Mean while back in court (2 Viewers)

chiefdave said:

The JR regarding the sale could be interesting. We might get to find out a time line of the sale, who approached who etc.

As for the price you can see the route SISU will take. They will point to the figures being thrown around when they expressed an interest (£10m for Higgs share via the formula, whatever silly amount it was for the matchday revenues), then show that against the sale price and then what Wasps claimed the lease to be worth a matter of weeks later.

Appreciate the value of ACL and the value of the lease aren't the same thing but it will still need to be shown how a company with an asset worth, was it £40m?, in Wasps prospectus was with under £6m. And of course why the original 50 year lease and the extension given to Wasps differ so greatly in price.

Click to expand...

Getting the timeline out in the open will certainly be interesting. However it will achieve what exactly? It wont change the deal that was done. It will however entrench opinions but it is better that it is out in the open. It will of course create lots of debate on here. In reality it will confirm that negotiations were going on in secret and that a deal was done that brought Wasps here and all but ended CCFC aspirations of owning even part of the stadium - we know that already don't we?

The valuation. Well yes they can point to certain figures that had been bandied around several years before. Doesn't really carry much weight in the value and method of valuation at 08/10/14. They could point to the Higgs formula but that was for the Higgs not CCC shares (which are the ones under dispute in JR2) but the formula was never used, indeed the Charity negotiated with SISU outside of the formula at a lower value. Those negotiations failed partly on value with SISU suggesting their final offer in October 2012 was £2m - AEHC rejected out of hand. The £24m was not a formal offer to sell but a corridor conversation between two people who didn't actually have the authority to make that agreement nor was it about the shares. SISU or TF have themselves publically said they wouldn't do the Wasps deal because it was over valued. In deed the JR1 & Higgs case were in part pointing to ACL having no value and being worthless now JR2 is saying ACL was undervalued and worth much more? Hardly helps the SISU case for them to have two contradicting opinions on the valuation of the same thing

The key to remember is that the shares were valued as the situation for ACL existed at 08/10/14. Who was buying is not relevant. How it was valued previously or not is nothing but back ground and doesn't actually impart on the methodology at 08/10/14. How much control is relevant, the state of the cash flow would be relevant, the need for renovation or investment would all be relevant in the share value at 08/10/14 - all factors that could discount the price. It is the CCC sale that is under scrutiny here not the sale by the Charity. In legal terms it isn't even about the value of ACL but the value of CCC's interest in ACL two very different things

The audited financial statements filed on public record at Companies House and approved by the various shareholders indicate net asset values in the years to 31/05/14 not greatly different to what was paid. Was there added value because of on going income contracts or goodwill? The sponsorships were running out, the various leases were short but capable of being renewed. The stadium had no anchor tenant only a debt laden high risk previously delinquent day renting football club with a 2+2 year contract. That same day rent client was also saying we are not staying. Hardly a good covenant

The valuation at 08/10/14 of ACL would be on the basis of what was - ie no long term sporting tenant - There was exhibition etc income streams and certain rental streams but a major chunk of footfall could not be relied upon. Even so the Short term lease (anything under 50 yrs is short term) that ACL had acquired was still in the ACL accounts at £18m. The value of ACL of course is not just the value of the lease, there are other assets and of course you must include all liabilities. The long 250 year lease did not exist at 08/10/14 so has no bearing on the valuation of the original lease or ACL at that date.

CCC will be able to argue that the sale was intended to bring other benefits. Employment, bring in revenue, an element of development, raise the City of Coventry profile in a positive way, add to the sporting development of the city and its residents all things like it or not that have happened or are planned in the near future. Sale value does not have to be in £ sterling

But the Wasps valued it several months later at £48.5m - that's the lease not ACL To be clear both the extension and the original head lease still exist and are charged to the bond issue. The head lease and the extension though obviously related are separate and quite different assets. The head lease is not in valuation terms similar to having the freehold interest, the extension because of its duration clearly is. The problem is that the extension came in to existence 29/01/15 when there was a key sporting long term tenant. Yes Wasps Holdings is the rugby club and own ACL but in law ACL ltd and ACL 2006 Ltd are separate legal entities and it is those two companies that actually own/control the lease from CCC - Wasps are a tenant of ACL. That tenancy has value, long term value. It is that long term commitment that gives the premium in the hands of Wasps. It would have been the same thought process had CCFC got such a deal - arguable whether it would have been worth similar though with the club in L1 - Wasps presently (like it or not) can attract bigger names to contribute to income streams at this time

When we compare the long lease at £48.5m then it is not against the value of the shares in ACL purchased but against the short term lease that existed and was valued at £18m. Add to that £18m the £1m purchase of extension and the uplift is £29m not an uplift from £5.54m (share purchase cost) to £48.5m. It is by no means unusual that the value of an asset is in one persons hands is worth more than being in someone elses.

