Sisu have ACL valuation !!!!!!!! (2 Viewers)

[James Smith]

If the Higgs don't want to sell then best of luck to them, same goes for Joy and our club. And in a Coventry related twist just passed an orange Harry Shaw City Cruiser coach, looked like the ones they use(d to hire?) for the team, on Park Lane. Brought a smile to my face.

 

---

[Nick]

Any commissioned valuation will go the way of the person commissioning it. I stick with my point. The Higgs share was bought for 6,5 m. That is fact. Since then it depreciates on paper at 2 per cent. Also fact. Take the paper value as the price - fair to both sides and in line with the deal that almost went through. SISU say its worth less, Higgs more, but no-one really knows. Time will tell, but it is based on a known calculation and SISU will get their outlay back whatever happens by bringing CCFC home.

I don't know how much "valuations" cost, let a "neutral" party get 3 valuations and do an average. I am not saying let SISU get a value or let ACL get a value as they can be swung either way.

 

[martcov]

I don't know how much "valuations" cost, let a "neutral" party get 3 valuations and do an average. I am not saying let SISU get a value or let ACL get a value as they can be swung either way.

I suspect they cost a fortune because, in this case, there are too many variables and no direct comparisons. They will all be different and at the end of the day the parties will have to justify their actions ( buy or sell ). That's why I go for the paper value. It may turn out wrong either way, but it is based on known facts.

 

[martcov]

By the way, I have flats in Germany and the tax man calculates depreciation at 2 per cent. It may be too much or too little, but it would be too complicated and expensive to constantly revalue.

 

[Astute]

Higgs do want to sell. But not sure if they would be happy to attempt to sell to SISU again. The last time they tried didn't exactly go to plan did it.

 

[italiahorse]

Sisu have reduced the value by removing the club and breaking the lease.
They want to pay this value and make a profit by bringing the club back.

CCC would have assessed the value of the Stadium with a club there before stepping in to save the venue and give the club somewhere to play.

Looking back would CCC have put any money in if they could forsee that a lease would be broken? I suspect not.

 

[Cheshire Sky Blue]

Sisu have reduced the value by removing the club and breaking the lease.
They want to pay this value and make a profit by bringing the club back.

CCC would have assessed the value of the Stadium with a club there before stepping in to save the venue and give the club somewhere to play.

Looking back would CCC have put any money in if they could forsee that a lease would be broken? I suspect not.

Would CCC have invested in the future of CCFC if they had appreciated that the club would have been purchased by such an atrocious bunch of arseholes, probably not, but I am glad they did. Because very soon the arsholes will be gone and we will have our club back

 

[Astute]

Would CCC have invested in the future of CCFC if they had appreciated that the club would have been purchased by such an atrocious bunch of arseholes, probably not, but I am glad they did. Because very soon the arsholes will be gone and we will have our club back

Shall we wait and see?

If they go they will have to write off a lot of money. If they run the club like they should they could turn a profit without the interest charges and get promotion. It is all down to if they finally negotiate or keep up with litigation which costs even more as well as keeps our club in Northampton.

Whilst they are still at our club they haven't made a loss. They have made lots of loans. They have only made a loss when there is no chance of getting their money back as the investment has gone wrong and they have pulled out.

 

[oldskyblue58]

How do we know that the Higgs Charity want to sell? they have not said that. They said they are prepared to look at any reasonable proposal. It looks to me that things have changed for them since 2012 and they are prepared to sit and wait for the right offer, however long that takes.

As for the value of the Higgs investment depreciating by 2% per year - does it? Clearly the Trustees in their latest accounts for the Charity do not think so. They believe that the value of their investment is at least what they paid for it. Trying to link it to the lease write down is not going to work because they bought the interest in the shares of the company not the interest in the lease. There are many more factors that affect the value of the investment than an annual 2% write down of a lease. What they bought in 2003 is very different to what is in 2014. You could argue that the money invested would have earnt 2%+ per annum in interest for example but that would not be a valuation either. Tax write downs or accounting policy write downs do not give you a market valuation nor are they intended to.

