Discussion in 'Coventry City General Chat' started by skylark37, Dec 19, 2018.
Not sure you pay £50 million with the intention of him sitting on the bench.
No, he has turned them down because he wouldn't be able to play until next season, as he has already played for Chelsea (community shield) and Villa this season.
If we are on to receive a healthy sell on bonus from this is might be enough to solve our homelessness issues next year. Either offer Wasps to buy half the Ricoh, or upgrade the Butts and move there!
or its SISU's ticket out of here. 15% of £50m, £7.5m ?
I think Wasps are valuing the Ricoh at c.£65m - not sure SISU will stump up for half of that!
not sure they want half of it
One can only hope!
Aah, I was basing it off the fact they bought the Ricoh for £20m, but I guess even that would mean SISU reaching into their own pockets..
Just seen that they filed accounts last week. Valuation of the Ricoh is £60m and they are looking to formally revalue it again this year.
Way I’ve read it is 15% of the sell on fee minus what was paid already. So I think we got £3mil. So it would be 15% of £47mil... IF they pay £50mil for him. Works out at just over £7mil, which would be very nice still.
Shows how fucked up it was selling it to them for £20m.
It’s crazy one can just say it’s worth blah.
Take them to court ....the injustice of it all
What do you mean why not? Do you think otherwise?
How can they value it at that? Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject but I thought this whole court case deal was about the devaluation of the Ricoh. Surely if they're now valuing it at 3x what they bought for, SISU has a bulletproof case??
That's the Man City way.
except they didn't sell the lease for £20m. the shares in ACL were sold for 5.77m which included the lease, all the other assets less all the liabilities including the £14m payable to CCC.
People throw in that the purchase price was 5.77 plus the loan to get to £20m. I think that is wrong. The loan existed as a liability due by ACL before and after the sale to wasps, it still exists for ACL as part of the money that company received from the bond issue. It cannot be called part of the value of the sale deal at a total of £20m. They settled one creditor by creating an equal new creditor
The value of ACL at the time reflected ownership of the company without a major tenant. Included in the accounts of ACL at point of sale was a lease valued at £18m. CCC and charity could only sell what was not what it might become in some other third parties hands, ie the agreements they had in place for the future.
The value of £60m reflects a valuers opinion of the value of the lease alone (not the company) including a major tenant (wasps who have a 50 year agreement with ACL which in itself adds value to the lease and didnt exist before wasps bought ACL) plus the other agreements based on future trading. It assumes ACL continuing as a going concern, projected incomes etc in the hands of wasps ownership. The values are likely to be significantly different
The SISU case is it seems to me and more importantly the judges in terms of valuations is based on false logic. Their argument does not reflect for example the long term lease given to wasps rugby, which did not exist when the sale was done. As the judges said comparing "Apples with Pears". SISU case is very far from bulletproof in the eyes of at least 4 judges whose judgements were pretty scathing.
There is no evidence to suggest that wasps are looking to achieve shared ownership. Why do they need to. They could simply offer a long term sub lease to CCFC with premium to purchase.
Certainly i doubt that any Wilson fee would come close to the amount required to get a 50% share of the lease. Also would the Wilson fee be paid in one lump sum?
I think it could be more likely that the fee acts as a catalyst for SISU taking the money and off loading CCFC. Take the £7m then sell on the club, (already rejected £4m haven't they) so we are looking at north of £11m they could take pretty much tax free. ARVO could be owed £17m by now so if that was settled perhaps thats their cue to go?
i thought sisu had 50-60m losses since taking over club? do they not want to recover that?
also is it confirmed we have 15% sell on fee?
Callum Wilson: Chelsea target is worth £50m, says Dion Dublin
I see Dion has been bigging Callum up saying he’s worth every bit of £50m should Chelsea pay it. Cheers Dion.
They view the Ricoh more as a property deal than a home of sport so I agree that a long-term sub lease would be the most likely deal for them. With that though there would still be the question over matchday revenues and absolutely no share from the wider venue business (concerts, casino, hotel, exhibitions etc) flowing through to CCFC. We would have a home but without the wider revenue stream (or a sugar daddy owner) it will be difficult to become a top flight team again.
Without wanting to open this up yet again, how long after the sale of the stadium was the lease extended? Wasn't part of SISU's argument that this should have been considered when valuing the Ricoh because it was presumably part of any agreement CCC and Wasps had (that CCC would extend the lease). Did CCC receive any payment for extending the lease?
The lease extension was agreed in the same meeting as the sale to Wasps was agreed so they clearly did know.
I'd be very happy for Sisu to take this and the Maddison money and a £5m offer from Hoffman (or preferably someone new) if it meant them leaving. People will then have no excuse for not supporting the team and it might make a few realise how shafted we are with London Wasps being here.
That's the impression I had. I'm not going to dispute the (several) rulings given by the judges but it does seem a bit odd to me, perhaps osb can clarify a bit?
Think they have just got around it with dates on paperwork. So by the paperwork they sold ACL as it was to Wasps and then just after extended the lease rather than selling ACL with the lease in place.
Not much different to them selling a bit of land without planning permission for a lower price but then having everything lined up for planning permission to give it just after the deal is signed to sell the land.
The only thing that anyone would be interested in are the assets of Otium (players, Ryton goodwill, trademark, golden share). Doesn't really matter what the losses are they claim to have made (some of which have been done with clever accounting in any case). Sure they would want to recover the losses they created but it isn't going to happen
15% is an assumed amount based on other deals that is being bandied around
Wont have the costs either. To get a share of everything else requires investing in everything else.I do not see that happening
Change of ownership and it might be possible to form a trading partnership that could see certain events shared.
To be honest getting to the top flight is going to require major investment from owners not other income sources. Once in that top division then TV monies dwarf any other sources of funds
It would need a massive fluke to get into the Premier League without millions pumped in.
There was an intention to create the lease but it depended on the Charity selling their shares which happened after CCC sold theirs. New lease was signed approx 4 months later and CCC received £1m. The point the judges decided was it did not exist at the point of sale so could not be valued in the deal. Plus whilst ACL owned the original lease then an extension could not be sold to anyone else for the next 40 odd years.
I think it fair to surmise that things were arranged with one eye on the potential for legal challenges. So far those arrangements have worked and the challenges have been rebutted firmly by the courts. The judgements given have not been including caveats or what ifs, four judges in JR2 have said firmly no case to answer. I suspect the Supreme Court will do the same
There was an article in CT this week quoting MR as holding up Bournemouth as the example he wants to follow. Yes he said it would take us longer but Bournemouth did it on the back of 10's of millions from the owner. Not sure how we follow that ..............
To be fair he is pointing towards a style of play. But Bournemouth only made that style pay at higher levels by spending on salaries & players capable of doing it. We are a long way short of that high calibre of player as it stands
Maybe he knows a Russian Billionaire?
RE: Wilson, watch out for West Ham now Arnautovic is headed to China.
West Ham have made offers for him in the past - he always scores against them
If West Ham go for him I can't see them paying anywhere near £50m.
Separate names with a comma.