If acl act on behalf of joint owners CCc/Alan Higgs (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Shmee don't give up and let's not get petty.
Sisu are shocking we agree they are the worst form of capitalism and they have done it well. Buy avid trade in debt and make money
We, as CCfc are in bed with them, seemingly we had no choice and I think we really need to ask ourselves can we change their position?
If not we need ccc to deal otherwise our club is dead. It is possible for them to offer something better and they should
Sisu are shocking we agree they are the worst form of capitalism and they have done it well. Buy avid trade in debt and make money
We, as CCfc are in bed with them, seemingly we had no choice and I think we really need to ask ourselves can we change their position?
If not we need ccc to deal otherwise our club is dead. It is possible for them to offer something better and they should
James Smith
Well-Known Member
They could have probably bought the Higgs share for less than that, although we don't know the exact figures the Higgs need/want for their share. Instead they walked away after agreeing heads of terms who knows why they did this? Although if OSB58 is correct it was another lowball offer from SISU so maybe they didn't want to pay any more or couldn't afford to pay any more on that?
Last edited:
I think it was more complicated than that.
As I recall Fisher said the plan - a joint ccc/ccfc plan - was to buy the ACL mortgage at distressed value and discharge it. We have previously discussed what the price would be and landed at around £5m-£8m.
Next ccfc would buy the Higgs shares at the 'secret formel' value ... supposed to be approximately £8m.
(I think they must have also agreed to bring in another management to run ACL and optimize the operation).
In effect, Yorkshire Bank was meant to pay for the party.
The rent strike was initially used to distress the mortgage.
(Interestingly the plan was not about screwing a poor charity - they would get their investment back with interests, but to screw Yorkshire Bank. But people at ACL management level would most likely be replaced).
Three things happened which I assume capsized the plan:
1: Hoffman came back and made sure everyone knew he had the backing of rich chinese investors to buy ccfc.
2: ACL chairman resigned and became director at ... Yorkshire Bank!
3: ccc bought the ACL mortgage at £14m.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Just to correct something Godiva the discussions last June between Charity and SISU were not on the basis of the option CCFC Ltd had. The option could not be activated whilst the football club owed any money to ACL. So the formula you refer to did not come in to it.
Also I think the discussions to distress the loan happened October through to December 2012 after the Charity share sale discussions had finished in June 2012 (pretty certain the share price as less than £6m btw). Heads of terms were agreed June 2012 subject to due diligence by SISU but it never went further than that.
Also I think the discussions to distress the loan happened October through to December 2012 after the Charity share sale discussions had finished in June 2012 (pretty certain the share price as less than £6m btw). Heads of terms were agreed June 2012 subject to due diligence by SISU but it never went further than that.
You may be right ... but on the other hand they could simply pay all debts to ACL when they had bought the mortgage.
Discussions? Our discussions - or the ccfc/ccc discussions (which Fisher call 'joint plan')?
I think Fisher said the plan to distress ACL mortgage was initiated back in February 2012 and it makes sense as the rent strike began around that time.
But my memory is not too sharp at my age, so I may have the timings a bit wrong.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Out of interest, is there any evidence that the mutual discussions to distress the loan actually happened, or is this assumption?
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
no maybe about it - the discussions with the charity were outside of the option held by CCFC Ltd. What you suggest would be contradicted by the rent strike and its purpose
Rent strike started April 2012. The discussions that TF refers to in February are the discussions over the offer made 29/01/ 2013 and February was when TF says ACL told them there would be no further discussions
Discussions do not mean an agreed plan either. Pretty certain that TF's statements said the plan to discount buy out the YB loan was not put forward until late 2012 at a meeting in Leeds. The terms might have been put down but it was never agreed.
But as you say things can be forgotten with all the twists and turns going on
Rent strike started April 2012. The discussions that TF refers to in February are the discussions over the offer made 29/01/ 2013 and February was when TF says ACL told them there would be no further discussions
Discussions do not mean an agreed plan either. Pretty certain that TF's statements said the plan to discount buy out the YB loan was not put forward until late 2012 at a meeting in Leeds. The terms might have been put down but it was never agreed.