It isn't the difficulty in valuing the arena that is a problem for SISU, it is neither of the stakeholders have said that the Ricoh lease, freehold or shares in ACL is for sale in the first place in which case no formal valuation by ACL, CCC or Charity is necessary. Talks of valuations, averaging independent valuations, valuing this or that etc are largely irrelevant. The only way that changes is if someone comes along with an offer to buy the Freehold or an interest in ACL that comes close or exceeds expectations of ACL, CCC or Charity. Even then it is going to be about much more than a price in £ sterling

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It isn't the difficulty in valuing the arena that is a problem the problem for SISU but it is neither of the stakeholders have said that the Ricoh lease, freehold or shares in ACL is for sale in the first place in which case no formal valuation by ACL, CCC or Charity is necessary.

In which case, it's hardly surprising that they'd look elsewhere for a home.

 

[oldskyblue58]

or they could actually make a meaningful offer ....... everything has its price ..... to see if they would sell

 

[Deleted member 5849]

or they could actually make a meaningful offer ....... everything has its price .....

If there's no desire to sell, is there actually a point?

To buy vastly over the odds would be madness wouldn't it... be it a football club, football stadium, or football stadium management company.

Or... they could all sit down and talk with no agenda, stop the shilly-shallying, appeals to public opinion... and actually show a football club matters by actions, not words.

 

[olderskyblue]

If there's no desire to sell, is there actually a point?

To buy vastly over the odds would be madness wouldn't it... be it a football club, football stadium, or football stadium management company.

Or... they could all sit down and talk with no agenda, stop the shilly-shallying, appeals to public opinion... and actually show a football club matters by actions, not words.

Wouldn't making an offer be a prelude to those talks? And maybe there would be a specific agenda then.

We all know if they did make an offer, it definitely would not be "vastly over the odds". Not sure where you got that thought from NW..

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not how it would work though is it ....

They haven't put it on the market that doesn't mean they wouldn't sell it for the right deal/price

As I understand it if someone was to put in an offer on a reasonable basis that came close to expectations because of the nature of the two bodies involved they would be duty bound to consider it. At which point they would proceed to valuations which would prevent under and over payments on worth

But yes sitting down and talking constructively about the needs of the football club would certainly be a step forward I agree......

 

[Jack Griffin]

If there's no desire to sell, is there actually a point?

To buy vastly over the odds would be madness wouldn't it... be it a football club, football stadium, or football stadium management company.

Or... they could all sit down and talk with no agenda, stop the shilly-shallying, appeals to public opinion... and actually show a football club matters by actions, not words.

To make the club homeless is the real madness.

 

[duffer]

I'm still at a bit confused here as to why people like Nick seem to think the Higgs charity should be obliged to sell their shares for a loss.

There still seems to be the argument that they bought the share in expectation of realising a substantial profit, and therefore the downside is that they might need to take a hit. However as has always been evident, the only reason Higgs bought the share was to rescue the club. There's no evidence that they were ever looking to make a profit - and indeed it can be seen that they were prepared to sell for a loss, to SISU (but SISU obviously wanted buy now, pay-later terms without sufficient security).

Personally I think that all the talk about a 'fair price' is specious. It's entirely inappropriate, to my mind, to expect or pressure Higgs to sell for less than they've put in, unless they choose to do so. If SISU can't come close to a value that Higgs want for their share, then what right do we or they have to complain. If Higgs hadn't stepped in when the club was going to the wall they wouldn't be part of all of this mess now.

To suggest a charity to hand over their share for less than they want, to an organisation that can apparently find millions to buy a new stadium (and pay very large salaries to boot) seems utterly wrong to me. Presuming that Higgs aren't trying to make a huge profit out of the club, a fair price is one that Higgs are prepared to sell for. All this talk about valuations is bogus, imho, and seems to be driven (unsurprisingly) from just one side.

 

[Nick]

I'm still at a bit confused here as to why people like Nick seem to think the Higgs charity should be obliged to sell their shares for a loss.

There still seems to be the argument that they bought the share in expectation of realising a substantial profit, and therefore the downside is that they might need to take a hit. However as has always been evident, the only reason Higgs bought the share was to rescue the club. There's no evidence that they were ever looking to make a profit - and indeed it can be seen that they were prepared to sell for a loss, to SISU (but SISU obviously wanted buy now, pay-later terms without sufficient security).

