New owners of CCFC required ? (4 Viewers)

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

Grendel said:
An exclamation free post. Things must be bad in pro council land.

You may want to dance around your handbags on the other thread with he said she said !
The facts that are relevant to ccfc supporters.

1) Sisu can't do a deal for the Ricoh.
2) Playing outside Coventry in front of 10% of fans.
3) 40million + In debt with nothing to show for it.
4) Paying fees and interest on debt of between 1-2 million a year which is unsustainable at sixfields.
5) Sisu can't deliver new stadium in Coventry.

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for Sisu to be replaced with owners who can deliver the basics required.

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
What needs to happen though to generate interest? If people are interested in buying the Club they'd be interested now as well?

Sisu aren't willingly going to put the Club on sale, so any investor that is interested has to step forward now.. But there is nothing..

There is no point saying we need new owners when no one is willing to buy!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously it won't happen until Sisu decide to cut their losses.
The biggest asset is the golden share which would be worth a minimum of 10 million.
So at best they could get 15-20 million back and would have to right off the rest.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
Obviously it won't happen until Sisu decide to cut their losses.
The biggest asset is the golden share which would be worth a minimum of 10 million.
So at best they could get 15-20 million back and would have to right off the rest.

Frankly I think that's a generous valuation..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

Bennets Afro said:
Regardless of how much higgs paid for its 50% stake in acl. That is now only worth 50% of what acl is now worth.

Does anyone know how much acl is worth??? Didn't the council get it valued at £6m before the remortgage ???

The value of ACL is irrelevant. As neither Higgs nor CCC need to sell they are in control of the asking price. SISU either need to negotiate a deal or stop talking about doing so (which they seem to have done).

From what I gather over the last few days a Heads of Terms (HOT) was agreed for £5.5m for the club to acquire the Higgs 50%. An exclusivity agreement was signed giving SISU a few weeks to do their due diligence. From the information I read, the due diligence wasn't completed and yet the club then decided that the price was too high and wanted to pay £2m. The reason given was 'increased risk' to SISU (or the club).

TBH, I don't buy much of this. Having failed to complete the due diligence it's difficult to know how they can revalue down to £2m. Such a revaluation would be on something more substantial than 'increased risk'. I hope the barrister in court asked for this to be clarified as I believe it' could be viewed as a 'catch-all' designed to try and go back on the HOT agreement to drive down the price. Once again, classic tactics from people that acquire distressed business but not one for an agreed takeover.

By withdrawing rent to ACL there's an attempt to distress them - which puts SISU back into familiar territory and we now hear a valuation of nothing.

Smoke and mirrors IMHO.

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

The Prefect said:
The value of ACL is irrelevant. As neither Higgs nor CCC need to sell they are in control of the asking price. SISU either need to negotiate a deal or stop talking about doing so (which they seem to have done).

From what I gather over the last few days a Heads of Terms (HOT) was agreed for £5.5m for the club to acquire the Higgs 50%. An exclusivity agreement was signed giving SISU a few weeks to do their due diligence. From the information I read, the due diligence wasn't completed and yet the club then decided that the price was too high and wanted to pay £2m. The reason given was 'increased risk' to SISU (or the club).

TBH, I don't buy much of this. Having failed to complete the due diligence it's difficult to know how they can revalue down to £2m. Such a revaluation would be on something more substantial than 'increased risk'. I hope the barrister in court asked for this to be clarified as I believe it' could be viewed as a 'catch-all' designed to try and go back on the HOT agreement to drive down the price. Once again, classic tactics from people that acquire distressed business but not one for an agreed takeover.

By withdrawing rent to ACL there's an attempt to distress them - which puts SISU back into familiar territory and we now hear a valuation of nothing.

Smoke and mirrors IMHO.

You haven't actually read anything from the last day on this site have you?

Grendel · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
You haven't actually read anything from the last day on this site have you?

Clearly not!!!

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
You haven't actually read anything from the last day on this site have you?

I have and there still seems to be some very gullible posters on here.

lewys33 · Apr 4, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
It's all good saying new owners are the answer and you're probably right John, problem is no investor is queuing at Sisu's door demanding to discuss a deal to purchase the Club..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where is Dhinsa?!?!

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
You may want to dance around your handbags on the other thread with he said she said !
The facts that are relevant to ccfc supporters.

1) Sisu can't do a deal for the Ricoh.
2) Playing outside Coventry in front of 10% of fans.
3) 40million + In debt with nothing to show for it.
4) Paying fees and interest on debt of between 1-2 million a year which is unsustainable at sixfields.
5) Sisu can't deliver new stadium in Coventry.

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for Sisu to be replaced with owners who can deliver the basics required.

Can anyone dispute these facts ?

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
You haven't actually read anything from the last day on this site have you?

Yes I did! I read a huge amount on here and elsewhere.

I merely pointed out that the owners of ACL can name their price - so any valuation is theirs and theirs alone.

What did you miss from yesterday?:thinking about:

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
I have and there still seems to be some very gullible posters on here.