How did CCC value the lease extension. That we do not know yet. But as I explained earlier there was no open market for the grant of the extension. There was only one company that could obtain that extension - ACL. There were no annual rents to receive on the head lease because ACL had paid a one off premium when it took control. That means unless ACL went bust then for 40 years plus CCC could not remove ACL from the site. Is £1m enough in value to CCC we will have to wait see but to be honest the professional valuation opinion to support the bond issue for Wasps 23 April 2015 is not really relevant to how CCC arrived at their valuation 29/01/15.

Look at this way the extension to CCC is valued on what the freeholder CCC can actually earn from it - maybe a ground rent. The value of the lease to Wasps is also based on what they can earn from it - Turnover

Did CCC have to offer on the open market. Had it been land & property on sale at 08/10/14 then perhaps but not definitely. But this is the sale of shares. Did CCC legally have to approach CCFC with the same or similar offer - I can not find anything that says they had to. The Charity had of course granted CCFC ltd an option on their shares and had to make CCFC aware of the Wasps bid - there was no such contract on the CCC shares. Add to that the fact that CCFC were a day renter of the stadium bowl at the time having previously broken and severed all other legal arrangements there then that weakens the CCFC claim to be offered the same legally further. Yes I know the moral case, yes I know the historical claims, yes I know it should have been ours but this is focussed because of the actions of the parties wholly in legals

Given the processes that will have been done, the legal assessments, the analysis of risk of challenge by SISU etc then I doubt CCC have anything other than a strong case for what they have done. None of us like how it has ended up for CCFC but I think the likelihood of SISU succeeding in this JR2 challenge is remote. Lets be honest they are not doing any of this primarily for CCFC and its fans now are they?

As OSB says - in effect - why? Why dig all this up just for the point of it? Commercial advantage should be the only criterium for a hard nosed hedge fund. Ok, some on here would do it for the hell of it to show all parties up - if they had the money to blow. I cannot see Joy going the whole way on this. JR2 doesn't look like bringing any financial advantage and so gains nothing for Joy's investors. Up until now, nobody - even Les Reid - has found the "smoking gun".

oldskyblue58 said:

However it will achieve what exactly?

Click to expand...

Firstly there's PR reasons for getting more information about the council and Wasps role in this out there. To be honest SISU have done a terrible job at this, aided by a local media compliant with CCC and fan apathy. Its quite sad to see more outrage about things impact the long term future of CCFC on rugby forums than from our own fans.

In terms of the JR itself SISU will want to establish a narrative. As you say the JR itself regards a point in time and will be judged on what happened on that day but you still want to bring events before and after that date in to strengthen your case. So what we're looking at is the sale of 50% of ACL to Wasps. Also possibly the sale of the lease extension to Wasps.

It makes sense for SISU to bring in as much evidence as possible to show that when they had, even corridor conversations, regarding ACL they were seeing higher prices than that at which the sale to Wasps took place. To that end the formula price should be mentioned. Whilst that was for Higgs share it was still for 50% of the company, the same as Wasps purchased from CCC.

Look at it this way, let's say there's 100 shares in ACL. From SISUs point of view you would want to show the cost of the sale of 50 shares to Higgs, the formula cost to buy those back, the cost agreed with CCC for the deal that was never completed etc. While you may not have a valuation for the specific day if you can show that right before and right after the value was considerably higher it adds significant weight to the claim Wasps paid a low price.

You would also want to look at if CCC knew of a possible sale to Wasps when they made the loan. Given that the loan gave ACL the stability to allow them to apply to put the club in administration, leading to the voiding of the lease and removing the option for the club to purchase Higgs share that comes in to play. What about the clubs return. Were they offered more than 2+2? If not SISU can argue that was deliberate to suppress the value allowing the sale to Wasps. Similarly was the agreement for the lease extension in place prior to the sale?

