We Took The Ricoh for Granted (2 Viewers)

James Smith · Jul 29, 2014

Grendel said:
Sorry? Why would buying a half share of one company have ever provided revenues to a separate company?

I'm going on what Joy said in the interview with Les R, where she said something along the lines of* the club didn't know that it was signing over the Pie Money when they sold the share to the Higgs. To me that implies that the Pie Money rights went hand in hand with the club share that we sold to the Higgs. I may have interpreted that wrong but that's what I read into it.

Also I don't think IEC is that old is it and prior to the formation of this ACL had 100% of what revenues are now part of the IEC ones. So if the Pie Money rights were part of the Higgs share then they could have been sold back along with or as part of the share couldn't they?

*the browser on my phone isn't working properly so I can't check the exact quote.

shmmeee · Jul 29, 2014

Grendel said:
How can food revenues be in the deal? They are now part of a separate company?

Buying half of ACL for £2 million may be worth something to sisu in terms of strategy and revenues but how would it have actually helped the club? It has no say on rent and none of the f and b revenues can be transferred back to the club.

I guess the key issue here is if the owners of CCFC and the council owned half who has the veto. I cannot believe they both have it as an article of association based on that could lead to strangulation. Someone on the board must have the vote. PWKH will know. I suspect others know. We don't. Its that which determines the real value of the half share.

You have a point about revenues now after the Compass deal. It remains to be seen what the deal is there.

I'm basing the CCFC veto off the fact that PWKH has always talked about both sides having a veto on decisions like selling the other ones shares.

Is it normal for one side to hold all the cards in a partnership? Sounds off to me, but I don't know.

shmmeee · Jul 29, 2014

James Smith said:
I'm going on what Joy said in the interview with Les R, where she said something along the lines of* the club didn't know that it was signing over the Pie Money when they sold the share to the Higgs. To me that implies that the Pie Money rights went hand in hand with the club share that we sold to the Higgs. I may have interpreted that wrong but that's what I read into it.

Also I don't think IEC is that old is it and prior to the formation of this ACL had 100% of what revenues are now part of the IEC ones. So if the Pie Money rights were part of the Higgs share then they could have been sold back along with or as part of the share couldn't they?

*the browser on my phone isn't working properly so I can't check the exact quote.

Here's the quote:

“When the former owners of the club sold the 50 per cent share to Higgs (Alan Edward Higgs Charity), I do not believe they thought they were giving away matchday revenues. They thought they had sold the equity stake in the stadium, not the revenues.”

Frankly either that's nonsense or McGinnity is a bigger fool than I thought.

Regarding the revenues. I've said before that if ACL sold those and can't give them back with the share then heads should roll as they weren't theirs to sell.

Of course that's a moot point now as thanks to Joy we no longer have the option for 50%.

James Smith · Jul 29, 2014

shmmeee said:
Here's the quote:

Frankly either that's nonsense or McGinnity is a bigger fool than I thought.

Regarding the revenues. I've said before that if ACL sold those and can't give them back with the share then heads should roll as they weren't theirs to sell.

Of course that's a moot point now as thanks to Joy we no longer have the option for 50%.

Never understood how the club board couldn't have known when Sir Higgs was on the board.

Thanks for the Joy quote. Would be interested to know exactly when IEC was formed, whether there was a clause regarding the pie money and when the option finally lapsed. As I understand it if we owed money to ACL then the option was unexerciseable, so that's going back to the start of the rent boycott.

wingy · Jul 29, 2014

James Smith said:
Would be interested to know exactly when IEC was formed, whether there was a clause regarding the pie money and when the option finally lapsed. As I understand it if we owed money to ACL then the option was unexerciseable, so that's going back to the start of the rent boycott.

Just before the rent Strike IIRC.

Does the new structure allow for a failure IN ACL yet retain control?

shmmeee · Jul 30, 2014

James Smith said:
Never understood how the club board couldn't have known when Sir Higgs was on the board.

Thanks for the Joy quote. Would be interested to know exactly when IEC was formed, whether there was a clause regarding the pie money and when the option finally lapsed. As I understand it if we owed money to ACL then the option was unexerciseable, so that's going back to the start of the rent boycott.

IEC Experience Ltd was incorporated April 2012 ( http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/iec-experience ) one month after Joy's threat to stop funding the club and 18 days after the rent strike started. So yeah, at that point the club didn't have an option to buy back, but it was hardly set in stone that the option would lapse. AFAIK it only actually lapsed fully when CCFC Ltd went pop.