But as you say things can be forgotten with all the twists and turns going on
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Osb my eyes have recently been opened from my sisu are evil everyone else is almost blameless.
In your opinion could CCc as the major party do more to ensure CCfc play at Ricoh or if not the offer they present mean no sane person could defend sisu refusing??
I think I said February 2012 - not 2013.
It's like a 5000 pieces jigsaw with no front cover to show the final result.
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
Forgetting the history, isnt the present Sisu position, as reportedly stated by Joy in recent Administration discussions, that Sisu are only prepared to make a non-negotiable, take it or leave it offer for the Ricoh?
But who said that?
And have sisu ever been quoted to wanting the freehold? If so, who made the quote?
GaryPendrysEyes
Well-Known Member
PKWH who was at the meeting with Joy, it wasnt denied as far as I know.
Does that make it true?
Fisher wasn't there, so he can't really comment.
JS is never saying anything ... other that the odd christmas greetings.
Still - I wouldn't be surprised if was true ... or partly true.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think it was denied by Fisher, then reaffirmed by PWKH. Its another he said she said.
CCC could only have done more by selling up more than was the plan for the Ricoh AFAIK. Personally I think 'Buy the shares on offer and lets go from there.' is a sensible approach to a club in a downward spiral with no proven business ability in arena development. Unless for some strange reason Sisu felt CCC would be less likely to sell up after working with them closely.
Unfortunately, the only way we can seriously debate the deal the club needs is to understand the detail of both ACL and CCFC books, and thats not on offer.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Never been in the camp that thought one side or the other was blameless. All sides carry some responsibility.
I think the heart of it is that SISU want the freehold and ACL/Council will only offer a tenancy to the club under the SISU ownership. Not sure it started that way , i think there were hopes for a working relationship. For some reason expectations on both sides did not materialise.
The SISU need is built on cold hard finance, that is the only thing mattering to a hedge fund it is what makes them tick. It is not about CCFC - thats just a means to an end. The ACL/CCC position is originally built on a need to help a potentially valuable resource(a successful team) to drive development and trade but over the years has been tainted more and more by what they saw as mismanagement at the club and a complete breakdown in trust in the owners. That leads to actions that perhaps both would be happier if they could rewind but set on a path each side have dug heels in. Right now I do not think there is a rent deal that ACL can offer to SISU because having gone this far, spent so much money time and effort why would they back down?
Might not like what SISU have done but there is as far as we know nothing illegal in it. I am however uncomfortable with the road to administration and the basis of it. But thats a different discussion. I certainly do not buy in to the rhetoric of it was ACL that put us in to this position. There was a clever road plan to this that stretches back over a year in my opinion. This is what SISU do, this is what their associates do I think it is a bit naiive to think that they were caught on the hop by ACL or CCC.
Equally I do not buy in to those at ACL being stupid and clueless. It just is not the case, there are some very clever minds involved and people who are well used to the business world. They are however slow to react because of the legal basis of the constitution of a Charity and a Council not because they are out of touch . It is not the case that one person can make a major decision (eg JS for SISU) they have to report back to Trustees and Councillors. That takes time and makes them look less than sharp. I do think that things up to a year or so ago were perhaps a little comfortable. But i think they saw what was going on and have reorganised things, sharpened up operations (Compass run the stadium operation throuch IEC - its their core business worldwide they are not a backsteet operation).
Both sides have then got bogged down in legals. SISU perhaps more used to that but I dont think ACL or CCC could now be said to be strangers to it. Trouble is legal actions lead you down the path of defending not creating. Look at how it is reported, it is all he said she said, one challenge met with another, one statement to defend against a statement. Positions have become entrenched. Not sure we know the half of what has gone on, the things said or done. Got a feeling there has been some very dirty dealing going on.
Do the club need to own the freehold - no
The club need to own the rights to income. There are ways that could have been achieved, buy the rights back, earn the rights back, rent space and put on own events ..... but that has never been discussed really has it. It has always been about the rent or ownership of the stadium
Do SISU need to own the freehold (or long lease) yes because thats the only thing that gives a quick capital return the football club alone wont any time soon if ever. Could the CCC have done more not sure they could that would have actually changed things but could they have done things sooner yes i think they could.