Suspect it will be a much longer and more complex case than the first JR.

chiefdave said:

Its quite sad to see more outrage about things impact the long term future of CCFC on rugby forums than from our own fans.

Click to expand...

I'm astounded that there is so little anger regarding the fact the Club has been hamstrung and will probably never get over it. All we get is a shrug of the shoulders and a "can't do much about it, we need to move on".

chiefdave said:

Firstly there's PR reasons for getting more information about the council and Wasps role in this out there. To be honest SISU have done a terrible job at this, aided by a local media compliant with CCC and fan apathy. Its quite sad to see more outrage about things impact the long term future of CCFC on rugby forums than from our own fans.

In terms of the JR itself SISU will want to establish a narrative. As you say the JR itself regards a point in time and will be judged on what happened on that day but you still want to bring events before and after that date in to strengthen your case. So what we're looking at is the sale of 50% of ACL to Wasps. Also possibly the sale of the lease extension to Wasps.

It makes sense for SISU to bring in as much evidence as possible to show that when they had, even corridor conversations, regarding ACL they were seeing higher prices than that at which the sale to Wasps took place. To that end the formula price should be mentioned. Whilst that was for Higgs share it was still for 50% of the company, the same as Wasps purchased from CCC.

Look at it this way, let's say there's 100 shares in ACL. From SISUs point of view you would want to show the cost of the sale of 50 shares to Higgs, the formula cost to buy those back, the cost agreed with CCC for the deal that was never completed etc. While you may not have a valuation for the specific day if you can show that right before and right after the value was considerably higher it adds significant weight to the claim Wasps paid a low price.

You would also want to look at if CCC knew of a possible sale to Wasps when they made the loan. Given that the loan gave ACL the stability to allow them to apply to put the club in administration, leading to the voiding of the lease and removing the option for the club to purchase Higgs share that comes in to play. What about the clubs return. Were they offered more than 2+2? If not SISU can argue that was deliberate to suppress the value allowing the sale to Wasps. Similarly was the agreement for the lease extension in place prior to the sale?

Suspect it will be a much longer and more complex case than the first JR.

Click to expand...

But the PR will achieve what? People will read it then file it, if that. Not saying it should not be done but I do not see that much will be gained especially as it wont happen for a long time. If CCC win both JR's then the impact will be quickly forgotten

Yes SISU like to throw as much as possible at a case. Whilst it establishes a narrative from their point of view, makes interesting reading for people like us, Judges tend to cut through such stuff and focus in on what actually affects the case. The value of CCC interest at 08/10/14 and the value of the lease extension 29/01/15. It is back ground nothing more and the judges will not place much weight on stuff that happened in 2012

SISU may well have been seeing higher prices quoted to them but SISU rejected them all as over valued. Now they are arguing that actually the value should have been higher

No doubt the formula price will be mentioned but it was an artificial calculation for the purchase of the Charity shares that (a) never got used (b) didn't set an open market value (c) was nothing to do with the value of the CCC interest in ACL

The case is about the value and methodology of that valuation at 08/10 and 29/01. It does not matter what the value was the day month or year before or after. The Judge will seek to prove whether or not firstly that the methodology was reasonable and fair then secondly that it was properly applied. If you are comparing valuations previously or since then you also have to use the same methodology and factor in any key changes using that same methodology to be able to prove value movements

Thing is SISU can throw as much "evidence" as they like at the case but if it is not actually pertinent to the dates of sale and extension then it is nothing more than background that though interesting will not carry much weight in court

JR2 has nothing to do with CCC making the loan in Feb 2013. It may be Wasps were interested and that may come out but surely would have come out by now? Lets be very clear the whole legal process started with the creation of the ARVO charge and the withholding of the rent. After that it was a matter of using the legal system to achieve known outcomes then moving to the next stage. The ARVO charge meant that in any insolvency SISU would be in control. The loan gave stability to ACL to restructure and move away from dependency on CCFC yes, the lease was broken by CCFC and it was voided by the liquidator of CCFC Ltd

From what I understand it was the club that wanted the 2+2 deal. The intention to extend the lease for ACL under control of Wasps may have been part of the negotiations but the fact is the Lease never existed legally until 29/01/15 not at the point of share sale and no doubt there will be papers that show the lease was still being negotiated after Wasps bought ACL

I don't share your assumption that it will be more complicated. Valuations though a matter of opinion are commonplace and plenty of case law exists. JR1 was a much more obscure point of European Law that had never been tested.

