Spoke to a property lawyer (1 Viewer)

shy_tall_knight · Jan 15, 2014

Explained the situation ie SISUE want to buy the Arena - unencumbered, she agreed that this unrealistic, not impossible but very difficult and very expensive because of the sub leases. Isle of Capri have a sub lease with ACL. If it is a long lease with no break clause and Isle of Capri are happy to stay then could demand millions in compensation to move. However if Isle of Capri aren't doing as well as they want and would like to terminate then there is room for a mutual agreement.

I did wonder if this is part of the SISUE masterplan as their trade would have reduced following the departure of the club !!

crowsnest · Jan 15, 2014

Isle of Capri left in 2009.

ccfcway · Jan 15, 2014

CCFC left in 2013

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

It's not just the sub-leases. There's the not insignificant fact of the 40+ year lease that ACL hold. ACL aren't the Council. If the Council broke the lease, ACL could sue the Council.

SkyBlueScottie · Jan 15, 2014

This is the problem, The council may want to sell. However there are people who work for ACL who are protecting their livelihood.

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

SkyBlueScottie said:
This is the problem, The council may want to sell. However there are people who work for ACL who are protecting their livelihood.

Um. No. There are shareholders in ACL (you know the people of Coventry and a Coventry charity) that don't deserve to lose their investment.

Would you do it?

Como · Jan 15, 2014

The lease can not be broken unless there is a clause that would allow it to happen, which is very unlikely, the freehold could be sold, the leasehold could be sold, willing seller and buyer needed.

Paxman II · Jan 15, 2014

You might want to ask yourselves who are ACL? The management company of the council and part owned by the said council.

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

Paxman II said:
You might want to ask yourselves who are ACL? The management company of the council and part owned by the said council.

What exactly would you like the council to do?

The lost fan · Jan 15, 2014

Como said:
The lease can not be broken unless there is a clause that would allow it to happen, which is very unlikely, the freehold could be sold, the leasehold could be sold, willing seller and buyer needed.

What A load of RUBBISH , lease can be broke ...just ask Sisu :claping hands::wave:

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

Paxman II said:
You might want to ask yourselves who are ACL? The management company of the council and part owned by the said council.

Aaarrrrrgh! THE COUNCIL! Noooooo!

So fucking what? What are you implying?

Also, since when did the Ricoh become the council?

shy_tall_knight · Jan 15, 2014

ACL = 50% council + 50% Higgs, I'm sure they could strike a deal to terminate the lease with CCC. As the lawyer explained its the sub-tenants who are commercial companies who would seek to mxaamaise the compensation from the opportunity, if I was de vere I would start very high, CCC just don't want to go down this route of pain to then have to negotiate with a Hedge fund over the free hold price.

bigfatronssba · Jan 15, 2014

shy_tall_knight said:
ACL = 50% council + 50% Higgs, I'm sure they could strike a deal to terminate the lease with CCC. As the lawyer explained its the sub-tenants who are commercial companies who would seek to mxaamaise the compensation from the opportunity, if I was de vere I would start very high, CCC just don't want to go down this route of pain to then have to negotiate with a Hedge fund over the free hold price.

Higgs would be hauled up before the Charity Commission if they simply wound up a profitable asset.

shy_tall_knight · Jan 15, 2014

no expert on charity law but they could invest their gains in the charity case which is CCFC.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

duffer said:
It's not just the sub-leases. There's the not insignificant fact of the 40+ year lease that ACL hold. ACL aren't the Council. If the Council broke the lease, ACL could sue the Council.

The council own of ACL and Higgs the other half there is nothing to stop them agreeing a sake and the council selling the Ricoh to the same purchaser

So the lease actually is a smokescreen.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
The council own of ACL and Higgs the other half there is nothing to stop them agreeing a sake and the council selling the Ricoh to the same purchaser

So the lease actually is a smokescreen.

It's not a smokescreen - it's a contract. And it's a complex contract with a number of layers in the form of those sub-leases, to go back to the OP.

