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?
The 'risky purchase' here presumes that Higgs were taking a gamble for their own benefit. There's no suggestion of that, is there?
What did the council say about the valuation of the Higgs share?
Not a lot considering they were not in court. But even you know this.
The suggestion is that it is "risky" to invest in a project whose success and valuation relied wholly on a football club that was hugely in debt and was faced with a business model that required 22,500 paying adults every week merely to break even.
That to me sounds risky.
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.
There was an offer of £2m, no issues with you at all there. But the 'donation' bit in court was £5.5m. I copied the court extract.
Edit - sorry the quoting seems to be playing up for me.
....that required 22,500 paying adults every week merely to break even.
That to me sounds risky.
But SISU are a hedge fund and thought they could bully a profit from somewhere. Whereas ACL seem to be doing OK without our club and SISU.
That sounds like madness to me as well as risky. No wonder we were on the road to ruin when we moved to the Ricoh.
Doing OK means what exactly? Double turnover and reduced profits is hardly promising is it? So you don't believe the council when they stated that the price offered by the club was over the Higgs shares true value in an open market?
Who would buy the shares at that value?
Its abusrd to argue the sum invested was not high risk.
Are we blaming the massive wage bill that was already in place before our club moved on moving to the Ricoh? And the rent we were paying at HR was the same as for the Ricoh.
But yes all the fault of moving to the Ricoh
Are we blaming the massive wage bill that was already in place before our club moved on moving to the Ricoh? And the rent we were paying at HR was the same as for the Ricoh.
But yes all the fault of moving to the Ricoh
They seem to be making a profit. Not seen anything to make me think otherwise. Whereas our club is losing millions a year. But shall we keep on having a dig at ACL/CCC/Higgs for being a risky investment?
The suggestion is that it is "risky" to invest in a project whose success and valuation relied wholly on a football club that was hugely in debt and was faced with a business model that required 22,500 paying adults every week merely to break even.
Would you pay £6.5 million for the shares
I would if I had CCFC. Then bring CCFC home and increase my revenue. Renegotiate the rent from an Insider position. Get on the next plane to Salzburg with Ann Lucas and try and Talk Red Bull into joining us as Sponsor and Joint Owner. Get Ricoh either to use their naming rights option or cancel it so Red Bull or another Big Name can take it over. Recruit someone new to market the Arena or bring in a major Events company. I wouldn't be sitting with my soccer club in Northampton.
I would if I had CCFC. Then bring CCFC home and increase my revenue. Renegotiate the rent from an Insider position. Get on the next plane to Salzburg with Ann Lucas and try and Talk Red Bull into joining us as Sponsor and Joint Owner. Get Ricoh either to use their naming rights option or cancel it so Red Bull or another Big Name can take it over. Recruit someone new to market the Arena or bring in a major Events company. I wouldn't be sitting with my soccer club in Northampton.
Wow, it sounds so simple it could almost be total fiction.
The last two are the easy ones - CCFC needed the £6.5m to save them from going under, and the charity gave them the money to help them out. The valuation was presumably agreed between the two parties, which of course is how values for things are typically established, and there was a formula and option for CCFC to buy it back.
The 'risky purchase' here presumes that Higgs were taking a gamble for their own benefit. There's no suggestion of that, is there?
Well there doesn't seem to be any great iniative coming from SISU. They just run around courts with an army of lawyers chasing some obscure JR decision against a provincial city council. Sorry for being a frustrated city fan.
1. Massive wage bill? Yep, paying players we couldn't afford.
2. Rent same as last year at HR? Yep, because Richardson had sold it to developers and had to rent it back. What about the 105 years before that last season. Do you want to comment on that?
Would you pay £6.5 million for the shares
I would pay the 5.5m that SISU could have had them for.
I'm afraid the council would block the big idea.
Red bull can't buy the ground its that dastardly unfettered lease.
They will not bring a new management company in as they are firmly wedded to ACL
You'd buy the shares get vetoed on policy decisions, receive no dividend, get half of a £7 million mortgage round your neck and still as the club be paying rent to ACL. Which pays no dividends.
Frustrating isn't it?
It's a risky purchase because they paid £6.5m for something that was difficult to value.
The risk of course is that the outlay would never be recouped. Especially as it was temporary according to the KHs.
They are subject to public scrutiny.
They seem to have done it more for the football club than for an investment. But with the way SISU have treated them can you give a reason they should let SISU get it at a reduced rate now?
Would have been a better purchase for SISU than wasting money on litigation and moving our club to Northampton. But they were being greedy and wanted everything. Looks to have badly backfired on Joy. And whilst all this shit is going on it is our club and us supporters that are left to suffer.
Apart from when discussing £14M loans.
I would pay the 5.5m that SISU could have had them for.
Even though the other major shareholder thought it was over priced.
Another 10 million soon in the coffers for naming rights 5.5million is a snip......
Minor detail - no minutes required.
Said by one person, and I am yet to see proof on that, but you keep saying that it was the major shareholder. He wasn't the shareholder.
Could be less because of the game Joy is playing, but will certainly make a massive dent in the loan.
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?