Or in their agenda - update on the latest Arena opportunity
Would that co-investor be exposed to Sisu's debt as well?It’s a fair musing.
Any asset with potential decent resale value and reliable income streams can usually be financed.
I’m fairly sure they can move / raise money even though atm financial products are all up in the air.
Short answer: SISU could find the money / a backer / partner on this I’m sure. MA has gone straight on the front foot though and his pockets are so deep it’d be a case of how far either party is going to have wanted to bid. MA would always win that one.
We’re into the really hypothetical zone now:Would that co-investor be exposed to Sisu's debt as well?
We’re into the really hypothetical zone now:
If investor had some kind of security (not like the dodgy Bond type) over the stadium in a non-group newco which held the lease and charged rent then it’s possible to isolate I guess.
Not sure they wouldHow would they get 51% of the club without taking on its debts? They’d need to own the company that has the golden share wouldn’t they? I’ve long given up trying to follow the ownership structures and charges so apologies if this is a stupid question.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear there - I’d missed the context maybe.How would they get 51% of the club without taking on its debts? They’d need to own the company that has the golden share wouldn’t they? I’ve long given up trying to follow the ownership structures and charges so apologies if this is a stupid question.
How would they get 51% of the club without taking on its debts? They’d need to own the company that has the golden share wouldn’t they? I’ve long given up trying to follow the ownership structures and charges so apologies if this is a stupid question.
Helicopter just landed at ricoh on my way past
It’s nonsense anyone would buy 51% of a debt laden company. Was true also as to why no one would have purchased the Higgs share of ACL of course
Everyone keeps hoping for CCFC and the stadium to be ‘united’, which sounds great. If it doesn’t happen we have been ‘fucked over’.
But a) the stadium hasn’t exactly proved to be a cash cow so far, although maybe there are real estate opportunities b) nobody has ever (including now) put forward a credible proposal to own both entities and c) even if they did they would keep them at arms’ length in separate companies. So joint ownership in itself isn’t the answer UNLESS the owner has football ambitions. All that really matters to me as a fan is who owns CCFC and whether they are prepared to fund an improving team on the pitch.
Can only hope that this process will eventually get us there.
G-moal does show in that area
Interesting!!!Gilbert just posted on the bondholders page on FB suggesting the exclusivity clause is preventing higher bids from being accepted. Wonder if he knows anything that hasn’t come to light yet.
Gilbert just posted on the bondholders page on FB suggesting the exclusivity clause is preventing higher bids from being accepted. Wonder if he knows anything that hasn’t come to light yet.
Implying administrator breaking the law?
Trustee too,?
Gilbert just posted on the bondholders page on FB suggesting the exclusivity clause is preventing higher bids from being accepted. Wonder if he knows anything that hasn’t come to light yet.
Ohh other bids on the table which are higher than Ashley's?
Looks like it wasn't about the best bid but getting this particular one though
Or one that simply isn't SISU....ACL isn't in Administration yet though.
Wonder if it's a lower bid but better for Richardson personally.....
ACL isn't in Administration yet though.
Wonder if it's a lower bid but better for Richardson personally.....
Isn't the administrator in control of ACL. As isn't running as a normal business.
Sisu gona batter them all in court
ACL isn't in Administration.
Richardson is running it.... So it will be interesting to see if these bids exist and if they are better for creditors in general (more for them) compared to more for Richardson...
Safe to assume the exclusivity payment is what is keeping ACL out of liquidation at the moment?Gilbert just posted on the bondholders page on FB suggesting the exclusivity clause is preventing higher bids from being accepted. Wonder if he knows anything that hasn’t come to light yet.
So in theory it's the exclusivity fee that gets it regardless of bid contents? Doesn't seem right.
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?