Tim & Labo pretending that it can simply be ignored, and a deal magically done for the whole Ricoh unecumbered, now that is a smokescreen. Not everyone falls for it though.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

duffer said:
It's not a smokescreen - it's a contract. And it's a complex contract with a number of layers in the form of those sub-leases, to go back to the OP.

Tim & Labo pretending that it can simply be ignored, and a deal magically done for the whole Ricoh unecumbered, now that is a smokescreen. Not everyone falls for it though.

You seem very taken in by Lucas. Answer this can ACL ever be sold as a going concern to a separate company. If so then what happens to the leases and sub-leases? O'connor mentioned the sale of JLR to Tata which is very valid. That was an enormously complex purchase with legacy contracts from many many companoes. So yes it's nonense or what you are actually saying is even if there was a will to sell it couldn't be sold.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
The council own of ACL and Higgs the other half there is nothing to stop them agreeing a sake and the council selling the Ricoh to the same purchaser

So the lease actually is a smokescreen.

But that wouldn't give SISU the lease with none of the contracts in place. What happens to the casino, hotel etc? SISU want them out and contracts cancelled, selling the freehold and leasehold to SISU doesn't resolve that problem.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
You seem very taken in by Lucas. Answer this can ACL ever be sold as a going concern to a separate company. If so then what happens to the leases and sub-leases? O'connor mentioned the sale of JLR to Tata which is very valid. That was an enormously complex purchase with legacy contracts from many many companoes. So yes it's nonense or what you are actually saying is even if there was a will to sell it couldn't be sold.

Most people when looking to purchase ACL would consider having companies in place paying money to them and under contract a benefit. They wouldn't be looking to kick them out. Should ACL be sold to any other party the leases and sub leases will remain in place. The new owner of ACL can then, if they wish, renegotiate or attempt to cancel (and pay appropriate compensation) with the leaseholders.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
You seem very taken in by Lucas. Answer this can ACL ever be sold as a going concern to a separate company. If so then what happens to the leases and sub-leases? O'connor mentioned the sale of JLR to Tata which is very valid. That was an enormously complex purchase with legacy contracts from many many companoes. So yes it's nonense or what you are actually saying is even if there was a will to sell it couldn't be sold.

You seem very taken in by Timmy.

I'm sure it could be sold, if the price was right and the owner willing to sell. But the council doesn't own ACL, which is something that you and O'Connor overlooked, and SISU couldn't even negotiate the much more straightforward purchase of the Higgs share of ACL.

And how much do you think ACL would want to walk away from their lease and their apparently profitable business. How much would the casino want, or the hotel.

Fisher said, it's up to the council to liquidate ACL. Liquidate - not sell. So where and when did SISU ever offer to buy them, you don't seem to have answered that yet?

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

It would be very possible to get round these issues and contracts can be transferred over. This in terms of a purchase is not exactly huge in the scheme of things.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
It would be very possible to get round these issues and contracts can be transferred over. This in terms of a purchase is not exactly huge in the scheme of things.

It's pretty huge if you don't have a purchaser willing to buy.

Answer the question mate. I've answered yours. When did SISU ever propose buying ACL.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
It would be very possible to get round these issues and contracts can be transferred over. This in terms of a purchase is not exactly huge in the scheme of things.

SISU don't want the contracts transferred over, that's the problem! They want to purchase the Freehold with ACL having been wound up and all the contracts between ACL and the other businesses at the Ricoh cancelled.

It makes no sense of course, but SISU insist this is the only way they can make a purchase.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

duffer said:
You seem very taken in by Timmy.

I'm sure it could be sold, if the price was right and the owner willing to sell. But the council doesn't own ACL, which is something that you and O'Connor overlooked, and SISU couldn't even negotiate the much more straightforward purchase of the Higgs share of ACL.

And how much do you think ACL would want to walk away from their lease and their apparently profitable business. How much would the casino want, or the hotel.

