There are 3,516,112 £1 shares issued fp split equally between the Council and the Charity (in holding companies owned by each party to be exact)
In terms of valueing then there are many ways of doing that and because of the complex nature of the site I would expect there is no one set method applicable to each facet. These are only examples a valuer could use other methods
- leases are usually valued on rent roll x number of years (eg the casino)
- the shares in IEC are going to be perhaps considered on Turnover, future projections, net profit etc
- the lease that ACL own would be valued on the income or potential for income, if the lease covers the development land as well then it could depend on planning permissions, value of sales of similar etc (but that land may rest with the CCC)
- You then have valuations of fixtures & fittings which are resale value 2nd hand
- would you say there was any goodwill in the business, you could try but that is the premium someone might pay above tangible asset value
- there might be rights to income or other profits under the lease that might have a value equally there might be costs that depress value
- you would need to factor in any potential or existing liabilities too
Add up all the various parts you get an overall value. If you then buy 50% then it is reasonable to assume paying 50% of value (but not necessarily) if you buy 51% or more then because that gets you simple control that is more valuable
That is just a few thoughts ....... to be honest I am glad I do not have to value it!
As you say the true value is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay for it ....... the price might be higher if there are 2 or more buyers of course
10 months ago SISU offered £14 million for a 50% stake in the management company. It was rejected. Were they trying to get the arena for 'nothing' then?
10 months ago SISU offered £14 million for a 50% stake in the management company. It was rejected. Were they trying to get the arena for 'nothing' then?
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.
Osb my eyes have recently been opened from my sisu are evil everyone else is almost blameless.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
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
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?
PKWH who was at the meeting with Joy, it wasnt denied as far as I know.
PKWH who was at the meeting with Joy, it wasnt denied as far as I know.
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 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.
Do SISU need to own the freehold (or long lease) yes because thats the only thing that gives a quick capital return. 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.
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
PKWH who was at the meeting with Joy, it wasnt denied as far as I know.
Depressing!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
Depressing!
Might as well move on or go to six fields
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.
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.
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 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
PKWH who was at the meeting with Joy, it wasnt denied as far as I know.
If PWKH said it, it must be 100% true.
Thank you, although I suspect you intended irony.
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?