble it was their decision that has created our current situation.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Lost the ability to use quotes lads?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm avoiding much of this same old same old, but this struck a chord. I know it's not you welcoming him but... I do always think morals are a dangerous thing to judge on, when some of the most rabid anti-SISU (note again, not you in this!) peopleare happy to turn a blind eye to Steve Evans's past, as long as he wins us a couple of games...
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to believe both valuations stand up to scrutiny. For the value of the lease to jump from £19m to £48.5m in 6 months when the only real difference was the addition of 11 Wasps games a season doesn't, at least at face value, seem to stack up.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
The difference is that they went from an uncertain future to a secured future with a cash pool of £35M raised by the bonds to finance investments, admittedly there is also extra liability but that did not deter serious investors who I'm sure know a lot more than you or me. Also I think you're forgetting the huge lease extension, that may have been a bit undervalued, I think the council should have got double via additional future payments due in 5 and 10 years added to the fee for that deal.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Ricoh isn't valued at £48 million
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I'm the same NW. I just couldn't see how fans actually welcomed that poor excuse for a man Marlon King, and to chant "She said yes Marlon". Morally disgusting.
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
How do you know he that Bury and Scunthorpe have worse budgets than ours? The fact is that it is all speculation and no one on the outside really knows. Looking at the players Bury signed last season I would have thought that their budget was much better than ours (speculation again I know). They finished below us last season so on that basis Flitcroft was a much worse manager than TM but is better than him this season. Is that how managers are judged? Again speculation as I don't know, but the sale of players like Clarke must have swelled their coffers quite a bit as well as reducing their wage bill. The fact is some people like me think that TM was a good manager, probably the best since top flight relegation, doing his best in challenging circumstances. Some people think he was a crap manager (just like all of the others we have had since Gordon Strachan). For me the constant factor is the club and the conditions managers work under. No one succeeds here.
I am genuinely curious, what legislation says the charity and council had to secure the return of their stakeholding?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
There isn't and the charity - if you factor in the loans made to the club - made a significant loss. A loss that could have been offset if the lease was extended much earlier
As for the bank loan - the council took that on the basis the interest they'd make from it over the loan period would go to the benefit of the taxpayer (their claim) so why that's even mentioned i am not sure.
There is no legal obligation as far as the council stands. The council in Nottingham effectively used £6 million of taxpayers money to assist the football club. It's never been established what they got back.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I don't know for sure that there budgets are less, but I would say it's a fairly safe assumption.
I would also say it's a fairly safe assumption that our budget isn't the lowest in the league so to my mind we shouldn't have been in that position.
I agree with your comment regarding the conditions the manger(s) have to work under.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Not true sbk , we would have gone into administration when we should have instead of clinging on for a further few years.
This club would still have existed without any of them , and I include sisu in that.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
4waspsting
Active Member
Lets see if it continues
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Why is Sky Blue Kid still so utterly clueless and spouting ridiculous assertions like CCC / ACL saved CCFC?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Really? So tell me, how or where would CCFC have played and kept the golden share to stay in the football league without CCC/ACL/Higgs intervention with the Ricoh?
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Why is Fernandopartridge such a nobhead? I suppose we'll never know.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They weren't in administration at that point so Christ knows what the golden share drivel is about.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
I suggest both you and hutch1972 get together and work out a plan 
because you both contradict each other
because you both contradict each other
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Surely even you can work out the answer to that one!
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
They could have used HR for a further year or 2 if they wished.
Do you really think that for the paltry sum that ccc put in ( considering the total cost) that they wouldn't have found the extra from somewhere.
I get a vision of a half built stadium overgrown and derelict because of a few quid ! That would never have happened , even without ccc , Higgs or any other group of scam artists.
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Calista
Well-Known Member
Nail on head. SISU had two choices - prove their good intentions, and work to build from the inside (on terms that knew about when they took over). Or try to be clever by attempting to bring the whole thing down from the outside.
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Ccc was regarding the stadium build, the Higgs deal came later which indeed kept the club from going into administration . To think we would have folded without that is ludicrous.I suggest both you and hutch1972 get together and work out a plan