And its worth £10 as the house has community charge, utility bills, water bills and you don't increase the value due to those costs - they are part of the purchase.
In the case of a business you would look at the assets and liabilities when making an offer. If it had no liabilities you would be able to offer more money. In the case of Wasps they would have seen the 14 m liability and made their offer accordingly. CCC would have looked at it as seller and have seen 14m loan repayment over 20 years and 5,54m as the price. ACL was sold with the loan contract at a price taking that into account.
No, it really isn't.
No you are correct it isn't. In fact your analogy was ridiculous. You quote a private individual buying a house. The individual will be personally liable for the debt.
In this instance MGI moonstone that one share company and ultimately wasps holdings have no liability. ACL limited has the liability. If they go belly up and default on the loan they have no payments to make. So belly up tomorrow and they haven't paid their £19 million have they?
Does that mean the loan is now with wasps? Or a guarantoor type thing?The difference between you and me is homework. Companies House shows that Wasps have granted a debenture to the Council. I wonder what liability that secures.....
The difference between you and me is homework. Companies House shows that Wasps have granted a debenture to the Council. I wonder what liability that secures.....
So the Higgs share was chronically over valued at £6 million then?
At the time no. In a partly distressed state as you claim, yes.
You tells as you are in the know. I would assume it's for £1 million for the purchase of the 250 year lease. It certainly will not be for the full amount of the loan given that the same companies house shows negative equity of £14.25 million prior to the takeover.
Question: has the 1m been paid in Advance? If so, why do you need security?
You tells as you are in the know. I would assume it's for £1 million for the purchase of the 250 year lease. It certainly will not be for the full amount of the loan given that the same companies house shows negative equity of £14.25 million prior to the takeover.
Well I seem to recall in the good old JR the business was portrayed as not being distressed and that CCFC were in fact only 9% of its turnover
You now dispute this version of events do you?
Question: has the 1m been paid in Advance? If so, why do you need security?
Perhaps security for a subsidiary's debt?
As I understand it, the 1m is for the Rent on the lease for the duration of the lease, paid in advance. Otherwise it could be paid at 4000 a year over 250 years. Has Wasps Holding a negative equity?
Perhaps security for a subsidiary's debt?
You tells as you are in the know. I would assume it's for £1 million for the purchase of the 250 year lease. It certainly will not be for the full amount of the loan given that the same companies house shows negative equity of £14.25 million prior to the takeover.
You make a lot of assumptions in this statement, don't you know the facts?
As I understand it, the 1m is for the Rent on the lease for the duration of the lease, paid in advance. Otherwise it could be paid at 4000 a year over 250 years. Has Wasps Holding a negative equity?
This thread is mental. OSB, who's word has been taken as gospel until he says something that doesn't support CCC, has very clearly and simply explained the situation yet several posters refuse to acknowledge it and prefer to tow the council line no matter what.
This is after a thread earlier in the week where people were openly saying that if further legal action or an investigation into CCC's handing of the ACL sale showed CCC to be in the wrong it would still be SISU who should be criticised for pursuing the action.
Some people can't see the wood for the trees. So blinded by their hatred for SISU or their own agenda they can't acknowledge simple facts.
The way some are calculating the sale price of ACL just defies logic. Follow the same principle and after the naming rights have been renewed will those people be saying CCC have paid Wasps to take the stadium off their hands?
I wonder what the naming rights would have been worth without Wasps?
Well I know what companies house describes as it's net worth. Interesting risk rating as well.
In the know seems to make a lot of assumptions don't you think?
I wonder what the naming rights would have been worth without Wasps?
Not so long ago there was talk of the Ricoh sponsorship of the arena not being renewed, not it looks more like there will be some competition between JLR & Ricoh for the rights when they are due for renewal (this year I believe) .. and all because of Wasps involvement. I am not crowing, I believe that to be a reasonably accurate assessment, if anyone can find evidence to contradict me please post it, I'll be interested to hear it.
This thread is mental. OSB, who's word has been taken as gospel until he says something that doesn't support CCC, has very clearly and simply explained the situation yet several posters refuse to acknowledge it and prefer to tow the council line no matter what.
This is after a thread earlier in the week where people were openly saying that if further legal action or an investigation into CCC's handing of the ACL sale showed CCC to be in the wrong it would still be SISU who should be criticised for pursuing the action.
Some people can't see the wood for the trees. So blinded by their hatred for SISU or their own agenda they can't acknowledge simple facts.
The way some are calculating the sale price of ACL just defies logic. Follow the same principle and after the naming rights have been renewed will those people be saying CCC have paid Wasps to take the stadium off their hands?
Of course they will - one way or another Wasps are paying over 19m. TF said that was why he didn't want the Wasps deal - exactly because the loan was in effect a a part of the price and he doesn't think ACL is in the position to service it. Saying 5,5m was the end of it, is just pure spin.
The ACL (Wasps) liability for the loan is balanced against the value of lease.
But as proven in court that varies with the client in the Stadium and rental charges.
Looking back it seems that ACL being owned by a separate company to that using the stadium was very risky for freehold owners CCC.
At what point did Sisu spot this and make their play for the freehold ?
Grendel my dear Wasps v Cardiff Blues tomorrow, bit of an England v Wales thing are you going ?
I am pretty sure companies house does not publish company net worth. Show me the link please. Company risk rating is not published by companies house either..
Grendel my dear Wasps v Cardiff Blues tomorrow, bit of an England v Wales thing are you going ?
Are you?
He hates SISU, judge for yourself.
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?