Paul Fletchers comments (1 Viewer)

[oldskyblue58]

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 ?

 

---

[oldskyblue58]

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.

 

[withnail]

And why should SISU (or Chinese investors or whatever suit clad, Range Rover driving, cuff link wearing, self centred money grabbing barstools...delete as appropriate, they're all the same anyway - GRAB GRAB GRAB) get the Higgs Charity half of the stadium at a knock down price when currently the Higgs charity ploughs money into helping deprived kids in a 25 mile radius of Cov.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Begs the question-would HR have been better for the club?

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

Poor old Fletcher still peddling snake oil. I like the way he boasts of helping build the new Wembley...
Operation Premiership and padded seats is Fletcher not deals to buy land and develop stadia.

 

[skybluesam66]

OSB you are spot on as usual - the problem was that due to ccfc and its financial acumen it ran out of money at the wrong time

50% of the net cost of the stadium (approx after the tesco sale which was also negotiated by the club) was paid for by CCFC
In return CCFC have nothing for that investment except a 4.5m sale of right to half of the profits
In return they have paid 1.2m per year back for the right to play in the stadium

so in effect the 50% that we paid for the stadium we have absolutely nothing for and it is now costing year on year

We cannot turn back the clock, but at the same time we should not accept the status quo

The council have to negotiate or the club should move - and given that position (which I think is quite close to the truth), the council will have no chice but to negotiate to protect the value of their asset

 

[oldskyblue58]

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

 

[oldskyblue58]

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]

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%

 

[oldskyblue58]

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%

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

 

[Wrenstreetcarpark]

The point is that the Club never had the money but always hoped to get some through a miracle when the deadlines came up. Most of the time they borrowed their way out of trouble delayed payment or sold a player but when it came to the land deals that just wouldn't work. Richardson gambled and lost. He was a chancer. He was followed by the legless and sightless who only retained the Academy because the Higgs Charity built the Alan Higgs Centre, and we only got the Ricoh because the Council and the Higgs Charity stepped in and baled it out.
The days of miracles and wonder..

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The whole point of moving stadium is that you can accommodate a swelling fan base and have ambitions to move to a higher level. The problem with Coventry was that our average PL attendances couldn't justify a ground anywhere near the size Richardson originally proposed and even the scaled down version was too unrealistic. Retrospect is of course wonderful but, even so, what a legacy this man has left us.

 

[Paxman II]

Very interesting OSB. Boy you must have a lot of spare time?

Those facts clear up a lot of unknown information for me and the more you dig the more there is to find.
negotiations currently are complex to say the least if a fair and proper balance is going to be reached with SISU.

I hope the council have good financial advisers around that table with them...