Fisher said, it's up to the council to liquidate ACL. Liquidate - not sell. So where and when did SISU ever offer to buy them, you don't seem to have answered that yet?

Who owns the £14 million debt that ACL owe?

Tonylinc · Jan 15, 2014

I'll answer that.....CCC....so what is your point?

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Tonylinc said:
I'll answer that.....CCC....so what is your point?

I assume the point is just cancel the loan and liquidate ACL with no compensation however ACL have been overpaying on the loan prior to the refinancing so essentially the loan does even cover compensation to ACL at a pro rata rate let alone the loss of any future profit. Also doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the contracts ACL hold with third parties unless it's being suggested to screw all those companies over by using liquidation of ACL as a means to cancel the contracts.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

chiefdave said:
I assume the point is just cancel the loan and liquidate ACL with no compensation however ACL have been overpaying on the loan prior to the refinancing so essentially the loan does even cover compensation to ACL at a pro rata rate let alone the loss of any future profit. Also doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the contracts ACL hold with third parties unless it's being suggested to screw all those companies over by using liquidation of ACL as a means to cancel the contracts.

Yes that was the principal point - all is fair in business.

Rusty Trombone · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Who owns the £14 million debt that ACL owe?

I imagine it could be argued that it is an asset of the good (and bad) people of Coventry.

fernandopartridge · Jan 15, 2014

All public borrowing is an asset now. Go and tell George Osborne that the deficit reduction strategy is completely unnecessary as we consider debt an asset.

Rusty Trombone · Jan 15, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
All public borrowing is an asset now. Go and tell George Osborne that the deficit reduction strategy is completely unnecessary as we consider debt an asset.

The question was about who is the debt payable to, not who lent the money. The money is owed by ACL to the Council. It is an asset of the Council.

The Gentleman · Jan 15, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
All public borrowing is an asset now. Go and tell George Osborne that the deficit reduction strategy is completely unnecessary as we consider debt an asset.

You do not belong in the guise that I and others know you from with talk like that A career in politics beckons my dear friend.

duffer · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Yes that was the principal point - all is fair in business.

If you're pretty stupid, then yes I guess it is. Apart from the stuff that actually breaks the law. Ultimately though, if you stitch enough people up, then no one trusts you and you end up out of business. Hmm, there's a thought eh....

Anyway, if CCC call in the loan, it just means that the odds are that they lose 14m.

It doesn't even mean that ACL go bust, they could possibly refinance, or sell to another third-party, or even go into administration.

Anyway, remind me again when SISU said they wanted to buy ACL. I must have overlooked your earlier reply.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Yes that was the principal point - all is fair in business.

So your solution is that CCC screw over a load of businesses and cause a lot of local people to lose their jobs? If that's the way you choose to do business you should probably speak to Joy, she'll probably give you a job.

ohitsaidwalker king power · Jan 15, 2014

Paxman II said:
You might want to ask yourselves who are ACL? The management company of the council and part owned by the said council.

reminded me of talking heads..seemed appropriate?

"You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was
You may say to yourself, my god, what have I done?
Letting the days go by, letting the days go by, letting the days go by, once in a lifetime"

martcov · Jan 15, 2014

"All is fair in business". Shows how far we have come. SISU has a negative effect on our morals. It may be for SISU, but councils and charities are accountable here in Britain. Why should the council, through it's partly owned subsidiary, get a bad credit rating by screwing over other companies? The council will need finance at times and interest will be charged based on risk. SISU is different, their investors are knowingly taking chances and financing SISU through ARVO. They don't care about borrowing money as they have a surplus. Why should the council do anything to assist a hedge fund? If SISU want the Ricoh, they should make a serious offer based on known facts, in particular, that the council will not sell an unencumbered freehold. Why should they? If SISU can see no other alternative to an unencumbered freehold, then they should build their stadium and move on. It's SISU's move.

Spoke to a property lawyer (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known 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