chiefdave
Well-Known Member
If you account for inflation then to get back what they put in Higgs would need to sell for £8.7m.
They want a profit on the original purchase value obviously, it can be the only reason.
And as Justice Leggatt pointed out, Sisu are not a charity. So why offer £2.5million for something deemed worthless?
Like I said, nobody (on the outside at least) really knows the true intricacies of what has gone on.
I suspect we will find out more during the JR - but I also suspect it may be some time before we get the complete truth of it all. If, indeed, we ever do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ACL own just over 80% of the shares in IEC, Compass own the remaining 20%. All that has to be done is a negotiation to establish a fair price for the shares that could be tied in with a long term, nominal costs rental agreement.
If you account for inflation then to get back what they put in Higgs would need to sell for £8.7m.
And as Justice Leggatt pointed out, Sisu are not a charity. So why offer £2.5million for something deemed worthless?
Like I said, nobody (on the outside at least) really knows the true intricacies of what has gone on.
I suspect we will find out more during the JR - but I also suspect it may be some time before we get the complete truth of it all. If, indeed, we ever do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So why did Chris West value such at £5.5m?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And way over the market value at that
It isn't about what they put in, it is about what it is worth....
Ahhh but surely they were just helping the club out being supporters? They wouldn't want profit would they?
So why did Chris West value such at £5.5m?
No offence, but you seem a bit eager to defend the Higgs / ACL
IF it was actually valued at nothing (in black and white on paper) and they offered £2.5 million then surely they are offering more than it is worth?
I am not sure why SISU would need to be a charity to give a charity money (if that was the case)?
There's two ways off looking at it.
One is that Higgs were doing us a favour and should therefore get back what they put in. The question was asked why they were asking for more than the original price, a possible reason for this is to account for inflation.
The second way would be selling it at its value today and that's open to all sorts of arguments such as is there a need to sell which could lower the price, valuation based on past performance, valuation based on future projections. That would explain why valuations can vary.
I can understand the reason that Higgs would of wanted to recoup the original £6m(?) that they purchased the 50% share for, but to me it makes no sense why Sisu would agree to purchase the Shares for £7.5m all but for the negotiations to fall face flat. There has to be more to it, Joy stated that they were committed to the deal, what made the negotiations fall sour?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But that was a whole year later was it not? The HOT were agreed in 2012?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can understand the reason that Higgs would of wanted to recoup the original £6m(?) that they purchased the 50% share for, but to me it makes no sense why Sisu would agree to purchase the Shares for £7.5m all but for the negotiations to fall face flat. There has to be more to it, Joy stated that they were committed to the deal, what made the negotiations fall sour?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offence, but you seem a bit eager to defend the Higgs / ACL
and you seem a bit eager comment about anyone who seems a bit eager to defend Higgs / ACL
Ahhh but surely they were just helping the club out being supporters? They wouldn't want profit would they?
The Charity Commission rules (if I've read them correctly) say that basically if you invest you cannot use Charity funds in a way that would "erode the capital of the fund" and that generally trustees should look to get maximum return on that investment. https://www.charitycommission.gov.u...investment-matters-a-guide-for-trustees-cc14/
So I guess they can't give the share away and they have to try and get as much for the share as they can or get into hot water with the Charity Commission.
So based on those rules they may have felt at the time that the £5.5m offer (£1.5m upfront and £4m later) was reasonable but didn't trust that they'd see the remaining £4m over 10years from Sisu. The £2.5 then offered was possibly way too low and later on when ACL started to do better maybe they felt they could get back at least the amount they paid for the share.
So you don't know what the PWC valuations were?
Why is it that Chris West feels that 5.5 mill was way over market value but Higgs said it was 7.5 million?
It depends in what capacity they are posting
They are likely to lose money though arent they? The asset is hardly appreciating in value.
I think you place far too much emphasis on the charity commission, many charities have lost money on investments and I fail to see what action can be taken. Didn't the regeneration charity that owned a portion of the Brittania pretty much hand it to them - the council and they transferred the mortgage debt and that was it want it?
Will they lose money though? I guess it depends on how well ACL does in the future. If ACL are doing better, really don't need us and can generate enough profit for the Higgs share to be attractive enough even without our club to another investor then they might get their money back. Alternatively ACL might do very badly and the value of the share might drop to nigh on worthless and they might get nothing back. It all depends on how well ACL does.
And if it doesn't and they get less they will be in hot water with the Charity Commission?
According to you they have to get the best price. Despite the spin on here profits are down. Very few institutions would have much interest in purchasing a management company of this sort. So if they ultimately get less will they be in hot water with the charity commission?
If not then one assumes they would not if they accepted the £2 million offer as the other offer was according to Mr West significantly over valued.
Mr North said it is worth 5m. Mr South said it is worth 7.5m and Mr East said it is worth 10m.
According to you they have to get the best price. Despite the spin on here profits are down. Very few institutions would have much interest in purchasing a management company of this sort. So if they ultimately get less will they be in hot water with the charity commission?
If not then one assumes they would not if they accepted the £2 million offer as the other offer was according to Mr West significantly over valued.
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?