Tim and Humble Pie (1 Viewer)

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

I don't see half ownership of ACL via the Higgs share gaining anything. The club would still be liable for rent - there is no profit for investors and the decisions regarding future strategy will not be made by them. Half the revenue from ACL is what? It's pretty worthless and I see no evidence it's an appreciating asset.

It's profitable - latest accounts show £775,465 and £1,086,886 the year before, it's turnover is rising, as is it's assets are rising too - latest accounts showing £7.3m compared with £6.6m the previous year. We've seen the valuations placed on it during the Judicial review. It would have been secured at a price that would have represented good value against those figures. And again, less than the losses of the Sixfields farce. Holding half of the shares in ACL would also have placed the cub in a much batter position to renegotiate a lower rent. And Fisher - via JS by proxy maybe - walked away from that. That's the context for judging him

 

---

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

With the greatest of respect, I remain to be convinced owning half a stadium management company is a deal worth making.

Well, it's cited worth in the papers released to the judicial review prove you wrong. It would have represented a decent investment, if the club had taken the deal on offer from Higgs

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Well, it's cited worth in the papers released to the judicial review prove you wrong. It would have represented a decent investment, if the club had taken the deal on offer from Higgs

No, a better investment would be the club having a better agreement than half a deal in a stadium management company.

Both sporting, and financial.

Half of ACL still stores up trouble, and isn't in the best interests of the club in my view.

Again, this is something I told McGInnity back in the day, so I'm not really interested in what SISU have or haven't done recently. I prefer to look at what would be better for the club overall in my view. This can be separated by whether I agree with SISU as owners or not.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

See edit. Just because a deal is better than Sixfields does not make it a good deal long term.

But anything else is guess work. If you look at the losses from Sxfields, the value of the Higgs share as offered to SISU, and the valuations of ACL banded about by professionals more qualified than you and I - you have to deal with facts presented, and historical actions

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

No, a better investment would be the club having a better agreement than half a deal in a stadium management company.

Both sporting, and financial.

Half of ACL still stores up trouble, and isn't in the best interests of the club in my view.

Again, this is something I told McGInnity back in the day, so I'm not really interested in what SISU have or haven't done recently. I prefer to look at what would be better for the club overall.

For the club to have nothing is suicide. For the club to have everything is perfect. 50% would have been a significant improvement over what was served up. You're trying to get from A to C by lamenting what D might have been. We were where we were, and the route from A to C should have been via B. Which was the 50% shareholding Fisher walked away from

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But anything else is guess work. If you look at the losses from Sxfields, the value of the Higgs share as offered to SISU, and the valuations of ACL banded about by professionals more qualified than you and I - you have to deal with facts presented, and historical actions

It isn't really guess work.

Owning more than half a stadium management company would be better for the club.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It isn't really guess work.

Owning more than half a stadium management company would be better for the club.

Calling it a 'stadium management company' is a bit disingenuous. It controls, in effect, all of the revenues into the Ricoh for what - another 40 years?

Those current revenues currently being some £14m per annum. Maybe less in the next set of accounts - perhaps £10m?

Acquiring half of that for the same sum as we pissed up the wall moving to Northampton for a season was a huge blunder.

And I agree with you, not quite perfect, but of your halcyon dream is 100%, it's half way there. Whereas now, we've lost that cash, lost the opportunity, and were no closer. In fact we're further away

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Calling it a 'stadium management company' is a bit disingenuous.

But that's what it is. It only has a (relatively) short lease itself.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

But that's what it is. It only has a (relatively) short lease itself.

'Kinnell old lad; it's long enough for the time being. You could base a coherent business plan based on a third of it's duration

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

'Kinnell old lad; it's long enough for the time being. You could base a coherent business plan based on a third of it's duration

As J.M. Keynes said - "In the long run, we are all dead".

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Keynes would have also been all for a bigger investment now to improve things in the long term

 

[DazzleTommyDazzle]

Keynes would have also been all for a bigger investment now to improve things in the long term

Probably true, though sadly his views on the importance of F&B income are scandalously under-reported