Value of club? (1 Viewer)

[skybluegod]

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?

 

---

[NINOOVCOV]

it looks bad don't it mate

 

[valiant15]

The club is worthless.

 

[cloughie]

The club is worthless

But priceless to us true fans

 

[Jim]

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?

<br />
<br />
The club has a negative balance sheet and is loss making. It is worth nothing. The £1 bid is spot on by Hoffman.

 

[Disorganised1]

In theory there is a value in the contracts held by the players - but only if they are saleable

 

[sky blue john]

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?

Basically NO !

 

[Snozzer]

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?

 

[Gaz]

With the amount of money the club losses
I would say that the club isn't even worth the £1

 

[Snozzer]

That's up for debate, am just trying to explain how SISU think they are strengthening their bargaining position.

 

[gouldberg]

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!

 

[OyJimmy]

Comet has just been sold for £2 because it loses money, yet it has lots of stores and plenty of assets. CCFC lose money, doesn't own the stadium and it's assets probably aren't worth much. So Hoffman's bid was in my view quite reasonable.

The problem is that the club is worthless to an investor without the stadium. Hoffman would probably love to buy the club but he need's backers to help him and if they look at the maths it simply doesn't work as a business.

If SISU want money for the club they must turn a profit/ break even at almost any cost and ideally buy some or all of the stadium. Without achieving one of those objectives CCFC is worthless really.

 

[oldskyblue58]

to answer the OP then the club has no value in terms of looking at its balance sheet & trading. £1 is a standard payment in such circumstances for the shares.

The value was never the issue - it is the repayment of the loans

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

 

[chiefdave]

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?

Could the contracts have a negative effect? Lets say for example Hoff's group takes over but they think several of the players who have been signed to contracts aren't up to the job and they want to get rid of them. Isn't that now going to cost them more money as they have longer contracts to pay off?

 

[LuckyGMan]

I can't think of too many clubs that have struggled over the years that have been in a worse position financially than we are.

 

[chiefdave]

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?

 

[oldskyblue58]

if we bought the stadium then i assume we would pay what it is worth. So assuming it is worth £50m and we borrow that money and have a loan of £50m then assets increase by £50m and liabilities increase by £50m. Our balance sheet total wouldnt change

 

[Skybluetracy]

The real issue is as follows. The club is losing money. It has no assets except those on the pitch and limited commercial upside because we only have shirts to sponsor, tickets to sell and the shop. An investor would he the costs if around £10m a year. But SISU have mortgaged the revenues - season tickets, TV money, premier league money. Lots I'd cost. No revenue. Worth a lot less than £1 as they have to cover this and invest. His investors were prepared to give SISU money based on future success. And buy half the stadium on day 1. A tragedy for us SISU drovethem away. Let's not forget they took fans' shares off them for nothing. I hope something can still be done..

 

[gouldberg]

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?

At no point did I say we'd never see the money for the stadium again. The average joe seems to think it makes a few million profit a year so indeed slowly we'll reap the benefits of having the stadium. The only point I was trying to make is that they'd have to blow that £50m just to own something that most teams already own. Say someone wanted to buy us 15 years ago, they'd have been buying a club with a stadium. Now that's not the case so in my personal opinion the valuation of the club has to be altered accordingly.

Simply put, to set us up as a club free of debt that owns our own stadium would set a potential new owner back an initial £90m before we're in any position to start becoming profitable. Once we own the stadium we should start making that back but it's the initial payment that I think will have any possible suitors running a mile.

 

[OyJimmy]

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?

 

[torchomatic]

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?

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?

 

[oldskyblue58]

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

 

[torchomatic]

Good post, OSB. Yeah, Hoffman is a City fan, but he's not a Saint and neither are his supposed investors. They want something for their cash, just as much as SISU or any other owner would.

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

 

[skybluegod]

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?

isn't that what thousands done with houses in negative equity walked away and told the banks they could get there money back when prices rose again...and your not going to get much more negative equity than us at the moment..maybe we should take out an endowment policy