Originally the Charity and Council set out certain criteria for the club to meet to get an ownership share. There was no secret about it, and it dated back to when the stadium was being built.
- a viable club (is it ?)
- the ability to invest in the site (think about what that gets the clubs owners or even the club)
So much focus has been lost in paying lawyers barristers insolvency practitioners instead
Find it all pretty depressing to be honest
So to answer your question no I do not think there is much more CCC could have done - in my opinion SISU's only objective is the freehold to recoup for their investors/ARVO offers of anything other just do not cut it for them. The council & Charity were never in it to make profits for a hedge fund. Impasse
Last edited:
Cut out most parts of your post to boil it down to your conclusion that sisu need the freehold.
As I have already on many occasions shown to have little financing skills (doesn't holding me back in discussing stuff as if I have!) - I wonder why they should need the freehold. If they acquired the shares in ACL, bought the mortgage and discharged it, got the long lease extended to 125 years - then surely that would result in an asset increase. Add to that the value increase of a club with lower costs, access to better FFP budgets and eventual promotion - that would also increase the assets value?
In my oppinion I don't think they need to own the freehold. They need to own ACL.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
If PWKH said it, it must be 100% true.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
125 year lease or freehold pretty much same value granted have never argued otherwise
The point I am making though is they are not doing this for the football club .... the football club only needs the income streams, it could buy for axample the 77% shares held in IEC. Most people seem to wrap up the needs of CCFC (the important thing to the fans and rightly so) with the need of SISU. It aint necessarily so.
So say they get ACL but the council do not extend the lease (council arent losing out they were paid up front on the lease) or exclude certain things from a new 125 year lease for ACL (say the development land on the freehold site) They have ACL that doesnt make them an immediate capital profit, has modest profits, a football team that is a drain on funds requiring input to gain sustained success and if successful means more funds just to pay the higher wages.
A hedge fund taking a long term view on return really is unusual.
Not saying it cant be done Godiva but just do not see SISU as long term. Plus the current situation must have highlighted to Council and/or Charity the thought of if SISU would look to sell on why dont we and take the profit ourselves
The point I am making though is they are not doing this for the football club .... the football club only needs the income streams, it could buy for axample the 77% shares held in IEC. Most people seem to wrap up the needs of CCFC (the important thing to the fans and rightly so) with the need of SISU. It aint necessarily so.
So say they get ACL but the council do not extend the lease (council arent losing out they were paid up front on the lease) or exclude certain things from a new 125 year lease for ACL (say the development land on the freehold site) They have ACL that doesnt make them an immediate capital profit, has modest profits, a football team that is a drain on funds requiring input to gain sustained success and if successful means more funds just to pay the higher wages.
A hedge fund taking a long term view on return really is unusual.
Not saying it cant be done Godiva but just do not see SISU as long term. Plus the current situation must have highlighted to Council and/or Charity the thought of if SISU would look to sell on why dont we and take the profit ourselves
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
From a practical POV, security of tenure and long term lease also bumps up the value of the football club of course. And given the football club at the moment has next to no value, any boost is surely useful for a) keeping it as a going concern and b) making it more attractive to future buyers other than those who deal in high risk/high return ventures.
So they may be doing it for themselves (of course, why else does anybody without an affinity to the city/club invest in a club if not) but some things coincide and can be useful for the club too.
Long term lease = long term ability to plan = long term security for the club.
I know analogies are dubious, but I'd not be over-happy buying a flat with a 40-odd year lease, as I'd be worried when I came to sell it, the proportionately greater decline in time left on said lease made the flat unsellable. I'd be a lot happier if a long term lease was on offer to the club, and we got rid of the determination to branch the football club out into non football related activities as compensation for that.
So they may be doing it for themselves (of course, why else does anybody without an affinity to the city/club invest in a club if not) but some things coincide and can be useful for the club too.
Long term lease = long term ability to plan = long term security for the club.