Essentially this case is was the valuation at 08/10/14 of the CCC interest in ACL fair and reasonable in the open market and was the value of the extension of a lease to an existing leaseholder valued properly and at a fair value

oldskyblue58 said:

The case is about the value and methodology of that valuation at 08/10 and 29/01. It does not matter what the value was the day month or year before or after.

Click to expand...

The case is indeed about the value on 8/10 but do you not think it raises questions if, for example, on 7/10 the value was £20m and on 9/10 the value was £20m but on 8/10 it was £5m?

What odds on it turning out CCC didn't keep minutes for a lot of these meetings?

chiefdave said:

The case is indeed about the value on 8/10 but do you not think it raises questions if, for example, on 7/10 the value was £20m and on 9/10 the value was £20m but on 8/10 it was £5m?

What odds on it turning out CCC didn't keep minutes for a lot of these meetings?

Click to expand...

But that's the point the method of valuation has to be one that is based on generally accepted principles, based on all the relevant information, appropriate to the situation, and properly applied at the date of the transaction. That is what will be tested in court.

It would be very hard for CCC to go through that and then say tell you what lets call it this instead. There is of course the published accounts that indicate a not too different figure as well.

In these circumstances I would think there will be plenty of documents proving the point. The deal was very well choreographed as far as I can see

skybluetony176 said:

Try reading everything that was said if you want a clearer picture. You seem to be selecting what you're reading putting £0 and £2M together and coming up with £5.5M. The "charitable donation" was £2M instead of the £5.5M previously agreed and reneged on. Hence she was willing to pay UPTO £5.5M at one point for something worthless and offer £2M when deciding it was worthless as she recognised they were a charity. Link below.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/sisu-v-higgs-court-battle-6914945

Click to expand...

Certainly good advice to read everything that was said, maybe you should try it
The Telegraph is picking up different parts that were said, jumbling them up a bit, and some context is lost. The only mention, in the court transcripts, of paying for something that was worthless, because it was a charity, was in respect of the £5.5m deal.

chiefdave said:

Why wouldn't SISU bring it up? They will want to establish a narrative around the pricing they were offered so mentioning things like the formula price, the price for F&B offered by Gidney, the comments from Mutton about offers from the likes of Manhattan etc are all likely to come up.

I suspect they will take two roads, one showing the price to be low and one showing the sale process to be flawed. If they could convince the court that the lease extension was a deliberate way to get around the regulations covering a freehold sale they will be in business. Nobody will realistically think the Ricoh will last for the next 200 plus years will they?

Of course saying that I'm not a lawyer so who knows. There were things that seemed a no-brainer to bring up in JR1 that have either not been mentioned at all or only mentioned in passing.

Click to expand...

I never aimed my question of the formula price being brought up by SISU. It was aimed at people like yourself that constantly bring up that the formula price was too high and trying to make a point about it when the formula price was never asked for.

Rusty Trombone said:

Certainly good advice to read everything that was said, maybe you should try it
The Telegraph is picking up different parts that were said, jumbling them up a bit, and some context is lost. The only mention, in the court transcripts, of paying for something that was worthless, because it was a charity, was in respect of the £5.5m deal.

Click to expand...

So are you saying SISU said in court whilst giving evidence that they were prepared to pay £5.5 million for something that they felt was worth nothing because Joy recognised the Higgs were a charity?
But they agreed £2 million because it was cash up front and sold seperately to the council share?

dongonzalos said:

So are you saying SISU said in court whilst giving evidence that they were prepared to pay £5.5 million for something that they felt was worth nothing because Joy recognised the Higgs were a charity?
But they agreed £2 million because it was cash up front and sold seperately to the council share?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. The offer for Higgs 50% was £5.5m with £1.5m up front and instalments over the following 10 years to pay the rest. An e-mail was shown in court from Chris West who was the council finance officer and ACL director that this was “very significantly above the market value”.

