The Ground Deal (2 Viewers)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5849
  • Start date

Grendel

Well-Known Member
That’s like saying you can buy a house for £10k
Yes you’ll have £200k mortgage, but you’ve bought a house with £10k

it isn’t - the shareholder value was £5.6 and the loan transfer was after purchase. The lease extension allowed a valuation of £60m - the borrowing needed wasn’t £35m it was £14m - the loan wasn’t related to the debt
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
it isn’t - the shareholder value was £5.6 and the loan transfer was after purchase. The lease extension allowed a valuation of £60m - the borrowing needed wasn’t £35m it was £14m - the loan wasn’t related to the debt

They used the loan to clear the debt
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member

Well let’s go along with that for a minute then.

Fisher said he wouldn’t have bought the ground on those terms. So he wanted to pay less than £6m for it??
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
There was no debt

ACL was £20m in debt to the council.

If you recall the council bailed out ACL in 2013 when it couldn’t repay its debt to Yorkshire Bank.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
ACL was £20m in debt to the council.

If you recall the council bailed out ACL in 2013 when it couldn’t repay its debt to Yorkshire Bank.

ACl was in no debt - there was a £14m charge against it to the council - the shareholder purchase reflected that there was zero obligation for the purchaser of the shares to then buy out the mortgage. Sorry but you are talking nonsense
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
ACl was in no debt - there was a £14m charge against it to the council - the shareholder purchase reflected that there was zero obligation for the purchaser of the shares to then buy out the mortgage. Sorry but you are talking nonsense

So Wasps gave the council £14m out of the goodness of its heart?

 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
So Wasps gave the council £14m out of the goodness of its heart?

They paid the council £14m but it was not part of the purchase, I'm not sure how you don't understand this.

For £5.5m they obtained the shares in ACL from CCC and AEHT and paid £1m to CCC to extend the lease to 250 years. They only paid that debt after the purchase. It was not part of the purchase price.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
So Wasps gave the council £14m out of the goodness of its heart?

No they decided on a different funding source to finance a charge against a business they’d purchased - they wouldn’t have even had an option to refinance without the lease extension and they had no obligation to do so
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
When taking on a public body like the council, the key is to get the public on side.

Sisu however decided to piss off the public first, and then try and take on the council.

How that hedge fund stays in business is beyond me. They clearly have no idea how basic human psychology works.

The key was to get the council onside. You’re pushing at an open door FFS. There won’t be an organisation in existence bar CCFC itself with a higher proportion of CCFC fans in it. A successful club reflects well on the city. You have to really fuck up to get them offside.

Joy went to a bunch of swivel eyed loons like Reid and Sinclaire and played poundshop Game of Thrones.

Ultimately the right move IMO was to threaten the rent strike, and get the fans on board and apply pressure for a new deal. Clearly we never had the cash for the stadium itself as the lack of bid at the end showed, but we could have played the public sympathy card much better. Not doing it at our lowest ebb on the pitch didn’t help either.

Just poor strategy all round. No idea if it works in the debt business, probably, but I wouldn’t put Seppala anywhere near a role that required bringing people on board. Jesus look at King who has basically come in, spent fuck all, and hammered the prices up and gets a song and masks. In a large part because we can actually see him and he can present a half decent persona to the media (even if that persona is weirdly out of touch local businessman crossed with Alan Partridge)
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
They paid the council £14m but it was not part of the purchase, I'm not sure how you don't understand this.

For £5.5m they obtained the shares in ACL from CCC and AEHT and paid £1m to CCC to extend the lease to 250 years. They only paid that debt after the purchase. It was not part of the purchase price.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Of course it was part of the purchase. They couldn’t refinance without the lease that was in large part the motivation, along with getting shot of a legal issue. Just because it wasn’t on paper doesn’t mean it wasn’t relevant.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The key was to get the council onside. You’re pushing at an open door FFS. There won’t be an organisation in existence bar CCFC itself with a higher proportion of CCFC fans in it. A successful club reflects well on the city. You have to really fuck up to get them offside.
At the risk of stepping back in time, certain council members let their support for the club colour their approach too. Instead of seeing it in child business terms, Mutton decided SISU needed to invest in the team before they could buy the ground etc, and there was no flexibility on the local authority side for seeing a deal other than what was best for them in the immediate term - there was no bigger picture.

And let's face it, Mutton and Seppala were never likely to get on to build a relationship!

Anyway, we've been there and done that.
 

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
The key was to get the council onside. You’re pushing at an open door FFS. There won’t be an organisation in existence bar CCFC itself with a higher proportion of CCFC fans in it. A successful club reflects well on the city. You have to really fuck up to get them offside.

Joy went to a bunch of swivel eyed loons like Reid and Sinclaire and played poundshop Game of Thrones.

Ultimately the right move IMO was to threaten the rent strike, and get the fans on board and apply pressure for a new deal. Clearly we never had the cash for the stadium itself as the lack of bid at the end showed, but we could have played the public sympathy card much better. Not doing it at our lowest ebb on the pitch didn’t help either.

Just poor strategy all round. No idea if it works in the debt business, probably, but I wouldn’t put Seppala anywhere near a role that required bringing people on board. Jesus look at King who has basically come in, spent fuck all, and hammered the prices up and gets a song and masks. In a large part because we can actually see him and he can present a half decent persona to the media (even if that persona is weirdly out of touch local businessman crossed with Alan Partridge)
Fisher was a tool of communication.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
At the risk of stepping back in time, certain council members let their support for the club colour their approach too. Instead of seeing it in child business terms, Mutton decided SISU needed to invest in the team before they could buy the ground etc, and there was no flexibility on the local authority side for seeing a deal other than what was best for them in the immediate term - there was no bigger picture.

And let's face it, Mutton and Seppala were never likely to get on to build a relationship!

Anyway, we've been there and done that.

But as we’ve seen football fans are easy. But Joy never made the case and instead went straight on the attack.

The fact is Sisu had no trust because of how they’d handled the club. There was a widespread belief they were just looking to grab the stadium and fuck the club off and the way they were treating the club hardly disproved it.

Ultimately Joy didn’t give a shite for years then turned up and tried to upend the tea table and act like it wasn’t her negligent ownership that got us relegated.
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
No they decided on a different funding source to finance a charge against a business they’d purchased - they wouldn’t have even had an option to refinance without the lease extension and they had no obligation to do so

You said there was no debt, and said I was talking nonsense for suggesting there was.

Yet there blatantly was debt
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
They paid the council £14m but it was not part of the purchase, I'm not sure how you don't understand this.

For £5.5m they obtained the shares in ACL from CCC and AEHT and paid £1m to CCC to extend the lease to 250 years. They only paid that debt after the purchase. It was not part of the purchase price.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

The debt was part of the purchase.

The deal was Wasps pay the £6m, and then repay to the council the £14m loan over the agreed time period.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
You said there was no debt, and said I was talking nonsense for suggesting there was.

Yet there blatantly was debt

The loan was a cost of purchase that was reflected in the shareholder value the same as any other payments - there was zero requirement to purchase the loan and the owners of wasps holdings could have paid the mortgage to the council - mutton at the time said the interest on the mortgage would provide tax payers with a profit
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The debt was part of the purchase.

The deal was Wasps pay the £6m, and then repay to the council the £14m loan over the agreed time period.

it wasn’t as there couldn’t be a legal requirement to do that
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
The loan was a cost of purchase that was reflected in the shareholder value the same as any other payments - there was zero requirement to purchase the loan and the owners of wasps holdings could have paid the mortgage to the council - mutton at the time said the interest on the mortgage would provide tax payers with a profit

But they still would’ve been paying it, just over a longer period.

And it was still a debt that existed
 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
it wasn’t as there couldn’t be a legal requirement to do that

Right do to clarify how you think things happened:

2013 - CCC loan ACL £14m to pay off Yorkshire Bank. Loan to be repaid to CCC over 50 years.

2014 - Wasps buy ACL, but have no responsibility for ACL debt. However Wasps decide to take on that debt anyway.

Why on Earth would Wasps take on ACL debt if, as you say, they didn’t have to?

Sorry but if you buy a business as a going concern, the debt still exists
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Did Wasps buy ACL unencumbered?

Why did SISU insist that they were only interested in buying ACL if it was unencumbered?

The answer is no to the first question and because ACL was in debt to the second.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
But they still would’ve been paying it, just over a longer period.

And it was still a debt that existed

Waaps paid £5.6m for the purchase of the shares - they then paid an extra £1m for the purchase of the lease extension. The lease extension raised the valuation of the Arena from £5.6m to I think £64m (?)

A valuation that took into account all outgoings did it not?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Right do to clarify how you think things happened:

2013 - CCC loan ACL £14m to pay off Yorkshire Bank. Loan to be repaid to CCC over 50 years.

2014 - Wasps buy ACL, but have no responsibility for ACL debt. However Wasps decide to take on that debt anyway.

Why on Earth would Wasps take on ACL debt if, as you say, they didn’t have to?

Sorry but if you buy a business as a going concern, the debt still exists

The shareholder value was £5.6m - it rose to £64m when the lease was purchased - what does that tell you?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Did Wasps buy ACL unencumbered?

Why did SISU insist that they were only interested in buying ACL if it was unencumbered?

The answer is no to the first question and because ACL was in debt to the second.

Eh? If Sisu had purchased the Higgs share as per the formula price they would have paid was it £11 million (?) for the share and the club still would have been paying the same rent it had before

Unencumbered was a word Lucas managed to pronounce and that was it.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
No. It was not. The assets had transferred by the time the loan was discharged. The bond issue was May 2015.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
They paid the £13.4 back after the bond.

All here in the Lego Heads article after the bond money was raised.

 

bigfatronssba

Well-Known Member
The shareholder value was £5.6m - it rose to £64m when the lease was purchased - what does that tell you?

That clearing the debt in ACL increased its value
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top