I know analogies are dubious, but I'd not be over-happy buying a flat with a 40-odd year lease, as I'd be worried when I came to sell it, the proportionately greater decline in time left on said lease made the flat unsellable. I'd be a lot happier if a long term lease was on offer to the club, and we got rid of the determination to branch the football club out into non football related activities as compensation for that.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Sorry SBP ...... wish I could be more positive
I do not see CCFC back in Coventry any time soon to be honest. Whilst SISU believe they can get their hands on the Ricoh I cant see them selling up either. There needs to be a game changer of some sort
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Have no problem with them looking after their own business. The weakest part however is the football club because it will make losses unless very succesful. At what point does that detract from the stadium or add to it?
Once you have the stadium there are still the same choices - keep the club or do something different.
What if ACL get 125 year lease and the cLub gets a rolling 10 year lease. How far does that enhance CCFC ?
Yes a lease helps with going concern to a degree but it could have the lease but heavy losses with no further support from owners and it is then not viable.
Ok yes playing devils advocate but you have to consider all the possiblities not just the ones best for CCFC
Just my opinion but I dont see a great deal of benevolence or passion for CCFC from the current owners...... i do see sharp business practice and a definite target as conclusion. Others may see it differently
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
At what point does it detract from the stadium or add to it? Well, as a football stadium, I'd hope a football club always adds to the stadium. Think we're showing now the relative truth of that.
What I do think is clear is that yes, sharp business practice, but a desire to move the club on and yes, cut losses. but as it stands, the club is unable to be moved on because it has no value. What it doesn't necessarily mean is there is much motive for SISU to keep club and not fund it (as you offer as a counterpoint) if they can package it in a saleable way. Their short term, medium term is over, I'm sure they want to move on as much as anybody... but from their POV they're not going to just hand the club over to somebody anymore than ACL should be expected to hand stadium over to the club.
(I will add the caveat that I'd be wary what else they might use the club as battering ram for. Housing on Ryton's the only thing I can see... but ideas welcome!)
Does that mean i think ACL/council should just cave in? No.
Does that mean I think ACL/council should just give it away? No.
Does that mean I think ACL/council should be open to the idea of selling a lengthened lease/freehold and relinquishing control? Yes.
Unfortunately there are two stories going on at the moment that I can see. One is the dominant narrative where, quite rightly, SISU are lambasted for playing cold financial games with something that relies on intangibles, and not just numbers. The other, however, is that in response I have the sneaking suspicion a coup has been attempted, to place the football club in the hands of alternative owners... and not necessarily owners for the better for the club itself.
At the moment we're in Egyptian market negotiation, lots of shouting and pleading they don't want to buy anything and nobody wants to sell anything. At some point both sides however have to realise they need to move beyond that and try and work out how they can do a deal where both sides benefit.
What I do think is clear is that yes, sharp business practice, but a desire to move the club on and yes, cut losses. but as it stands, the club is unable to be moved on because it has no value. What it doesn't necessarily mean is there is much motive for SISU to keep club and not fund it (as you offer as a counterpoint) if they can package it in a saleable way. Their short term, medium term is over, I'm sure they want to move on as much as anybody... but from their POV they're not going to just hand the club over to somebody anymore than ACL should be expected to hand stadium over to the club.
(I will add the caveat that I'd be wary what else they might use the club as battering ram for. Housing on Ryton's the only thing I can see... but ideas welcome!)
Does that mean i think ACL/council should just cave in? No.
Does that mean I think ACL/council should just give it away? No.
Does that mean I think ACL/council should be open to the idea of selling a lengthened lease/freehold and relinquishing control? Yes.
Unfortunately there are two stories going on at the moment that I can see. One is the dominant narrative where, quite rightly, SISU are lambasted for playing cold financial games with something that relies on intangibles, and not just numbers. The other, however, is that in response I have the sneaking suspicion a coup has been attempted, to place the football club in the hands of alternative owners... and not necessarily owners for the better for the club itself.
At the moment we're in Egyptian market negotiation, lots of shouting and pleading they don't want to buy anything and nobody wants to sell anything. At some point both sides however have to realise they need to move beyond that and try and work out how they can do a deal where both sides benefit.
Last edited by a moderator:
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
what happens if ACL believe they can succeed without the club? What happens if there are no more moves against administrator/league etc and they decide ok lets do this but without CCFC? What happens if that works? What happens if it doesnt?
what happens if TF is to be believed the club has moved on from the Ricoh (dont think they have yet but )? What happens if the club get more debt? What happens if the team doesnt succeed on the pitch? What happens if it does succeed at Sixfields?
Just posing questions nothing more....... people state this and that will happen as if it is a fact it isnt ..... the future for both entities is unclear
what happens if TF is to be believed the club has moved on from the Ricoh (dont think they have yet but )? What happens if the club get more debt? What happens if the team doesnt succeed on the pitch? What happens if it does succeed at Sixfields?
Just posing questions nothing more....... people state this and that will happen as if it is a fact it isnt ..... the future for both entities is unclear
Last edited:
Unfortunately ACL can't sell the freehold - it is owned by ccc.
Other than that I mostly agree with what you say.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Indeed, I wonder if they've got a suicide pact.
There's a slight bias in your questions. You ask what if ACL can continue being viable, but the club can't.
But I think the answer would be sisu walking away.
Allow me to ask questions with opposite bias:
What happens if ACL can't succeed long term without ccfc bringing in punters?
What happens if sisu build a new stadium and have it financed without increasing liabillities more than the increase of assets?
What happens if the club then get higher revenue at slightly the same cost base?
What happens if the club has success and the club is promoted?
I did not say it nor was I at the meeting.
Thank you, although I suspect you intended irony.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No flies on you!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
No more bias than your postings. There was a reason for the "bias" as you put it Godiva although none was really intended so call it an angle....... if ACL were to be succesful do they need CCFC back. That is a worrry right now with no tangible plan on show for a new ground because as it stands that is a threat to CCFC. What happens if there is no way back on offer was the point I was making. The new stadium then has to happen and it has to succeed.
As to the new stadium then perhaps it can be built, perhaps it can bring in additional income, perhaps it will be the saviour of the club. I havent closed that off in my mind but to date I have seen nothing that doesnt suggest that by the time we get it we wont be deeper in debt. To add to that if we get promoted, which I hope we do, then whilst incomes could increase approx by £6m (based on last time we were there) then wages costs will also show significant increases. To turn a profit, pay down the loans is going to take some doing...... and it is the debt that is the biggest single obstacle to any new owners
The point is CCFC is significantly at risk by the actions of our owners but also to some degree by the decisions ACL might take going forward
As to the new stadium then perhaps it can be built, perhaps it can bring in additional income, perhaps it will be the saviour of the club. I havent closed that off in my mind but to date I have seen nothing that doesnt suggest that by the time we get it we wont be deeper in debt. To add to that if we get promoted, which I hope we do, then whilst incomes could increase approx by £6m (based on last time we were there) then wages costs will also show significant increases. To turn a profit, pay down the loans is going to take some doing...... and it is the debt that is the biggest single obstacle to any new owners
The point is CCFC is significantly at risk by the actions of our owners but also to some degree by the decisions ACL might take going forward
Last edited:
Esoterica
Well-Known Member
What still is not clear to me throughout this is where CCC strike the balance between CCC looking after it's community and ACL looking after it's own business interests. In terms of where we are as a fanbase, we are currently divided. Not down the middle, the majority want SISU out and are not concerned with the fire, when the frying pan is so hot. However this has lead to a lot of focus on those attending and not attending matches rather than a united approach in applying pressure to the right parties to get the short term situation resolved - getting cov back in cov.
If SISU's intentions are sinister, in terms of their intentions for the stadium should they be able to acquire the freehold or a long term leasehold, why are the council, through ACL, not offering them a rental contract that ticks the football boxes - fair rent, access to revenue streams to tick the FFP boxes and most importantly playing matches back in Coventry. If SISU were to then refuse this, it would surely unite the fanbase by exposing, or at least narrowing down, SISU's intentions for the stadium
If SISU's intentions are sinister, in terms of their intentions for the stadium should they be able to acquire the freehold or a long term leasehold, why are the council, through ACL, not offering them a rental contract that ticks the football boxes - fair rent, access to revenue streams to tick the FFP boxes and most importantly playing matches back in Coventry. If SISU were to then refuse this, it would surely unite the fanbase by exposing, or at least narrowing down, SISU's intentions for the stadium