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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...
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?
Another wonderfully informative post - with no reference to the football club whatsoever.
What exactly is your agenda?
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
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?
Basis for bidding then isn't it? Plus we can see who is trying to rip off who...
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.
Didnt we have the highest home points tally for 5 season?
Those pesky stats eh?
Didnt we have the highest home points tally for 5 season?
Those pesky stats eh?
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?
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.
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?
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?