Higgs wanted all the money up front. SISU said they would pay £2m on that basis.

Both deals were separate to the council share, that would have been purchased later. If I recall correctly the council said that SISU needed to agree a deal with Higgs first.

chiefdave said:

That's pretty much it. The offer for Higgs 50% was £5.5m with £1.5m up front and instalments over the following 10 years to pay the rest. An e-mail was shown in court from Chris West who was the council finance officer and ACL director that this was “very significantly above the market value”.

Higgs wanted all the money up front. SISU said they would pay £2m on that basis.

Both deals were separate to the council share, that would have been purchased later. If I recall correctly the council said that SISU needed to agree a deal with Higgs first.

Click to expand...

wow she is a very charitable lady

Regardless of timelines, formulas, Joy and SISU, some people are still overlooking the fact that CCC bemoaned (and quite rightly) the fact that CCFC moved to Northampton for a period when we should've been at home in Coventry.

YET, then entered into a confidentiality agreement with LONDON Wasps.

For me, the financials or the timelines or the ineptitude of SISU, are all outdone by the hypocrisy of CCC who may have washed their hands on Ricoh ownership and in doing so, have threatened the future of a club that has been based in their constituency since 1883.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dongonzalos said:

So are you saying SISU said in court whilst giving evidence that they were prepared to pay £5.5 million for something that they felt was worth nothing because Joy recognised the Higgs were a charity?
But they agreed £2 million because it was cash up front and sold seperately to the council share?

Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much as Dave says. I believe it was said that SISU weren't prepared to offer any security over the remaining £4m (£1.5m cash), so understandably they wouldn't accept that. The £2m offer was on the basis of buying without any Council agreement to sell their share, so the offer was understandably less.

Rusty Trombone said:

Yep, pretty much as Dave says. I believe it was said that SISU weren't prepared to offer any security over the remaining £4m (£1.5m cash), so understandably they wouldn't accept that. The £2m offer was on the basis of buying without any Council agreement to sell their share, so the offer was understandably less.

Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable and it was all for something worthless because joy accepted they were a charity.

I am not too sure why people obsess over the Charity thing, either they were offered money or not?

Nick said:

I am not too sure why people obsess over the Charity thing, either they were offered money or not?

Click to expand...

Probably because it makes them feel better that wasps only paid £2.7m for highs share that had a 250 year lease.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Skyblueweeman said:

Regardless of timelines, formulas, Joy and SISU, some people are still overlooking the fact that CCC bemoaned (and quite rightly) the fact that CCFC moved to Northampton for a period when we should've been at home in Coventry.

YET, then entered into a confidentiality agreement with LONDON Wasps.

For me, the financials or the timelines or the ineptitude of SISU, are all outdone by the hypocrisy of CCC who may have washed their hands on Ricoh ownership and in doing so, have threatened the future of a club that has been based in their constituency since 1883.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So I take it you disagree with the judges and think they should have allowed ACL to go out of business?

Nick said:

I am not too sure why people obsess over the Charity thing, either they were offered money or not?

Click to expand...

Are you not a bit gobsmacked that SISU were offering 5.5 million (1.5 million up front) and/or 2 million depending on the terms of the sale, for something worthless because a charity owned it?
However you are right it's pointless the judge said both sides lost interest in the sale.
The judges also said the main plan would have failed and ACL gone out of business

stupot07 said:

Probably because it makes them feel better that wasps only paid £2.7m for highs share that had a 250 year lease.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Don't feel better about Wasps owning ACL
The charity line regarding the offer just frustrates me even more.

dongonzalos said:

Are you not a bit gobsmacked that SISU were offering 5.5 million (1.5 million up front) and/or 2 million depending on the terms of the sale, for something worthless because a charity owned it?
However you are right it's pointless the judge said both sides lost interest in the sale.
The judges also said the main plan would have failed and ACL gone out of business

Click to expand...

Not really no, either they offered them money or they didn't. Whether it was for charity, because it was sunny, because it was a Thursday etc. They either offered them money or they didn't surely?

Fact is, that offer was laughed off straight away. People went batshit mental saying it was an insult, how would the children eat etc. Wasps roll in and pay a bit more for it and nobody really bats an eyelid.

The same as when Shapiro wanted to take over, it would have left the charity 2.5m out of pocket so it was a no go.

