<br />we all want sisu out of coventry but who want's to buy the club what value do coventry hold apart from hoofman who only offered a £1 and suppoesdly 30million to invest no offense to him. im not being harsh just realistic and i will always stick up for cov even if we play poorly i will even defend baker i love the club but we dont have any value if we want a stable club with willing investors we need value does anyone think we have any value?
we all want sisu out of coventry but who want's to buy the club what value do coventry hold apart from hoofman who only offered a £1 and suppoesdly 30million to invest no offense to him. im not being harsh just realistic and i will always stick up for cov even if we play poorly i will even defend baker i love the club but we dont have any value if we want a stable club with willing investors we need value does anyone think we have any value?
Hence why SISU are all of a sudden trying to sign any players we have onto longer term contracts, have been saying this for weeks. This in theory strengthens their position when bargaining with any interested parties over the value of the club. You don't all of a sudden believe that SISU think Mcsheff, Bell, Mcpake and Baker are footballing world beaters do you? Also signing the youngsters up vastly inflates their current and future asset value.In theory there is a value in the contracts held by the players - but only if they are saleable
Hence why SISU are all of a sudden trying to sign any players we have onto longer term contracts, have been saying this for weeks. This in theory strengthens their position when bargaining with any interested parties over the value of the club. You don't all of a sudden believe that SISU think Mcsheff, Bell, Mcpake and Baker are footballing world beaters do you? Also signing the youngsters up vastly inflates their current and future asset value.
Can people really not see that this is all part of the endgame?
The debt is what, £40m? Cost to buy the stadium would be about £50m so just to get us out of debt and owners of the Ricoh would cost £90m.....and in terms of assets we probably have about £10m so I'd say we're worth about -£80m. Hoffman's bid was mental, should have bid 1p, not £1!
Well the sticking point is presumably that SISU want that £40m back.
The £50m for the stadium wouldn't be money you're throwing away would it as it's buying you an asset? Surely then you own an asset worth roughly £80m (based on the valuation of £40m for the councils half which seems to be knocking around) with £20 of liabilities (the loan). Say you sell the club on in 5 years surely the lease would still be worth around the same if not more? I'm sure OSB will be more informed on that kind of thing but the idea that buying the stadium is money that will never be seen again seems a bit odd to me. Surely every club that has a new stadium isn't going out paying cash and writing it off?
Comet may have been sold for £2 but the new owners took on the assets AND the liabilities in buying the shares. Much like SISU are asking any investor to do. That is the crux of the matter. Until Hoffman or anyone else solves that and comes up with something realistic then there is no deal to be done
Not really Kesa will be giving the new owners money to take on Comet and turn it around:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15650763
If it's then sold on for a profit Kesa will get a share of any profits. Why can't SISU do the same thing?
Not really Kesa will be giving the new owners money to take on Comet and turn it around:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15650763
If it's then sold on for a profit Kesa will get a share of any profits. Why can't SISU do the same thing?
Dont think they are just giving them the money and writing off they are lending the money - it will be repayable ....... much the same way SISU have arranged loans. If they are investing £50m in the holding company that will be loans or shares and repayable on any sale. They can say wont benefit unless above £70m sale price because they wont take dividends or interest so wont benefit in that sense they might not make that value but i bet the loan notes will still be there and due for payment. Comet still retains the warranty etc liabilities and I would bet the £70m transferred to the new company is the monies collected in premiums in the first place. I would also bet that aside from the pension scheme Comet retain all other liabilities and assets. Could be wrong but i think the devil is in the detail
It does annoy me when journalists come out with some of the financial commentary. It is like the Hoffman consortium giving the club £30m to play with. They are not gifting anything, it will be a form of loan that ultimately is repayable. It replaces one debt with another. Folk lose sight of that. The only way the Hoffman group is going to get debts down is to get SISU to write off some or all of their loan (no hope and bob hope of that !) All the other debts will remain - monies introduced would be used to pay them off leaving the monies introduced as a liability to be repaid instead
While I see what you're getting at, why should they?
What if you wanted to sell your house and someone said well you just give it me now and if I sell it in the future then I'll give you some money then?
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?