Personally I think that all the talk about a 'fair price' is specious. It's entirely inappropriate, to my mind, to expect or pressure Higgs to sell for less than they've put in, unless they choose to do so. If SISU can't come close to a value that Higgs want for their share, then what right do we or they have to complain. If Higgs hadn't stepped in when the club was going to the wall they wouldn't be part of all of this mess now.

To suggest a charity to hand over their share for less than they want, to an organisation that can apparently find millions to buy a new stadium (and pay very large salaries to boot) seems utterly wrong to me. Presuming that Higgs aren't trying to make a huge profit out of the club, a fair price is one that Higgs are prepared to sell for. All this talk about valuations is bogus, imho, and seems to be driven (unsurprisingly) from just one side.

Again, I'm not saying anybody should be forced to do anything

 

[shmmeee]

Again, I'm not saying anybody should be forced to do anything

So why the valuation? What will we do with it once we have it?

 

[Nick]

So why the valuation? What will we do with it once we have it?

Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...

 

[shmmeee]

Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...

Ah, so you would "expect" but not "force" Higgs to go along with the valuation, as otherwise they'd be "ripping us off", yes?

 

[sky blue john]

Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...

So do you believe the charity tried to rip off Sisu ?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Osb or anybody else.

How was the value of the original CCFC share in ACL arrived at?

Why was it £6m? How could shares in a new company that hadn't traded be valued as such?

What did CCFC do with the £6m?

Why did the charity undertake such a risky purchase?

 

[Grendel]

I'm still at a bit confused here as to why people like Nick seem to think the Higgs charity should be obliged to sell their shares for a loss.

There still seems to be the argument that they bought the share in expectation of realising a substantial profit, and therefore the downside is that they might need to take a hit. However as has always been evident, the only reason Higgs bought the share was to rescue the club. There's no evidence that they were ever looking to make a profit - and indeed it can be seen that they were prepared to sell for a loss, to SISU (but SISU obviously wanted buy now, pay-later terms without sufficient security).

Personally I think that all the talk about a 'fair price' is specious. It's entirely inappropriate, to my mind, to expect or pressure Higgs to sell for less than they've put in, unless they choose to do so. If SISU can't come close to a value that Higgs want for their share, then what right do we or they have to complain. If Higgs hadn't stepped in when the club was going to the wall they wouldn't be part of all of this mess now.

To suggest a charity to hand over their share for less than they want, to an organisation that can apparently find millions to buy a new stadium (and pay very large salaries to boot) seems utterly wrong to me. Presuming that Higgs aren't trying to make a huge profit out of the club, a fair price is one that Higgs are prepared to sell for. All this talk about valuations is bogus, imho, and seems to be driven (unsurprisingly) from just one side.

Another wonderfully informative post - with no reference to the football club whatsoever.

What exactly is your agenda?

 

[sky blue john]

Another wonderfully informative post - with no reference to the football club whatsoever.

What exactly is your agenda?

Lol !!!
Coming from the most anti CCFC member on this forum !

 

[lewys33]

Another wonderfully informative post - with no reference to the football club whatsoever.

What exactly is your agenda?

Troll example number 1. Give it a rest mate, most of your posts are CCC/ACL related so lets not start the "no reference to the club" bullshit. Maybe try putting some points across that argue against the statement duffer made rather than snide comments and questioning someone's agenda!

 

[martcov]

How do we know that the Higgs Charity want to sell? they have not said that. They said they are prepared to look at any reasonable proposal. It looks to me that things have changed for them since 2012 and they are prepared to sit and wait for the right offer, however long that takes.

As for the value of the Higgs investment depreciating by 2% per year - does it? Clearly the Trustees in their latest accounts for the Charity do not think so. They believe that the value of their investment is at least what they paid for it. Trying to link it to the lease write down is not going to work because they bought the interest in the shares of the company not the interest in the lease. There are many more factors that affect the value of the investment than an annual 2% write down of a lease. What they bought in 2003 is very different to what is in 2014. You could argue that the money invested would have earnt 2%+ per annum in interest for example but that would not be a valuation either. Tax write downs or accounting policy write downs do not give you a market valuation nor are they intended to.