Nick said:

I am not too sure why people obsess over the Charity thing, either they were offered money or not?

Click to expand...

my issue with the charity thing is my recollection (possibly wrong) of PWKH coming on here from way back (pre-Wasps and possibly pre-admin) and talking about how Higgs shares were valued, who they could be sold to, ACL position etc. Doesn't seem to reconcile with how things panned out. A lot of talk about formulas, obliged to get the charity's money, legal constraints on what the charity could & couldn't do.

Nick said:

Not really no, either they offered them money or they didn't. Whether it was for charity, because it was sunny, because it was a Thursday etc. They either offered them money or they didn't surely?

Fact is, that offer was laughed off straight away. People went batshit mental saying it was an insult, how would the children eat etc. Wasps roll in and pay a bit more for it and nobody really bats an eyelid.

The same as when Shapiro wanted to take over, it would have left the charity 2.5m out of pocket so it was a no go.

Click to expand...

He's using a charity line as it again destroys another one of his arguments.

It disguises the fact it was a bid and a bid far higher than it's worth. He clings to these pathetic one liners to try and worm his way out of the truth.

dongonzalos said:

So I take it you disagree with the judges and think they should have allowed ACL to go out of business?

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. They needed to stay in business but given the uproar over Northampton, it seems strange to sell to another sports club in a similar situation.

Are you saying that if they'd not waited another 6-12 months, they wouldn't have been able to firm up a deal with CCFC who the stadium was built for? Failing that, that there wouldn't have been any other interested party who would've considered one of the UKs best entertainment/conference venues?

Why sell to a nomadic rugby club when they complained about Cov moving to Northampton? Hypocrisy.

In my opinion (rightly or wrongly), the decision to sell to Wasps was based on personal agendas.

Skyblueweeman said:

That's not what I'm saying. They needed to stay in business but given the uproar over Northampton, it seems strange to sell to another sports club in a similar situation.

Are you saying that if they'd not waited another 6-12 months, they wouldn't have been able to firm up a deal with CCFC who the stadium was built for? Failing that, that there wouldn't have been any other interested party who would've considered one of the UKs best entertainment/conference venues?

Why sell to a nomadic rugby club when they complained about Cov moving to Northampton? Hypocrisy.

In my opinion (rightly or wrongly), the decision to sell to Wasps was based on personal agendas.

Click to expand...

No I do not believe they would have sold to SISU in that time. I think the Judges are right ACL would have gone to administration.
Why would SISU pay more for it if they thought it was going to go under if they were not there?
No I don't think they had lots of alternative options out there. A lot of people in here felt there would absolutely nobody else.
I won't waffle about what the council's obligations are regarding the City, as I am sure you are aware of them. Wasps achieves a lot of those objectives.
Yes it's wrong to bring a sporting club from somewhere else I really am at a loss why the Rugby authorities allow it.
However as distasteful as it is and as much as it frustrates me as a Cov fan the council would have befn nuts not to do it. In these circumstances.
I woukd go as far as if they rejected the Wasps offer and ACL went under then they would be neglitable. If you were Higgs you would be suing the pants off them

Grendel said:

He's using a charity line as it again destroys another one of his arguments.

It disguises the fact it was a bid and a bid far higher than it's worth. He clings to these pathetic one liners to try and worm his way out of the truth.

Click to expand...

not worth anything else really

dongonzalos said:

No I do not believe they would have sold to SISU in that time. I think the Judges are right ACL would have gone to administration.
Why would SISU pay more for it if they thought it was going to go under if they were not there?
No I don't think they had lots of alternative options out there. A lot of people in here felt there would absolutely nobody else.
I won't waffle about what the council's obligations are regarding the City, as I am sure you are aware of them. Wasps achieves a lot of those objectives.
Yes it's wrong to bring a sporting club from somewhere else I really am at a loss why the Rugby authorities allow it.
However as distasteful as it is and as much as it frustrates me as a Cov fan the council would have befn nuts not to do it. In these circumstances.
I woukd go as far as if they rejected the Wasps offer and ACL went under then they would be neglitable. If you were Higgs you would be suing the pants off them

Click to expand...