James Smith · Jul 30, 2014

shmmeee said:
IEC Experience Ltd was incorporated April 2012 ( http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/iec-experience ) one month after Joy's threat to stop funding the club and 18 days after the rent strike started. So yeah, at that point the club didn't have an option to buy back, but it was hardly set in stone that the option would lapse. AFAIK it only actually lapsed fully when CCFC Ltd went pop.

Yeah I thought it was the final demise of Ltd that killed it off too. We don't know for certain that the formation of IEC killed off our ability to get the Pie Money back with the share, there could be provisions. I guess the only way we'd find out is if PWKH made a comment from the Higgs side, and that's unlikely to happen with legals still possible.

chiefdave · Jul 30, 2014

With IEC would the idea not be that amount ACLs % generates exceeds the amount they were generating when doing it themselves as cost prices etc go down? That's normally why you would make a deal like this. If that is the scenario then isn't IEC a bit of a non issue?

For example lets say ACL used to generate 100K from F&B, Higgs 50% share would have been 50K.

Now lets say IEC generates 150K from F&B, ACLs share is 70 something % isn't it, lets say 75% so that's 112.5K, Higgs 50% share would be 56,250.

Obviously they're totally made up figures but it illustrates my point. I think any issues caused by the creation of IEC are being overstated.

letsallsingtogether · Jul 30, 2014

A bit like our football club?
We own nothing pay out for everything, have measly incomings and some still see it as good business sense?
Want it all for free just like our squad will start charging them subs next for kit cleaning..
Come on it is a complete Cluster Fuck and they haven't or don't want to learn from their awful mistakes!!!

Grendel said:
How can food revenues be in the deal? They are now part of a separate company?

Buying half of ACL for £2 million may be worth something to sisu in terms of strategy and revenues but how would it have actually helped the club? It has no say on rent and none of the f and b revenues can be transferred back to the club.

I guess the key issue here is if the owners of CCFC and the council owned half who has the veto. I cannot believe they both have it as an article of association based on that could lead to strangulation. Someone on the board must have the vote. PWKH will know. I suspect others know. We don't. Its that which determines the real value of the half share.

shmmeee · Jul 30, 2014

James Smith said:
Yeah I thought it was the final demise of Ltd that killed it off too. We don't know for certain that the formation of IEC killed off our ability to get the Pie Money back with the share, there could be provisions. I guess the only way we'd find out is if PWKH made a comment from the Higgs side, and that's unlikely to happen with legals still possible.

PWKH has pretty much confirmed that they can't give what Sisu are asking for.

What a lot of people have missed with the new "offer" from Sisu is the fact that they now want ACL to get the money back, whereas before they left they were happy to negotiate themselves and accept a rent reduction if they can't agree.

Basically, they're asking for more for a short term return than they were to stay permanently before.

Block19 · Jul 30, 2014

shmmeee said:
Horses for courses, I hated Highfield Road:

- Couldn't park within about 2 miles of the ground, at the Ricoh I've never paid for parking and never been more than a 5 min walk away. The amount of times I spent ages waiting to be picked up from Pool Meadow after a game because you can't park...
- Couldn't get food/drink at half time, the place was rammed and seriously under resourced. You made a choice between getting a drink and watching the second half kick off.
- Restricted views. Fucking girders in the way of the pitch.
- No atmosphere. None. At all. 99% of games the place was a graveyard.
- Tiny seats, no legroom.
- No room for expansion, the whole place was falling apart.
- Awful access meant you spent 30 mins standing in the aisles waiting to get out, before you walked back through Hillfields.

The Ricoh may be too big for us, but HR was a proper shit hole and the match day experience was awful start to finish. People like it because of nostalgia, nothing more.

Edit: just making this post to point out that there is no perfect stadium and everyone wants something different.

Highfield road was a poor ground until they knocked the kop down and built the east stand. I still think the east stand was better than the Ricoh. Inside the concourse it was enclosed so felt better than the Ricoh openness where everywhere looks the same.
The view was better than the Ricoh as well as it was a smaller ground.

I did like the Ricoh and the first time I went to the ground I just amazed how good it was and thought it's to good for us!!

The problem was with the Ricoh it deserved premiership football which it never got due to very bad management of the club from all owners

We Took The Ricoh for Granted (2 Viewers)

James Smith

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

wingy

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

James Smith

Well-Known Member

chiefdave

Well-Known Member

letsallsingtogether

Well-Known Member

shmmeee

Well-Known Member

Block19

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

We Took The Ricoh for Granted (2 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency