D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
It'd be a good deal for the taxpayer, wouldn't it...
If its worth it why doesn't the council buy it?
The stumbling block is ACL. Without ccfc it is worth very little
Most like level of rent and length of lease.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
I do find it odd that we were only renting the place for at most 30 days a year and yet we were the anchor tenant. Is this awarded on space rented, profile of the tenant, length of lease? I suppose we were also renting the 'dingey' offices as well but even then we would hardly be using as much space as say the hotel per year. I'm guessing length of lease.
We bring 10,000 people to the rest of the complex 23 times a year, that's worth a bit. Don't forget the club had offices and the shop as well, don't go full Labovitch with the "we were only there 30 days" crap.
The casino probably pays similar rent but brings nothing like the same amount of people to the arena.
"A significant amount of the revenue is secured against Coventry City Football Club, a weak covenant
with a history of financial difficulties. The income from the Compass agreement, particularly the profit
share, is partly reliant on the performance of the club.
The demotion to a lower league might reduce visitor numbers to the arena, threatening revenues from catering and event management facilities and, longer term, potential loss of main revenue streams in the event that current sponsorship and naming rights, especially to Ricoh and Jaguar, are not renewed."
This is from the JR day 1 transcript:
This is one of those "I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me" moments.
James asked why we were considered the anchor tenant, I posited that it was more down to footfall (and publicity) than rent amounts. It seems that quote agrees.
Most like level of rent and length of lease.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
This is one of those "I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me" moments.
James asked why we were considered the anchor tenant, I posited that it was more down to footfall (and publicity) than rent amounts. It seems that quote agrees.
We learnt at the JR that the valuations of ACL were 19.6m with CCFC there at a rental of 1.2m and 6.4m with no rent from CCFC. That's a gap of 13.2m
Often the value of a rental tenant is expressed as a multiple of the rent paid. It would seem in this case it is a multiple of 11.
What that leaves is a valuation of ACL business excluding CCFC of 6.4m. If that was on the same basis that would mean all other sources were 6.4 divided by 11 = £582K
Or a total turnover of 1.7m
Clearly not so ..... excluding the CCFC effect before CCFC pulled out ACL had a turnover of 5.5m ish
"Therefore, it is unlikely that any residual value enhancement will be achieved unless the debt purchase
was less than £8 million. It is possible that the current value of ACL is as little as £4 to £4.5 million,
though the value of which will be the subject of a revised valuation."
This is from PWKH and Mr Harris dated September 10th. It's in context of shareholder value if council bought the loan at £15m:
Was that in the court transcripts from last week?
Yes- first day.
I have just finished reading day 1 and I must say it makes me very, very sad.
The sisu QC goes through all the documents from ACL/CCC to make a very believable case of 'political rape of the club' (my words not his).
I started reading in the belief that I would learn nothing new, but there are actually quite a few new bits of information.
But so far - before reading part 2 & 3, I am quite convinced the ruling will be that the loan IS state aid. It's given on premises no private investor would even consider. The loan is more than double the value of ACL and gives no shareholder value at all - as oppose to the 'roadmap'. The council paid way too much according to reports from Deloitte and Pricewaterhouse.
The loan makes no commercial sense. The taxpayers were better served if ACL had gone bust. Higgs were better off if they had accepted sisu's offer of 2m - even better off if the roadmap' had been followed though and they would have received £5m+.
If the judge comes to the conclusion that the loan is state aid, then I guess it comes down to if the council followed the application procedure.
But I guess that is day 2 or 3 so I will have to wait before forming a opinion on that.
An interesting part in day 1 is that ACL didn't want any rent negotiation until they had bought the loan. They told sisu that as long the rent was not agreed it would put some pressure on Yorkshire Bank. They indeed used that in their negotiation with YB.
It's interesting because we are told how it was sisu who would screw the bank, and while it was sisu's idea it was ACL who tried to execute it - with very little success.
The story we have been told about how sisu moved the goalposts re acceptable rent seems false, but I guess that is just one part of the spin.
Not really had time to look through it yet, and imagine hard to sort out what's relevant amongst all the legal jargon, must try to have a proper look tomorrow.
Have the CET run anything in depth apart from tweets on the day(s) about it?
I haven't seen any in-depth reports from CET, but anyway I would rather read an analysis from somebody not even remotely connected (financially or emotionally) to the club or the council.
Day 1 transcript has a lot of points only indirectly towards the issue of the legality of the loan, but it's depressing stuff.
I kind of feel sorry for Chris West. He must have felt he was a very powerful man in late 2012 early 2013, but he could well end up with no friends.
Yes- first day.
I have just finished reading day 1 and I must say it makes me very, very sad.
The sisu QC goes through all the documents from ACL/CCC to make a very believable case of 'political rape of the club' (my words not his).