What does it matter if there was anybody else for? It was washing it's face and CCFC was only a % of it's income, wasnt PWKH on here saying that CCFC wasn't the be all and end all for ACL? Wasn't the council leader all over the Radio saying that it was fine? Very strange.

Keep it ticking over, then sell it to CCFC once we have new owners / things get sorted.

Skyblueweeman said:

That's not what I'm saying. They needed to stay in business but given the uproar over Northampton, it seems strange to sell to another sports club in a similar situation.

Are you saying that if they'd not waited another 6-12 months, they wouldn't have been able to firm up a deal with CCFC who the stadium was built for? Failing that, that there wouldn't have been any other interested party who would've considered one of the UKs best entertainment/conference venues?

Why sell to a nomadic rugby club when they complained about Cov moving to Northampton? Hypocrisy.

In my opinion (rightly or wrongly), the decision to sell to Wasps was based on personal agendas.

Click to expand...

I thought the council voted unanimously- which means there must have been a hell of a lot of personal agendas...

Nick said:

What does it matter if there was anybody else for? It was washing it's face and CCFC was only a % of it's income, wasnt PWKH on here saying that CCFC wasn't the be all and end all for ACL? Wasn't the council leader all over the Radio saying that it was fine? Very strange.

Keep it ticking over, then sell it to CCFC once we have new owners / things get sorted.

Click to expand...

Once we have got the owners things sorted?
Please expand on that, I take it you saw that getting sorted somehow?
If Ann and PWKH were saying that, the judges certainly don't agree with them. They judges feel that SUSU were withholding the rent and moving out so it headed for admin.

martcov said:

I thought the council voted unanimously- which means there must have been a hell of a lot of personal agendas...

Click to expand...

You just can't make a decision that big based solely on personal agenda.
It's distasteful to me but it would have been suicidal as a council to say no.

dongonzalos said:

Once we have got the owners things sorted?
Please expand on that, I take it you saw that getting sorted somehow?
If Ann and PWKH were saying that, the judges certainly don't agree with them. They judges feel that SUSU were withholding the rent and moving out so it headed for admin.

Click to expand...

What do you mean IF they were saying that? they were saying that. Don't you remember them lying to the taxpayers?

SISU won't be here forever will they? Certainly not 250 years....

Nick said:

What do you mean IF they were saying that? they were saying that. Don't you remember them lying to the taxpayers?

SISU won't be here forever will they? Certainly not 250 years....

Click to expand...

So we wait 250 years for new owners?
The Judges are the ones I am believing in this, they were saying as things stood ACL was heading for Admin. Not an option.
Once the loan was refinanced we moved out and we're building a new stadium.
I don't think many tax payer other than ones like yourself and few others who see everything through CCFC spectacles would agree with "tell Wasps to go away and wait for new owners to come to CCFC"
On the backdrop of SISU get the FL's permission to move out and they were adamant they were building a new stadium.
They are adamant they never would have done the deal that Wasps did.
They were adamant they were not coming back to Coventry.
They were pretty much told put in you best bud or the council are going a different direction.
Your solution is, well leave the stadium empty SISU may not be Cov's owners one day.
Imagine that explanation if it broke in the news that Wasps wanted to come and CCC told them to go away with the above explanation !!!
Sometimes you really need to stand back and not just look at it from how it affects you as a Cov fan
The council can't do that.

dongonzalos said:

No I do not believe they would have sold to SISU in that time. I think the Judges are right ACL would have gone to administration.
Why would SISU pay more for it if they thought it was going to go under if they were not there?
No I don't think they had lots of alternative options out there. A lot of people in here felt there would absolutely nobody else.
I won't waffle about what the council's obligations are regarding the City, as I am sure you are aware of them. Wasps achieves a lot of those objectives.
Yes it's wrong to bring a sporting club from somewhere else I really am at a loss why the Rugby authorities allow it.
However as distasteful as it is and as much as it frustrates me as a Cov fan the council would have befn nuts not to do it. In these circumstances.
I woukd go as far as if they rejected the Wasps offer and ACL went under then they would be neglitable. If you were Higgs you would be suing the pants off them

Click to expand...

Ok let's entertain this for a minute,

Spell it out to me - what obligations do the council actually have to the City?

