Paul Fletchers comments (1 Viewer)

Here is the link

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...fair-price-says-paul-fletcher-92746-30988063/

just a couple of questions really Paul
1) what is the current fair value given you said it was £37m at the beginning with no established business?
2) how much do you think SISU & CCFC might have offered ?
3) given that the build cost of the stadium was £115m what do you think the £62.5m sale to Tescos was used for ? - to finance the build maybe ?
4) whose fault was it that it was necessary for the Council & Charity to get involved in the first place ?
5) Is it normal when companies are no longer a going concern for assets to be sold at a much lower value ?
6) was the £37m the value at the time or the value when the project completed and why is it so much less than the build costs?
7) Do you think the council & charity really wanted to be involved ?
8) do you realise that Charity rules and Council rules would prohibit selling any investments at less than the proper value. To do so would make the trustees and councilors personally liable?
9) Cost of investment by Council and charity is on public records why guess at it ?

oh and just to help here is the Council arena construction report

http://cmis.coventry.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=4974

detailed breakdown appendix 2 page 16 is helpful - cheers stupot07

we got a new stadium because of others and inspite of CCFC. Yes the club should have its own stadium..... it simply could not afford the one it plays in..... why - because CCFC never has been able to manage its finances properly no matter who the owners and directors are.

actually the 2002 accounts indicate that the net investment in the joint venture with the Council by CCFC Holdings Group to be £4.8m - if there were any other costs I need to check

From the charity commission the cost of investment by the charity commission was £6.5m

That looks like a profit to me made by CCFC Holdings - but like i said i need to check accounts after 2002. But certainly not 50% of the net build costs paid by CCFC.

Page 16 of council report doesnt indicate CCFC paid 50% of the net build either

According to the 2003 accounts CCFC Holdings accounts the club had a net investment of £4.8m in the joint venture with the Council. This was made up of the costs spent (£17.8m) less the loans against those costs (£13m). During the 2003 accounts the club paid in a further £2m making a total net investment of £6.8m.

December 2003 (stadium was not built not even sure the gas towers on the site were down by then?) the club couldn't pay its debts and sold its share in the joint venture for £6.5m to the Charity. They received £2m in cash, existing loans from the charity of £2.5m (at 5% interest)were waived and the charity paid off £2m to certain directors who had made loans (those directors immediately re loaned the club £2m)

There was a loss on the investment of £308K. I think there is an implication that the Charity took advantage of the club and that is simply not true - CCFC got over 95% of their money back and reduced their exposure to 5% interest on an original loan. They had had an interest in a stadium that was not even half built, with contracts signed and therefore commitments to funding they could not match - to say it was worth £37m at that point is a stretch by Fletcher.

The club got themselves in the mess and had to sell assets to keep going ............ seems to be a recurring theme

skybluesam66 said:

but you need to include the decontamination costs in the total cost of 115m net off the 60 m from the tesco and the amount from the ec
so ccfc paid the 4.7 + 20m decontamination approx 50%

Click to expand...

The decontamination costs are in the council report at £17m and paid for as part of the Tesco deal.

Only costs in round terms CCFC actually incurred were £18m in the 2002 accounts plus the £2m they contributed to joint venture in 2003. Against that the joint venture also took in £13m of CCFC liability to pay costs of the development that CCFC could not pay. It cost CCFC 6.8m in total net - they didnt physically pay anything else.

You cannot say that CCFC paid for the costs if someone else ended up paying for it. the net investment in the project is pretty clear in the accounts for 2003 notes 12 and 26

plus the council put in 10m cash so it is hardly 50:50