I started reading in the belief that I would learn nothing new, but there are actually quite a few new bits of information.
But so far - before reading part 2 & 3, I am quite convinced the ruling will be that the loan IS state aid. It's given on premises no private investor would even consider. The loan is more than double the value of ACL and gives no shareholder value at all - as oppose to the 'roadmap'. The council paid way too much according to reports from Deloitte and Pricewaterhouse.
The loan makes no commercial sense. The taxpayers were better served if ACL had gone bust. Higgs were better off if they had accepted sisu's offer of 2m - even better off if the roadmap' had been followed though and they would have received £5m+.
If the judge comes to the conclusion that the loan is state aid, then I guess it comes down to if the council followed the application procedure.
But I guess that is day 2 or 3 so I will have to wait before forming a opinion on that.
An interesting part in day 1 is that ACL didn't want any rent negotiation until they had bought the loan. They told sisu that as long the rent was not agreed it would put some pressure on Yorkshire Bank. They indeed used that in their negotiation with YB.
It's interesting because we are told how it was sisu who would screw the bank, and while it was sisu's idea it was ACL who tried to execute it - with very little success.
The story we have been told about how sisu moved the goalposts re acceptable rent seems false, but I guess that is just one part of the spin.
This is new to me: ACL handed over Car Park C to the council as part of the bail out agreement.
This means the council depleted ACL of an asset valued at £1m+ ... did Higgs receive an compensation? Not as a s I can read.
I thought it was sisu who were supposed to be the asset stripping bastards not adverse to steal from a children's charity?
Is that the one opposite?
The judge picked up the SISU QC on what he was saying. He reminded him about the fact of using all information to hand at the time the loan was done and not all the evidence that came out afterwards. He also questioned the fact that the SISU QC put forward of how much that SISU could have bought the debt for. It don't look realistic at all.
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: If that's right, if that isright, the options open to the council were only to do what they did or to putACL into liquidation.
MR GOUDIE: Or to let ACL be put into liquidation, yes.
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: To let ACL be put into liquidation.
MR GOUDIE: Yes, and thereby not as a matter ofprobability, but as a matter of certainty, to have lost the value of itsinterest in ACL in perpetuity.
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: It's a legitimate commercial optionto allow a company in which you have a shareholding to go into liquidationbecause that's the commercially better thing to do.
This is new to me: ACL handed over Car Park C to the council as part of the bail out agreement.
This means the council depleted ACL of an asset valued at £1m+ ... did Higgs receive an compensation? Not as a s I can read.
I thought it was sisu who were supposed to be the asset stripping bastards not adverse to steal from a children's charity?
So ACL handed over a £1m asset as well as pay interest on the loan. Sounding less and less like state aid all the time.
Where and when did that come out?
The fact is it was a value of over £1 million that the council achieved by having the car park C transferred to it for nil consideration.
This is new to me: ACL handed over Car Park C to the council as part of the bail out agreement.
This means the council depleted ACL of an asset valued at £1m+ ... did Higgs receive an compensation? Not as a s I can read.
I thought it was sisu who were supposed to be the asset stripping bastards not adverse to steal from a children's charity?
One issue we have discussed often is the rent agreement they seemingly reached in January 2013 only for JS to veto it.
First - the deal was proposed by sisu, in fact JS herself, but before the council bought the loan. As sisu buying the loan (or half of it with ccc buying the other half) was obviously the central piece in the roadmap, and as that piece was now taken out, it's not like JS actually went back on her words. The whole scenario changed when the council bought the loan contrary to the signed HoT.
Then JS presented a different rent deal, still on £400k per year, but running for three years only as they would then build a new stadium. ACL refused and pushed to put the club in administration.
But the interesting part is that it was the council who renerged on the HoT only days after they signed it, which removed all the sweeteners from the rent deal originally suggested by JS.
Then the council accuses JS to renerge on that rent deal without telling us that they had changed the premisses completely.
And we bought it.
How is that? Is it a deal a private investor would have made? Does it add security for the loan ... or indeed deplete the security?
And why are you not up in flames about Higgs losing shareholder value?
Very interesting. I assume this was presented by Sisu's QC? Was it challenged by the council's wig?
I'm only up to the bit on day one where we hear Sisu mentioned Insolvency as an option for the club (pages 90/91) so trying not to read ahead on here.
So ACL handed over a £1m asset as well as pay interest on the loan. Sounding less and less like state aid all the time.
So you're saying that the restructuring of the loan had no value to the share holders and as a result of handing over car park C it only effected the value of the Higgs share and Higgs had no say in accepting the re-financing with said car park going the other way?
I've never licked you so much in one thread, Godiva. Sorry, liked. Slip of the tongue...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?