Council meeting for Mark and I (1 Viewer)

MalcSB said:

Well, they managed it for city of sport.

Click to expand...

Can you imgine what would happen if CCFC were a premiership club playing in Birmingham in the year of City of Culture!

oldskyblue58 said:

Except the loan forms an integral part of the share valuation at the sale date so it cannot be ignored if sisu are challenging the sale value of the ccc shares. Not about clever accounting. The repayment might be a separate event but the loan cannot be ignored

As far as i am aware no one has seen the detail of the complaint

Click to expand...

Does this sound familiar?

- On 8th October 2014 Wasps bought the CCC 50% interest in ACL. On 14th November 2014 Wasps bought the AEHC 50% interest in ACL

- The sale was two separate purchases of roughly £2.77m each. The cost of purchasing a company is the cost of purchasing the voting shares.

- That put the sale value of the shares in ACL at £5.54m at that time

Click to expand...

Bit of a UTurn now? Wonder why?

Not going to get into an argument with you about it. There is no contradiction or u turn, in what is being said.

The sale value of any companies shares is the agreed valuation of all assets less all liabilities. Explained all of that before many times

Wasps bought the shares they didn't buy the lease as a separate item

The lease was an asset the loan was a liability of acl at the date of sale. So in paying the 5.5m they paid full value for the lease 18.4m and took on the full amount of the loan 14.4m at the same time. The rest of the calculation take account of all the other assets and liabilities. They paid 5.5m for all assets less all liabilities ie the shares, so if they did that they paid the value of the lease

That is all I am going to say on it. It really is very simple and basic.

No change, no bias, no agenda just your lack of understanding

oldskyblue58 said:

Not going to get into an argument with you about it. There is no contradiction or u turn, in what is being said.

The sale value of any companies shares is the agreed valuation of all assets less all liabilities. Explained all of that before many times

Wasps bought the shares they didn't buy the lease as a separate item

The lease was an asset the loan was a liability of acl at the date of sale. So in paying the 5.5m they paid full value for the lease 18.4m and took on the full amount of the loan 14.4m at the same time. The rest of the calculation take account of all the other assets and liabilities. They paid 5.5m for all assets less all liabilities ie the shares, so if they did that they paid the value of the lease

That is all I am going to say on it. It really is very simple and basic.

No change, no bias, no agenda just your lack of understanding

Click to expand...

So if the lease with a few years left was £18.4 then if it was agreed to extend before the actual sale and we returned before the sale was actually voted on then why didn't anybody say (actually, CCFC are here now it's worth more?)

I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.

Nick said:

So if the lease with a few years left was £18.4 then if it was agreed to extend before the actual sale and we returned before the sale was actually voted on then why didn't anybody say (actually, CCFC are here now it's worth more?)

I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.

Click to expand...

Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:

“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”

Valuation without was £16-18m

oldskyblue58 said:

Not going to get into an argument with you about it. There is no contradiction or u turn, in what is being said.

The sale value of any companies shares is the agreed valuation of all assets less all liabilities. Explained all of that before many times

Wasps bought the shares they didn't buy the lease as a separate item

The lease was an asset the loan was a liability of acl at the date of sale. So in paying the 5.5m they paid full value for the lease 18.4m and took on the full amount of the loan 14.4m at the same time. The rest of the calculation take account of all the other assets and liabilities. They paid 5.5m for all assets less all liabilities ie the shares, so if they did that they paid the value of the lease

That is all I am going to say on it. It really is very simple and basic.

No change, no bias, no agenda just your lack of understanding

Click to expand...

Tbh though OSB unless people have experience of company takeovers it can be pretty hard to grasp the detail
That's why both sides need solicitors

shmmeee said:

Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:

“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”

Valuation without was £16-18m

Click to expand...

It’s the valuation by Strutt and Parker of £48 m that’s the issue. Especially as Eastwood was happy to boast the lease extension added minimal value to the deal

better days said:

Tbh though OSB unless people have experience of company takeovers it can be pretty hard to grasp the detail
That's why both sides need solicitors

Click to expand...

Understand that and I try to explain in as simple terms as I can and try to do it as far as possible based on facts.

Grendel said:

It’s the valuation by Strutt and Parker of £48 m that’s the issue. Especially as Eastwood was happy to boast the lease extension added minimal value to the deal

Click to expand...

As I say not my forte. I just remembered reading about the revaluation when I was looking last night and thought it was relevant to what Nick was asking.

I’m not going to pretend I understand the world of commercial property valuation, other than being asked once to look at automating it and running away quickly

shmmeee said:

asked once to look at automating it and running away quickly

Click to expand...

They should have got John Williams in for that.

NorthernWisdom said:

They should have got John Williams in for that.

Click to expand...

Property valuation is such a joke. Residential is basically finger in the air plus what has sold nearby. Commercial I have no idea, depends on leaseholds and allowed usage and all sorts. Not something a simple linear regression algorithm can solve.

Nick said:

I think the over enthusiasm on particular threads shows there is bias and agenda in full flow.

Click to expand...

Ever considered nomination as POTUS or joining QAnon they both love a good unfounded conspiracy

Think you will find in posts of mine in this very thread that I have very good reason for restricting my posting on this site for the last 6 weeks. Nothing to do with bias or agenda, and far more serious than what is perceived in your head.

"Frankly scarlet I don't give a damn"what you think

But thanks to those who sent best wishes.

shmmeee said:

Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:

“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”

Valuation without was £16-18m

Click to expand...

So that KPMG valuation was before the sale and subsequent lease extension? Assumes CCFC rent plus associated matchday income would have been worth around 500k per year?

oldskyblue58 said:

Ever considered nomination as POTUS or joining QAnon they both love a good unfounded conspiracy

Think you will find in posts of mine in this very thread that I have very good reason for restricting my posting on this site for the last 6 weeks. Nothing to do with bias or agenda, and far more serious than what is perceived in your head.

"Frankly scarlet I don't give a damn"what you think

But thanks to those who sent best wishes.

Click to expand...

Ever considered getting involved with the Trust so you can just shout conspiracy all the time?

I'm not talking about just the last 6 weeks Glad you feel better now but it isn't a new thing....

tisza said:

So that KPMG valuation was before the sale and subsequent lease extension? Assumes CCFC rent plus associated matchday income would have been worth around 500k per year?

Click to expand...

Not sure if the two year option would factor into that.

Sky Blue Pete said:

I think the case has been well made and we pushed it with ccc but they just spoke to the uk judgements and that their position seemed correct. We did say that Eu legislature deal with more state aid issues and may have more knowledge but they seemed pretty happy they received a good deal. Mark has given his opinion further up the thread

Click to expand...

They would have amazingly inept lawyers if the deal wasn't done appropriately, really.

There's always been a moral argument they shouldn't have sold to Wasps (and as CCFC fans, am sure we'd all agree with that one!) but in terms of procedure...?

(Annoyingly I can't find the Tim Fisher quote saying it was overvaued, even then!)

Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.

City’s chief executive, Tim Fisher, insists they do not regret failing to buy the Ricoh, saying they could not agree to taking it on, as Wasps have done, not only for £5.4m but with the council’s £14m loan on the stadium still to pay.

Click to expand...

NorthernWisdom said:

Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.

Click to expand...

Depends whether Fisher was quoting before lease extension.
Plus Wasps had to take on this large debt to complete the deal and finance their business and obviously they've struggled to make the payments on that debt at times -even before lockdowns etc.
When all is said and done SISU would have had to find the 18-19 million to "buy" the Ricoh and presumably weren't aware the extended lease was on the table

tisza said:

Depends whether Fisher was quoting before lease extension.
Plus Wasps had to take on this large debt to complete the deal and finance their business and obviously they've struggled to make the payments on that debt at times -even before lockdowns etc.
When all is said and done SISU would have had to find the 18-19 million to "buy" the Ricoh and presumably weren't aware the extended lease was on the table

Click to expand...

That was December 2014, after the 250 year lease was agreed.

And October 29th 2014's SCG minutes

[Tim Fisher] cautioned that it might not be in the club’s interest to make a bid for the 50% if it meant being exposed to liability of an unsustainable huge mortgage. The owners will not expose the club to the risk of default of debt with the further administration and points reductions that would ensue.

Click to expand...

There's something far more explicit somewhere, too... but I can't be arsed to find it atm. Safe to say he wasn't a fan of the deal.

He may yet be proved right, of course.

shmmeee said:

Not to jump in cos this isn’t my forte but I was reading the council meeting briefing again last night (insomnia), and it looks like it was revalued with CCFC there:

“The draft KPMG valuation report was updated in September 2014 following the agreement reached between ACL and CCFC to return to play matches at the Arena on a short term licence arrangement. This saw the enterprise value being slightly revised to between £17m and £19m although the other risks highlighted and in particular the perceived lack of robustness in some of the new ACL business plan assumptions remained the same.”

Valuation without was £16-18m

Click to expand...

Isn't the argument that the reason Wasps initial valuation was so much higher was because they were now playing there. If CCFC playing there added £1m to the valuation how did Wasps playing there add tens of millions?

chiefdave said:

Isn't the argument that the reason Wasps initial valuation was so much higher was because they were now playing there. If CCFC playing there added £1m to the valuation how did Wasps playing there add tens of millions?

Click to expand...

Length of lease I think. If CCFC are worth £1m for two seasons, Wasps there for 20 would be £10m? (Or whatever don’t know how long Wasps are contracted for)

Also a different business plan than ACL I think which had better future projections.

oldskyblue58 said:

Understand that and I try to explain in as simple terms as I can and try to do it as far as possible based on facts.

Click to expand...

Always enjoy your contributions
I have a little experience in that area but nowhere near what you have judging by your insights

better days said:

That's why both sides need solicitors

Click to expand...

No ! They are a nuisance - definitely need hard headed accountants with creative thinking and answers !

oldfiver said:

No ! They are a nuisance - definitely need hard headed accountants with creative thinking and answers !

Click to expand...

They are a necessary nuisance when you have two people like the ones involved in this.

NorthernWisdom said:

Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.

Click to expand...

You'll probably find Ray Ranson saying something similar

NorthernWisdom said:

Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.

Click to expand...

Tim told us it was worth nothing but were willing to pay as a good gesture.
Cant for the life of me remember the amount but it was in the region of a million I believe.

NorthernWisdom said:

Here's close, but there's closer somewhere.

Click to expand...

Tim told us it was worth nothing but were willing to pay as a good gesture.
Cant for the life of me remember the amount but it was in the region of a million I believe.