Grendel
Well-Known Member
The shareholder value is £5.5 million OSB stated anyone suggesting other wise is talking rubbish. And they are.
Apparently Grendel has a good job imagine if he went to his bosses saying I've just secured a 250 year lease on a stadium for only £5m and you bought on that basis would be a bit of shocker when the invoices for the loan £14m loan interest started to arrive, its £19m purchase price however you want to spin it. You need to move on SISU have fooked this club possibly beyond repair, you need to aim more of rants in their direction, WASPs are here to stay, the council have washed their hands of us time to move on
No. I am not a criminal either btw. I have dealings with councils, tax authorities, customs authorities, employment courts - you name it. The advice is always the same. Say nothing unless it is required by law. The council is a public body and under scrutiny anyway. One day we will get to know at least some of the details, but not until SISU have finally lost - if they go to Europe on this, that will be in years to come. JS chose the word sisu as company name and now she is showing that she meant that she has "Sius".
So the council do have something to hide that they are concerned may be aired in a court of law?
Interesting.
The shareholder value is £5.5 million OSB stated anyone suggesting other wise is talking rubbish. And they are.
Did he say the 14m loan doesn't have to be repaid? No, he didn't. He was talking about the accounting structure - he did not deny that the total cost is 19m with the loan.
The shareholder value is £5.5 million OSB stated anyone suggesting other wise is talking rubbish. And they are.
Did he say the 14m loan doesn't have to be repaid? No, he didn't. He was talking about the accounting structure - he did not deny that the total cost is 19m with the loan.
Did he say the 14m loan doesn't have to be repaid? No, he didn't. He was talking about the accounting structure - he did not deny that the total cost is 19m with the loan.
To obtain the full use of ACL it cost WASPS £5.5m + £14m loan, who cares a technical accounting term like shareholder value, cash is king, WASPS will have paid £5.5m plus then have the loan interest to repay plus the loan principal, all you council hater pro sisu mob just ignore the loan. If it was £60m would it still be talked about as a £5m purchase
I wasn't inferring you were a criminal.
My point is that these are politicians and they have to be accountable. A politician cannot simply say 'on my lawyers advice I refuse to answer any questions'.
Why can't they disclose anything until the litigation is over? Are there details sisu can use as evidence?
Perhaps they're hiding a smoking gun. Du Du Duuuuuu!
So Higgs got £9.5 million for their share in ACL?
To obtain the full use of ACL it cost WASPS £5.5m + £14m loan, who cares a technical accounting term like shareholder value, cash is king, WASPS will have paid £5.5m plus then have the loan interest to repay plus the loan principal, all you council hater pro sisu mob just ignore the loan. If it was £60m would it still be talked about as a £5m purchase
What's the value of the shareholding in ACL? I keep asking but you will not answer.
To obtain the full use of ACL it cost WASPS £5.5m + £14m loan, who cares a technical accounting term like shareholder value, cash is king, WASPS will have paid £5.5m plus then have the loan interest to repay plus the loan principal, all you council hater pro sisu mob just ignore the loan. If it was £60m would it still be talked about as a £5m purchase
Pssst - look below my original post on page 1.
sorry but that is quite wrong in terms of what Wasps bought. The loan already existed, the need to repay already existed....... in ACL. That hasn't changed and it will be the operations of ACL not Wasps that repay the loan. Part of the reason that the value of 5.5m was paid is because it reflected the fact that ACL had to pay the 14m loan back over time.
If the loan were 60m then if Wasps paid £5m for it then yes the value of the purchase of the shares and therefore the control of ACL is £5m
If you buy a BT share on the stockmarket for 418p (todays price) do you also take a share of the BT loans - no of course you don't, you get a piece of paper that cost you 418p and at this moment is worth 418p
I am with Grendel on this the deal was not worth 19m it was £5.54m
What are they hiding do you think?
They are no longer liable for the ACL loan. Previously they were a 50% partner in the business which had to pay the loan and would have been jointly and severally liabe for the loan had ACL defaulted - or whatever was agreed with CCC when the loan was granted.
So Higgs got £9.5 million for their share in ACL?
What would be the value of the 5,5m share if there was no loan?
sorry but that is quite wrong in terms of what Wasps bought. The loan already existed, the need to repay already existed....... in ACL. That hasn't changed and it will be the operations of ACL not Wasps that repay the loan. Part of the reason that the value of 5.5m was paid is because it reflected the fact that ACL had to pay the 14m loan back over time.
If the loan were 60m then if Wasps paid £5m for it then yes the value of the purchase of the shares and therefore the control of ACL is £5m
If you buy a BT share on the stockmarket for 418p (todays price) do you also take a share of the BT loans - no of course you don't, you get a piece of paper that cost you 418p and at this moment is worth 418p
I am with Grendel on this the deal was not worth 19m it was £5.54m
no it wouldn't. The whole point of a limited company is to limit the liability to the amount paid on the shares. If they are fully paid then there is no further liability. The only other actions are if directors have acted improperly or illegally in which case they could be held liable for debts, or if there have been guarantees given by shareholders etc in respect of any debts - none have ever been mentioned
I don't like the sale of ACL to Wasps. I think it puts our club in a very dangerous position.
However, to try to construct an argument that the loan in ACL is somehow irrelevant to the overall valuation of the company is nonsense.
if they paid 5.54m to buy the shares it would be 5.54m .... it works either way.
if they paid 5.54m to buy the shares it would be 5.54m .... it works either way.
sorry but that is quite wrong in terms of what Wasps bought. The loan already existed, the need to repay already existed....... in ACL. That hasn't changed and it will be the operations of ACL not Wasps that repay the loan. Part of the reason that the value of 5.5m was paid is because it reflected the fact that ACL had to pay the 14m loan back over time.
If the loan were 60m then if Wasps paid £5m for it then yes the value of the purchase of the shares and therefore the control of ACL is £5m
If you buy a BT share on the stockmarket for 418p (todays price) do you also take a share of the BT loans - no of course you don't, you get a piece of paper that cost you 418p and at this moment is worth 418p
I am with Grendel on this the deal was not worth 19m it was £5.54m
yes the deal is worth 5.5m but Grendel isn't right either because he says the valuation doesn't take into account the loan which of course it absolutely does. The valuation takes into account everything.
not saying it isn't relevant ...... but it is relevant to how the price was set it is not an add on to valuation. If wasps sold ACL tomorrow then ACL would still have the loan and the sale price would reflect that
I think Grendel is referring to the valuation placed on it by the council and ainsworth at 19m. Pretty certain Grendel understands that the amount actually paid includes an assessment of all ACL assets and liabilities.
I think people are talking cross purposes on a lot of this
not saying it isn't relevant ...... but it is relevant to how the price was set it is not an add on to valuation. If wasps sold ACL tomorrow then ACL would still have the loan and the sale price would reflect that
not saying it isn't relevant ...... but it is relevant to how the price was set it is not an add on to valuation. If wasps sold ACL tomorrow then ACL would still have the loan and the sale price would reflect that
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?