lending to ACL is a small risk because they have an expensive asset to secure the loan against. If you don't get paid you get the asset, ACL also have no history of not paying what they owe.
I think you've misunderstood, I mean if at day 1 when the Ricoh was built CCFC owned 100% of ACL, CCC could loan ACL the £21m secured against the lease. As we know CCC can access finance on better terms than are commercial available so rather than ACL take a loan from Yorkshire Bank why not borrow from CCC at a lower interest rate on a longer term. If they expected us to be able to pay £1.2m a year in rent surely they wouldn't have a problem with instead making a loan where annual repayments would be less than half that?
Ermmmm.. that definitely would be illegal state aid.
So you agree with SISU, the loan to ACL is illegal state aid? I can't see a difference between a loan made to ACL 100% owned by CCFC or a loan made to ACL 100% owned by Wasps.
Erm - wasn't that asset the lease?
So if ACL went bankrupt with no money to distribute to creditors all that would revert was the lease. Kind of risky if there was no other sports at the Ricoh.
Exactly, they were happy to lend to ACL, first owned by CCC / Higgs and now by Wasps, with just the lease as security, why couldn't the same apply to lending to ACL owned by CCFC?
he asked how is lending to a wasps owed acl not a risk but loaning to us is? but even if he meant years ago much of what I said still applies, if you have an asset to secure the loan against it's not much of a risk, if you don't then it is.
Also the council loan only came about recently it was the bank who loaned the money.
But if CCFC owned 100% of ACL the loan would still be to ACL secured against the lease. Indeed the initial loan was from Yorkshire Bank but as we now know CCC can access finance on preferential terms, could they not have done that, for the clubs benefit, in the past?
some risk but massively less than lending to the football club.
How so? Wasps are losing millions a year, they have no idea if they will be able to sustain a level of attendance that makes ownership of ACL viable and they can't for certain say we'll be playing there for the rest of the 200 plus year lease. Surely thats more of a risk?