Unfortunately the council and Higgs have pretty much taken all your ammo away have they not? Let's look at the arguments you've used throughout;

Higgs need to get their money back - well ummm

The charity commission would be involved if they didn't get their money back - well haven't heard from them

The Ricoh is a community asset that should remain as an asset to the community and never be sold to a hedge fund - ooh thing we'd better move swiftly on

The council taking the loan on was fantastic as it makes a profit for the taxpayer. Oh they got rid of it.

The Ricoh is a gold mine worth £60 million - snigger snigger. Now I expect you and Martcov to proudly point to the value of the ground according to the prospectus - this of course isn't a valuation but a projection which had no validity at all. Of course if it is then again it's an example of selling an asset too cheaply.

The council proclaimed that ACL was a solid business and that the club was less than 20% of revenue.

This shows that in fact the 20% we have them was the only thing that made it profitable. So it's a bit rich to then expect the football club to pay an over the top price as they are the only entity that actually made it work.

That's why many of us are less than happy. The council could have continued to fund - they could have bought out the charity.

This is a relatively small amount of money. It wouldn't have been illegal and it wouldn't have been an issue to the tax payer who has very little awareness or interest. There are scores of examples of councils actively using tax payer money to bail out their sporting clubs as they are seen as the community asset. Not a lump of concrete.

It's a pity our council wasn't one of them. It's a pity people like you don't start to hold them to account.

dongonzalos said:

So we wait 250 years for new owners?
The Judges are the ones I am believing in this, they were saying as things stood ACL was heading for Admin. Not an option.
Once the loan was refinanced we moved out and we're building a new stadium.
I don't think many tax payer other than ones like yourself and few others who see everything through CCFC spectacles would agree with "tell Wasps to go away and wait for new owners to come to CCFC"
On the backdrop of SISU get the FL's permission to move out and they were adamant they were building a new stadium.
They are adamant they never would have done the deal that Wasps did.
They were adamant they were not coming back to Coventry.
They were pretty much told put in you best bud or the council are going a different direction.
Your solution is, well leave the stadium empty SISU may not be Cov's owners one day.
Imagine that explanation if it broke in the news that Wasps wanted to come and CCC told them to go away with the above explanation !!!
Sometimes you really need to stand back and not just look at it from how it affects you as a Cov fan
The council can't do that.

Click to expand...

But the tax payers at the time thought that ACL was washing it's face and CCFC was just a % of it's income so they would have probably agreed that it is fine without CCFC so tell Wasps to piss off.

As a tax payer, if ACL had gone bust how would it have affected me?

Grendel said:

Ok let's entertain this for a minute,

Spell it out to me - what obligations do the council actually have to the City?

Unfortunately the council and Higgs have pretty much taken all your ammo away have they not? Let's look at the arguments you've used throughout;

Higgs need to get their money back - well ummm

The charity commission would be involved if they didn't get their money back - well haven't heard from them

The Ricoh is a community asset that should remain as an asset to the community and never be sold to a hedge fund - ooh thing we'd better move swiftly on

The council taking the loan on was fantastic as it makes a profit for the taxpayer. Oh they got rid of it.

The Ricoh is a gold mine worth £60 million - snigger snigger. Now I expect you and Martcov to proudly point to the value of the ground according to the prospectus - this of course isn't a valuation but a projection which had no validity at all. Of course if it is then again it's an example of selling an asset too cheaply.

The council proclaimed that ACL was a solid business and that the club was less than 20% of revenue.

This shows that in fact the 20% we have them was the only thing that made it profitable. So it's a bit rich to then expect the football club to pay an over the top price as they are the only entity that actually made it work.

That's why many of us are less than happy. The council could have continued to fund - they could have bought out the charity.

This is a relatively small amount of money. It wouldn't have been illegal and it wouldn't have been an issue to the tax payer who has very little awareness or interest. There are scores of examples of councils actively using tax payer money to bail out their sporting clubs as they are seen as the community asset. Not a lump of concrete.

It's a pity our council wasn't one of them. It's a pity people like you don't start to hold them to account.

Click to expand...

Did we have a sporting club that would have accepted the Wasps deal? As far as I recall, TF said that he would never have accepted the deal as it involved taking over a company with over 14m debt. Strange that SISU are now talking about a JR saying that the deal was advantageous to Wasps.

Time will tell if ACL are profitable with only a 100.000 GBP rent from CCFC for the next couple of years.