Gullible enough to fall for Chris West's emails? So when he talked about engaging a PR campaign to show ACL / CCC / Higgs in a good light and the club or SISU in a bad one, he was lying?

lewys33 · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
Can anyone dispute these facts ?

Yh -

1) They can they just wont
3) we sent barton out on loan.
4) probably shy of another 2 mill ...........

Jack Griffin · Apr 4, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
It's all good saying new owners are the answer and you're probably right John, problem is no investor is queuing at Sisu's door demanding to discuss a deal to purchase the Club..

I think everyone that might be interested is waiting for an insolvency event, which may come after the JR.

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
Can anyone dispute these facts ?

I've added one for you

6) No new owners would now want to deal with a council who have been shown to conspire against the tenants at the Arena

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

lewys33 said:
Where is Dhinsa?!?!

Dhinsa, Haskell or Mr Blobby it makes no difference my friend, CCFC need new owners, this much is plausible, but currently no one has stepped forward to Sisu and asked for negotiations.

There is no point looking towards things that aren't happening, when the scenario is totally different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

Jack Griffin said:
I think everyone that might be interested is waiting for an insolvency event, which may come after the JR.

Word of interest in your post Jack "might". There is no guarantee that anyone is interested in purchasing a Club at the third tier, with a sizeable debt, no stadium and with a history of being shadowed by Financial issues, with senseless fools running the madhouse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
Can anyone dispute these facts ?

No - you sum things up quite nicely.

The Judicial Review is next but that only debates long term funding of ACL. I don't see it opening doors for SISU to acquire ALC any time soon.

There is very strong evidence that the current owners have burned their boats with the club's fans. If they remain then things will get worse before they get better (isn't this SISU's line).

New owners would be in the best interests of the club and its supporters. I have a feeling that SISU will want all of their investment back and a return on it as their loans are in accounts as recoverable assets (due within 1 year).

fernandopartridge · Apr 4, 2014

The Prefect said:
No - you sum things up quite nicely.

The Judicial Review is next but that only debates long term funding of ACL. I don't see it opening doors for SISU to acquire ALC any time soon.

There is very strong evidence that the current owners have burned their boats with the club's fans. If they remain then things will get worse before they get better (isn't this SISU's line).

New owners would be in the best interests of the club and its supporters. I have a feeling that SISU will want all of their investment back and a return on it as their loans are in accounts as recoverable assets (due within 1 year).

I thought they hadn't invested anything?

Godiva · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
You may want to dance around your handbags on the other thread with he said she said !
The facts that are relevant to ccfc supporters.

1) Sisu can't do a deal for the Ricoh.
2) Playing outside Coventry in front of 10% of fans.
3) 40million + In debt with nothing to show for it.
4) Paying fees and interest on debt of between 1-2 million a year which is unsustainable at sixfields.
5) Sisu can't deliver new stadium in Coventry.

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for Sisu to be replaced with owners who can deliver the basics required.

sky blue john said:
Can anyone dispute these facts ?

1) They can't because CCC won't allow it
2) Playing at sixfields because CCC wouldn't do the deal they initially participated to construct.
3) Debt is owned to themselves. If it's ok for ACL/CCC why not for Otium/ARVO?
4) Ah - the management fees that was never there, but keeps being quoted
5) No, because the CCC won't allow it

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for CCC to be replaced with owners (of ACL) who can deliver the basics required.

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I thought they hadn't invested anything?

Maybe waste money would be a better term than invest.

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

How much do Sisu Value CCFC ?
Going by Sisu's valuation of ACL who year on year have made profit including through the rent strike.
With 40million + of debt CCFC must be less than worthless ?

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
I thought they hadn't invested anything?

You thought wrong. They have invested. No disputing that.

Question is, how much?

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
How much do Sisu Value CCFC ?
Going by Sisu's valuation of ACL who year on year have made profit including through the rent strike.
With 40million + of debt CCFC must be less than worthless ?

The debt is the problem, what is CCFC worth? You would have to figure that the Club is worth around £5-£6m with all it's assets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
The debt is the problem, what is CCFC worth? You would have to figure that the Club is worth around £5-£6m with all it's assets.

You then need to deduct its liabilities. That's a net deficit of more than £30m.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

Godiva said:
1) They can't because CCC won't allow it
2) Playing at sixfields because CCC wouldn't do the deal they initially participated to construct.
3) Debt is owned to themselves. If it's ok for ACL/CCC why not for Otium/ARVO?
4) Ah - the management fees that was never there, but keeps being quoted
5) No, because the CCC won't allow it

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for CCC to be replaced with owners (of ACL) who can deliver the basics required.

I can see the response now Godiva.. "But ACL/CCC have offered a tenancy deal, the Club could go back to the Ricoh" but should they? The Club doesn't want a tenancy at the Ricoh, they want to be able to access all the revenues that a Football Club generates which to me sounds justifiable. Problem is for that to happen at the Ricoh specifically a deal needs to be agreed and no deal is forthcoming is it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cranfield Sky Blue · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
You may want to dance around your handbags on the other thread with he said she said !
The facts that are relevant to ccfc supporters.

1) Sisu can't do a deal for the Ricoh.
2) Playing outside Coventry in front of 10% of fans.
3) 40million + In debt with nothing to show for it.
4) Paying fees and interest on debt of between 1-2 million a year which is unsustainable at sixfields.
5) Sisu can't deliver new stadium in Coventry.

Once you accept these facts then the only conclusion for all ccfc supporters is for Sisu to be replaced with owners who can deliver the basics required.

Aren't you missing the point that there is still a very big danger SISU could walk away and put the club into liquidation? Among other options.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

The Prefect said:
You then need to deduct its liabilities. That's a net deficit of more than £30m.

I appreciate that but the question was "How much do Sisu value CCFC?" I answered based on there being no debt. Of course in the world we live in we know this not to be the case.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Prefect · Apr 4, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I appreciate that but the question was "How much do Sisu value CCFC?" I answered based on there being no debt. Of course in the world we live in we know this not to be the case.

Indeed. I seem to remember JS saying that she wants a return for her investors. If they have put in £35m over six years she might need to seek more than £50m to get a 'return' for her investors.

It's hard for everyone, SISU included. I'm sure they want to get rid of this mess. Fact is, they can't as they would have to write off debt in order to do so.

RoboCCFC90 · Apr 4, 2014

The Prefect said:
Indeed. I seem to remember JS saying that she wants a return for her investors. If they have put in £35m over six years she might need to seek more than £50m to get a 'return' for her investors.

It's hard for everyone, SISU included. I'm sure they want to get rid of this mess. Fact is, they can't as they would have to write off debt in order to do so.

I wouldn't say that necessarily because Joy Seppala said "I want a return for my investors it means she will want beyond £35M, of course I am sure Joy and her investors would welcome this greatly, but realistically even if Joy received £20M it might be enough, I suppose what I am trying to say is that any sizeable return might be enough to tempt someone, but it also goes back to the point I made before SBJ who in their right mind is going to pay £25M for this Football Club in it's current state? No one and that's actually leaning on the assumption there are investors interested which there is no proof of either.

Writing off the debt would be the last case scenario for Sisu hence why they would rather convert the current debt to equity and build Legoland, as Joy Seppala said herself it would be absolutely a high risk strategy including more financial burden and added burden of the Club (not sure Sisu see this Club as anything more than that). At least over an extended period of time, should they be able to build a Stadium for the Club to pay in it might start to recoup some of the investment, but as many have said, including I, the whole new Stadium theory is doomed to fail at about a percentage of 85%, but it wouldn't be high risk if it wasn't?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stupot07 · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
I don't need to its all in Acl's latest filed accounts. And would be worth a lot more with CCFC playing there.

Doubled their turnover but 33% reduced profit, and still liabilities of £14.4m, in a year when they had a once in a lifetime event and still in receipt of some football related income. As OSB said on the accounts thread, you can't read too much into that set of accounts, note enough to say £5.5m is a bargain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

Cranfield Sky Blue said:
Aren't you missing the point that there is still a very big danger SISU could walk away and put the club into liquidation? Among other options.

Not really the golden share is the most valuable asset they have, which would be rendered worthless if the club was liquidated.
Sisu would try and sell first to someone who will take on their debt. Worse case scenario would be administration. But this option unlikely because this time round they wouldnt want the club back.

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

stupot07 said:
Doubled their turnover but 33% reduced profit, and still liabilities of £14.4m, in a year when they had a once in a lifetime event and still in receipt of some football related income. As OSB said on the accounts thread, you can't read too much into that set of accounts, note enough to say £5.5m is a bargain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Would it not be a bargain with the club back playing their full time ?

lordsummerisle · Apr 4, 2014

sky blue john said:
Would it not be a bargain with the club back playing their full time ?

They were then.

sky blue john · Apr 4, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
They were then.

Yes but we had squatters rights...

Jim · Apr 4, 2014

The Prefect said:
Indeed. I seem to remember JS saying that she wants a return for her investors. If they have put in £35m over six years she might need to seek more than £50m to get a 'return' for her investors.

It's hard for everyone, SISU included. I'm sure they want to get rid of this mess. Fact is, they can't as they would have to write off debt in order to do so.

The only realistic way out for SISU is to accept an offer in the region of £10-£20 million for the club, which would then include the write off off all debt to SISU and its related parties.

In this case SISU would have made a loss of the value of the debt less the consideration for the club, but this has to be better than the alternative which is to provide funds to the club to continue running without any foreseeable profit, and certainly nowhere near recouping their total investment.

The new owner would be in a position to take the club forward with very little external debt (probably only standard operating debts), and the ability to open fresh talks with ACL with a view to returning to the RICOH. With the right owner on board and a good relationship formed with the council and higgs, a future purchase of ACL to combine club and stadium wouldnt be too unfeasible.

The main stopping point is that SISU are being stubborn in the extreme and seem to want to continue chasing losses whilst alienating all other associated stakeholders. There are almost certainly parties interesting in buying out the club and for the amounts stated but they will not make an approach until SISU can be seen to actively want an exit. Until then SISU will want to play hardball and insist of a full payoff of their debt, which will quite rightly not be met by anybody.

New owners of CCFC required ? (4 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency