This 50% share (1 Viewer)

[Paxman II]

Just wanted something clarifying on here.

So SISU could with the option they have, purchase 50% share holding in the ACL operating company from the Higgs charity?
Has this option ran out? Was it in Holdings or Ltd? Is it still available? Can Otium now possess this option?
(I'm mindful the administrator is running Ltd at the moment)

Also IF that share holding was purchased (not sure Higgs want to sell to any SISU company mind but do they have a choice if it's a contractual obligation?) what does that do for the football club owners financial betterment bearing in mind they will have perhaps paid out 3 to 6m for the privilege?

 

---

[Paxman II]

No body answering this one then?:thinking about:

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Pwkh likely to know the answer I don't

 

[James Smith]

No body answering this one then?:thinking about:

PWKH discussed the options on the charity share yesterday I think, I'll try and find the post.

 

[James Smith]

The Option is in CCFC Ltd. It has been shown in the accounts of other entities owned by Sisu and linked to CCFC. It has not been transferred out of CCFC Ltd: for it to be assigned it requires the agreement of the Trustees. This agreement has not been sought by Sisu or by the Administrator. Sisu did not trigger the Option last summer. At present the Option is in the hands of the Administrator. It cannot be triggered if CCFC Ltd owe any money to ACL.

As I understand it, (and the Trustees have not yet taken advice because the parts are still moving and there is no point in spending any money on lawyers until they stop moving) if the CVA is accepted Ltd can continue or it can be liquidated. If it is liquidated the Option dies. What will not happen, it seems, is that Ltd will be sold to Otium. Appleton has accepted an offer from Otium for whatever the assets are, not for the company itself. If Otium bought Ltd they would be buying the lease and licence at the Ricoh...
As I say, the parts are still moving around and what is today's situation may well not be tomorrow's.

That's what he said and I guess he should know.

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Who in their right mind would sell this scum anything would agree a price then take you to court to get it for nothing

:blue:

Just wanted something clarifying on here.

So SISU could with the option they have, purchase 50% share holding in the ACL operating company from the Higgs charity?
Has this option ran out? Was it in Holdings or Ltd? Is it still available? Can Otium now possess this option?
(I'm mindful the administrator is running Ltd at the moment)

Also IF that share holding was purchased (not sure Higgs want to sell to any SISU company mind but do they have a choice if it's a contractual obligation?) what does that do for the football club owners financial betterment bearing in mind they will have perhaps paid out 3 to 6m for the privilege?

 

[Paxman II]

Thanks James for finding that. So as I suspected SISU don't care because they would not part with the millions to get it anyway....after all it's worthless in cash terms? There really is little value in having 50% share holding in the company that operates the lease now is there? No income streams so what's the point?

I'm just high lighting what many keep repeating on here that SISU were offered half the Ricoh. Err no they were not. They were offered and always had the option in Ltd to buy a share holding for the Higgs part of the operating company. So no value ever in that.

ACL and the Council have never even tried to sell any interest in 'ownership' of the Ricoh. be that the lease hold interest giving income streams or god forbid any freehold interest. they never even made any approach to do so when Ranson saved the club and just stuck them with 1.2m rent expecting all would be OK?

It came back to bite the council and ACL big time.
Not taking sides here just looking at facts in the light of Hoffman's offer and people expecting SISU should just oh yeah great!

 

[Delboycov]

Thanks James for finding that. So as I suspected SISU don't care because they would not part with the millions to get it anyway....after all it's worthless in cash terms? There really is little value in having 50% share holding in the company that operates the lease now is there? No income streams so what's the point?

I'm just high lighting what many keep repeating on here that SISU were offered half the Ricoh. Err no they were not. They were offered and always had the option in Ltd to buy a share holding for the Higgs part of the operating company. So no value ever in that.

ACL and the Council have never even tried to sell any interest in 'ownership' of the Ricoh. be that the lease hold interest giving income streams or god forbid any freehold interest. they never even made any approach to do so when Ranson saved the club and just stuck them with 1.2m rent expecting all would be OK?

It came back to bite the council and ACL big time.
Not taking sides here just looking at facts in the light of Hoffman's offer and people expecting SISU should just oh yeah great!

Well that's a first mate!

 

[Broken Hearted Sky Blue]

Thanks James for finding that. So as I suspected SISU don't care because they would not part with the millions to get it anyway....after all it's worthless in cash terms? There really is little value in having 50% share holding in the company that operates the lease now is there? No income streams so what's the point?

I'm just high lighting what many keep repeating on here that SISU were offered half the Ricoh. Err no they were not. They were offered and always had the option in Ltd to buy a share holding for the Higgs part of the operating company. So no value ever in that.

ACL and the Council have never even tried to sell any interest in 'ownership' of the Ricoh. be that the lease hold interest giving income streams or god forbid any freehold interest. they never even made any approach to do so when Ranson saved the club and just stuck them with 1.2m rent expecting all would be OK?

It came back to bite the council and ACL big time.
Not taking sides here just looking at facts in the light of Hoffman's offer and people expecting SISU should just oh yeah great!

So why last year did they try to buy the Higgs share then genius?

 

[James Smith]

Thanks James for finding that. So as I suspected SISU don't care because they would not part with the millions to get it anyway....after all it's worthless in cash terms? There really is little value in having 50% share holding in the company that operates the lease now is there? No income streams so what's the point?

I'm just high lighting what many keep repeating on here that SISU were offered half the Ricoh. Err no they were not. They were offered and always had the option in Ltd to buy a share holding for the Higgs part of the operating company. So no value ever in that.

ACL and the Council have never even tried to sell any interest in 'ownership' of the Ricoh. be that the lease hold interest giving income streams or god forbid any freehold interest. they never even made any approach to do so when Ranson saved the club and just stuck them with 1.2m rent expecting all would be OK?

It came back to bite the council and ACL big time.
Not taking sides here just looking at facts in the light of Hoffman's offer and people expecting SISU should just oh yeah great!

They did look at purchasing the Higgs as they agreed a Heads of Terms and then walked away according to PWKH who said the charity heard nothing after that. As I understand it there are two directors from the charity and council each and then two independents. So they would have had 2 seats on the board if they had bought it and that might have been helpful to the club but I guess we'll never know now.

 

[PWKH]

Thanks James for finding that. So as I suspected SISU don't care because they would not part with the millions to get it anyway....after all it's worthless in cash terms? There really is little value in having 50% share holding in the company that operates the lease now is there? No income streams so what's the point?

I'm just high lighting what many keep repeating on here that SISU were offered half the Ricoh. Err no they were not. They were offered and always had the option in Ltd to buy a share holding for the Higgs part of the operating company. So no value ever in that.


ACL and the Council have never even tried to sell any interest in 'ownership' of the Ricoh. be that the lease hold interest giving income streams or god forbid any freehold interest. they never even made any approach to do so when Ranson saved the club and just stuck them with 1.2m rent expecting all would be OK?

It came back to bite the council and ACL big time.
Not taking sides here just looking at facts in the light of Hoffman's offer and people expecting SISU should just oh yeah great!

There is some confusion here. The Option, which is owned by Ltd is to buy the Charity's shares in ACL. ACL owns the lease at the Ricoh. This lease allows ACL to "own" the Ricoh for the next 41 years.

Whether there is any value in owning the naming rights, the catering, exhibition and hotel company, being the landlord for the casino and offices, having the naming rights etc I will leave up to you to decide. You say there is no value in that, I do not agree.

ACL own the lease. Theoretically the shareholders of ACL, the Council and the Charity could go from 50% each to 33.3% and bring in a third partner. There has been no suggestion of that so far. The Council could sell the freehold of the Ricoh, ACL would still have the lease. There is no good reason for the Council to do this. What is and has always been talked about is the possible sale of the Charity's 50% in ACL.

Your comments are not based on accurate information.

 

[BrisbaneBronco]

There is some confusion here. The Option, which is owned by Ltd is to buy the Charity's shares in ACL. ACL owns the lease at the Ricoh. This lease allows ACL to "own" the Ricoh for the next 41 years.

Whether there is any value in owning the naming rights, the catering, exhibition and hotel company, being the landlord for the casino and offices, having the naming rights etc I will leave up to you to decide. You say there is no value in that, I do not agree.

ACL own the lease. Theoretically the shareholders of ACL, the Council and the Charity could go from 50% each to 33.3% and bring in a third partner. There has been no suggestion of that so far. The Council could sell the freehold of the Ricoh, ACL would still have the lease. There is no good reason for the Council to do this. What is and has always been talked about is the possible sale of the Charity's 50% in ACL.

Your comments are not based on accurate information.

A couple of questions which I feel sure you will not answer, but I will try anyway.
(apart f
If somebody wanted to take over all of ACL, would ACL be prepared to sell?
The same question also applies to purchasing the Ricoh off CCC?

Surely ACL must realise that if this were to happen, the future of CCFC would be secure for a very long time. The way things look from my perception at present, is that SISU have you over a barrel. I would also like to add that SISU's ground share is the dumbest thing ever to happen to CCFC and if they reckon they will make more revenue than by remaining at the Ricoh, then it looks to me that they have been mightily shafted by you guys in the past.

 

[James Smith]

A couple of questions which I feel sure you will not answer, but I will try anyway.
(apart f
If somebody wanted to take over all of ACL, would ACL be prepared to sell?
The same question also applies to purchasing the Ricoh off CCC?

Surely ACL must realise that if this were to happen, the future of CCFC would be secure for a very long time. The way things look from my perception at present, is that SISU have you over a barrel. I would also like to add that SISU's ground share is the dumbest thing ever to happen to CCFC and if they reckon they will make more revenue than by remaining at the Ricoh, then it looks to me that they have been mightily shafted by you guys in the past.

Well if they make more on the catering at NTFC then that's lovely but are they going to make anything on the pitchside advertising at NTFC and Car Parking etc? Also you have to factor in the probable smaller attendance and as a result will any gains in percentage of revenue be ofset by this. Will the revenue actually increase under FFP rules at NTFC versus the offer of cross invoicing that ACL made? I guess only time will tell, as I won't wait for Tim to tell, given how good he's been at communicating in the past.