They got the old board out of a hole very temporarily.
Their choices in doing that should maybe be questioned, but they're the charity not Sisu.
If running Browns which they've taken over doesn't go too well, will we all chip in to make sure that they get their money back?
So the club is the only reason the shares are worth anything? Peter thinks they are worth as much with no club. Are you saying Peter is telling porkies? Tut tut.
What's stopping us returning to the Ricoh mate, is SISU. They could come back tomorrow and make more than they ever would at NTFC, even under the £1.2m agreement. And they could still build their new stadium too, if they wanted to.
The fact that they won't should tell you everything you need to know about who's being intransigent here.
Duffer is on the ropes. He needs re-enforcements. Ron, jack, dongle?
What's stopping us returning to the Ricoh mate, is SISU. They could come back tomorrow and make more than they ever would at NTFC, even under the £1.2m agreement. And they could still build their new stadium too, if they wanted to.
The fact that they won't should tell you everything you need to know about who's being intransigent here.
Did they not ask for a short team deal before they even moved out which was turned down?
If they did why won't they accept one now it's on the table?
So stalemate. If Higgs believe the shares are above their true market value, then sisu should pay more than they are worth? This is why some independent valuations would be beneficial at least fans and tax payers would know if anyone side is being ripped off rather than the current guess work and conjecture...
Hmmm perhaps a new ground is the way forward....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Why didn't acl accept so we didn't even move?
Any comment on whether a valuation should include the club been at the ground or not?
Bloody hell if that's on the ropes I assume they are made of rubber
Question for Simon if he's reading this.
Don't you think it would be a good idea for the CET to get an independent body to value the Ricoh Arena complex?
I'm sure your readers would take great interest in the findings and might help us to shed some light further on all this.
The CET Areana. I like it, it's catchy.
Just realised I've agreed with Grendel.Quite right, if ACL fails and they lose all the money they invested then that's their bad luck - same goes for CCFC failing and SISU & their investors losing all their money - although obviously that's not necessarily great for our club.Well carrying the anology on the mortgage is £2 million so actually I have just increased the valuation to £4 million
Higgs will never get the money back -- the end and also his dumbass comment at the end tells me all I need to know about him
In the same way if there comes a time where ACL make enough to pay dividends (if it can under any agreement) to the Higgs then lucky them.
There's no obligation on either side to sell and if the Higgs or Sisu don't want to then so be it, we can't change anything.
The trouble is virtually no one any longer believes the new ground scenario. SISU's so called trump card has been shown to be the joker. ACL have called SISU's bluff, and basically said,' go on then ,be our guest'. Plus of course SISU are apparently now only interested in the freehold, so now you have not only an unwilling seller, but apparently an unwilling buyer as well.So stalemate. If Higgs believe the shares are above their true market value, then sisu should pay more than they are worth? This is why some independent valuations would be beneficial at least fans and tax payers would know if anyone side is being ripped off rather than the current guess work and conjecture...
Hmmm perhaps a new ground is the way forward....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
If it comes to dealing with WUMs like Grendel, then rope-a-dope would seem to be particularly apposite, and I don't think I'm in need of any help with regard to him.
To be honest I just ignore him, fwiw, though it cheers me up that I still get under his skin from time to time. Petty, I know.
Nick, LordS, Godiva, guys like that I can disagree with but respect - and I enjoy the debate, without offering or receiving offence (I hope). If I take a (metaphorical) kicking from time to time, then so be it, at least I'll go down swinging.
The fact that they bought the shares of the club with a formula for the club to buy them back at a later date has to be a pretty good indicator.
Different kettle of fish. They are taking it on to make a profit, not as an emergency. If they loose that is their fault. Here they Said it was to be Short Term and they were to sell it back at an agreed formular - should have happened long ago and it is not Higgs fault that that didnt happen.
What's stopping us returning to the Ricoh mate, is SISU. They could come back tomorrow and make more than they ever would at NTFC, even under the £1.2m agreement. And they could still build their new stadium too, if they wanted to.
The fact that they won't should tell you everything you need to know about who's being intransigent here.
The formula is top secret. Why?
Which might apply if the charity had bought the share to make some sort of massive profit out of it, as oppose to rescue the club. I think what you actually meant to put in here wasn't 'caveat emptor' as much as 'tough shit', because I appreciate that you don't really care too much about the charity getting stiffed by the club.
The problem is that this cuts two ways. Tough shit on SISU and the club too, because the chance of getting a much needed share of the income streams was key to being able to do a deal on this share. As it stands the charity don't want to sell it for the amount offered, and SISU don't want to buy it. I know where I'm putting the blame, personally.
Question for Simon if he's reading this.
Don't you think it would be a good idea for the CET to get an independent body to value the Ricoh Arena complex?
I'm sure your readers would take great interest in the findings and might help us to shed some light further on all this.
As they won't even reveal the length of the Ricoh naming rights deal,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope that they're not taking it on to make a profit, charitable trusts aren't allowed to be run for profit.
You'd best get onto the Charities Commission mate.
Mind you, maybe CCFC could become a Charitable Trust, defintely not in danger of breaching that rule.
Not impressed by PWKH's comments. Is there any need for it anymore??
They intend using the monies gained for purposes such as job creation and improving Coventry and not boosting the accounts of Cayman Isles investors. That may count in their favour with the charities commission.
A great idea, but one which would require the consent of ACL.
As they won't even reveal the length of the Ricoh naming rights deal, or how much it costs to hire the pitch for a one off cup fixture, I think consent may not be forthcoming.
There have been two PWC reports into ACL's value. We have only seen snippets of one. I think pushing for these to be made public is the best chance we have of ascertaining the business's true value - at least at one point.
I'm not convinced that will happen though.
Another point is that for any deal to be struck, the parties involved would need to be talking to each other. As far as I'm aware that is not happening at the moment.
Let's hope things move on this summer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Simon you need to read a different paperthe Coventry Observer said that the ricoh naming deal had been extended to 2025 source:http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2...th-Olympic-name-snub,-insist-Ricoh-34881.html
I'd like to get that verified before accepting it as fact. Seems an odd thing to just drop into the middle of an article without any obvious quotes to back it up.
I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'd just like it backed up by a reliable source.
If you have a dig around on here I think PWKH has mentioned it before when someone was claiming Ricoh would terminate their contract due to the club not being there.
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?