It isn't the difficulty in valuing the arena that is a problem for SISU, it is neither of the stakeholders have said that the Ricoh lease, freehold or shares in ACL is for sale in the first place in which case no formal valuation by ACL, CCC or Charity is necessary. Talks of valuations, averaging independent valuations, valuing this or that etc are largely irrelevant. The only way that changes is if someone comes along with an offer to buy the Freehold or an interest in ACL that comes close or exceeds expectations of ACL, CCC or Charity. Even then it is going to be about much more than a price in £ sterling

I realise that taking the lease value minus 2 per cent depreciation per annum on the lease cannot portray the real value. The real value changes constantly e.g. with more income from the olympics, less when the anchor tennant goes. As I unterstand it, the stadium management company can only exsist because of the 50 year lease.

Higgs set a value on that when they purchased it. That was also a "guesstimate". There are no direct comparisons.

Assuming Higgs want out - they have said so ( get out of jail card ), the only measure in black and white, is what they paid for it. They claim it hasn't gone down in value according to their books. That is also a "guesstimate" not based on fact - more wishful thinking.

My point is you have to start somewhere and the calculation with 2 per cent comes near to what Higgs were willing to accept. In other words, could be justified, say, to the charities commission.

SISU think it's too much. You think too little. Unless the parties can agree to take some form of guesstimate based on the little information on value that we have, we will never get anywhere. In the end it comes down what it is worth to the parties involved and not an open market monetary value.

 

[Astute]

Are some people blind to the truth?

The last attempt Higgs made to sell to SISU was for 5.5m. They paid 6.5m. Profiteering? It was SISU that wanted to pay over 10 years that ruined the deal. They wouldn't offer any guarantee of payment. What does this suggest?

Then SISU tried to make out that ACL was worthless. We know this wasn't true. IT was for if everything went wrong for ACL. But that was the only bit mentioned by Deering in court. She said Joy was willing to pay 2m for something worthless as Higgs are a charity. What a joke. Even the judge pulled her up on it. So what has it cost our club and SISU for trying to get the Higgs share for 3.5m less than they agreed?

SISU lost at least 2m last season by taking us to Northampton. It also lost us the home advantage in our home games. If we stay in Northampton next season there will be another minimum extra 2m lost, That is nearly the cost of the 50% share in ACL and nothing to show for it. The 50% share in ACL would have given them a good bargaining tool. They would all have been around the table. But the SISU quest to get everything as cheaply as they can is not getting them what they want, but it is putting much more debt onto our club. And the more debt that is accrued means the higher the interest payments need to be. You can also add on how much they have paid in legal fees. So how much has making a derisory offer to Higgs and not negotiating when told no chance cost our club and SISU?

 

[Grendel]

Are some people blind to the truth?

The last attempt Higgs made to sell to SISU was for 5.5m. They paid 6.5m. Profiteering? It was SISU that wanted to pay over 10 years that ruined the deal. They wouldn't offer any guarantee of payment. What does this suggest?

Then SISU tried to make out that ACL was worthless. We know this wasn't true. IT was for if everything went wrong for ACL. But that was the only bit mentioned by Deering in court. She said Joy was willing to pay 2m for something worthless as Higgs are a charity. What a joke. Even the judge pulled her up on it. So what has it cost our club and SISU for trying to get the Higgs share for 3.5m less than they agreed?

SISU lost at least 2m last season by taking us to Northampton. It also lost us the home advantage in our home games. If we stay in Northampton next season there will be another minimum extra 2m lost, That is nearly the cost of the 50% share in ACL and nothing to show for it. The 50% share in ACL would have given them a good bargaining tool. They would all have been around the table. But the SISU quest to get everything as cheaply as they can is not getting them what they want, but it is putting much more debt onto our club. And the more debt that is accrued means the higher the interest payments need to be. You can also add on how much they have paid in legal fees. So how much has making a derisory offer to Higgs and not negotiating when told no chance cost our club and SISU?

Didnt we have the highest home points tally for 5 season?

Those pesky stats eh?

 

[duffer]

Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...

You're implying here that the charity are ripping SISU off if they want to get somewhere close to what they put in, I think.

I'd suggest the true rip-off is SISU expecting/demanding to get hold of it for way less than that - especially on the back of a valuation done at the point they've taken the club away from the ground.

Surely the value of the share is what the Higgs put on it. If SISU don't want to pay that much, for whatever reason, then that's up to them - it's not exactly a rip off to expect to recover most of what you put in to bail out the club, is it?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Then SISU tried to make out that ACL was worthless. We know this wasn't true. IT was for if everything went wrong for ACL. But that was the only bit mentioned by Deering in court. She said Joy was willing to pay 2m for something worthless as Higgs are a charity. What a joke. Even the judge pulled her up on it. So what has it cost our club and SISU for trying to get the Higgs share for 3.5m less than they agreed?
QUOTE]

The £2m donation is becoming an urban myth. It was to be a £5.5m donation.


8 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought

9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay

10 5.5 million for it?

11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.

12 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You're not a charity, are you?

13 A. No.

14 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Why would she pay 5.5 million for

15 something worth nothing?

16 A. I don't know. I don't make the final decision. I can

17 only --

18 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Okay.

 

[sky blue john]

Didnt we have the highest home points tally for 5 season?

Those pesky stats eh?

It maybe home to you but for the majority of CCFC fans sixfields will never be home !!!

 

[Astute]

Didnt we have the highest home points tally for 5 season?

Those pesky stats eh?

Sounds like you agree with the rest of it then Grendel. Just shows how poor they have been when not negotiating.

 

[Grendel]

Then SISU tried to make out that ACL was worthless. We know this wasn't true. IT was for if everything went wrong for ACL. But that was the only bit mentioned by Deering in court. She said Joy was willing to pay 2m for something worthless as Higgs are a charity. What a joke. Even the judge pulled her up on it. So what has it cost our club and SISU for trying to get the Higgs share for 3.5m less than they agreed?
QUOTE]

The £2m donation is becoming an urban myth. It was to be a £5.5m donation.


8 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought

9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay

10 5.5 million for it?

11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.

12 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You're not a charity, are you?

13 A. No.

14 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Why would she pay 5.5 million for

15 something worth nothing?

16 A. I don't know. I don't make the final decision. I can

17 only --

18 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Okay.

What did the council say about the valuation of the Higgs share?

 

[Astute]

Then SISU tried to make out that ACL was worthless. We know this wasn't true. IT was for if everything went wrong for ACL. But that was the only bit mentioned by Deering in court. She said Joy was willing to pay 2m for something worthless as Higgs are a charity. What a joke. Even the judge pulled her up on it. So what has it cost our club and SISU for trying to get the Higgs share for 3.5m less than they agreed?
QUOTE]

The £2m donation is becoming an urban myth. It was to be a £5.5m donation.


8 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Sorry, you're suggesting she thought

9 the company was worth nothing, but still would pay

10 5.5 million for it?

11 A. She recognised that they were a charity, yes.

12 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: You're not a charity, are you?

13 A. No.

14 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Why would she pay 5.5 million for

15 something worth nothing?

16 A. I don't know. I don't make the final decision. I can

17 only --

18 MR JUSTICE LEGGATT: Okay.

No it wasn't. The 5.5m offer was for the so called road map idea. 5.5m was offered, but like I said offered over 10 years. Later on in the year 2m was offered. The reason was that ACL was worthless.

 

[chiefdave]

How was the value of the original CCFC share in ACL arrived at?

Why was it £6m? How could shares in a new company that hadn't traded be valued as such?

What did CCFC do with the £6m?

Why did the charity undertake such a risky purchase?

If you're talking about the sale price of the clubs share to Higgs I believe the figure was basically the amount the club had put into the Ricoh project.

As for what we did with the money I think we spent it on the wages of 'big name' signings like Ward.

From the charities perspective it has always been my impression that it was in essence a short term loan with the share in ACL as security to get the club out of a cashflow situation. Hence the option being in place for the club to buy back the share. Obviously the club never exercised that option and Higgs have got stuck dealing with this whole mess.