shane o'connor (1 Viewer)

luwalla · Jan 15, 2014

fair play to shane.. he pushed & would let mrs lucas get away with either being vague.. or being deliberately obstructive

think im a bit clearer on the problems now.. the club wat the stadium empty & with all exisiting contracts ( casino, hotel, etc cancelled ) the council are saying they cant do that. if thats the case then i can see that as quite a big stumbling block.. then again IS that what they are asking ?

wingy · Jan 15, 2014

luwalla said:
fair play to shane.. he pushed & would let mrs lucas get away with either being vague.. or being deliberately obstructive

think im a bit clearer on the problems now.. the club wat the stadium empty & with all exisiting contracts ( casino, hotel, etc cancelled ) the council are saying they cant do that. if thats the case then i can see that as quite a big stumbling block.. then again IS that what they are asking ?

Thats what she has taken away from two meetings with sepaala.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

haven't listened yet but if that's accurate it seems fair to me. Just because it suits SISU you can't rip up every contract that's involved!

The lost fan · Jan 15, 2014

luwalla said:
fair play to shane.. he pushed & would let mrs lucas get away with either being vague.. or being deliberately obstructive

think im a bit clearer on the problems now.. the club wat the stadium empty & with all exisiting contracts ( casino, hotel, etc cancelled ) the council are saying they cant do that. if thats the case then i can see that as quite a big stumbling block.. then again IS that what they are asking ?

Sisu have nt got the money ..........just plenty of Bullshit ! Apparently Or allegedly

Captain Dart · Jan 15, 2014

luwalla said:
fair play to shane.. he pushed & would let mrs lucas get away with either being vague.. or being deliberately obstructive

think im a bit clearer on the problems now.. the club wat the stadium empty & with all exisiting contracts ( casino, hotel, etc cancelled ) the council are saying they cant do that. if thats the case then i can see that as quite a big stumbling block.. then again IS that what they are asking ?

So SISU have moved the goalposts again.

thaiskyblue · Jan 15, 2014

let's hope they give an altermatum like the hull owner and do one.

woody11462 · Jan 15, 2014

I thought this is what SISU have demanded all along, their own contracts in place to increase their income for the good of the team (if you believe a word Fisher says) or for their own pockets (if you believe what everyone else thinks).

Under new fair play rules we can only spend a percentage of what we earn through the club. A reduction in rent does not increase money we can spend on the team BUT an increase in revenue through sales on match day does. The problem is, do we trust SISU to re-invest any money we would gain IF they had the Ricoh and all revenue that came with it as they want it?

I notice they put a comment in yesterday with the lifting of the transfer embargo that the owners have put more money in, implying that we could not sign anyone without that money (due to low crowds for example). I really thought they would be all over that using it as an excuse as to why we wouldn't sign anyone in this window. I'm sure if we don't get who we want it will be mentioned by the owners.

Hobo · Jan 15, 2014

chiefdave said:
haven't listened yet but if that's accurate it seems fair to me. Just because it suits SISU you can't rip up every contract that's involved!

SISU can, contracts mean nothing to them. Have SISU shifted goal posts? All the time.

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

chiefdave said:
haven't listened yet but if that's accurate it seems fair to me. Just because it suits SISU you can't rip up every contract that's involved!

Given that contract is to a company half owned by the company flogging the leasehold then yes you can.

sky blue john · Jan 15, 2014

I have not seen any details mentioning casino and hotel income from Sisu's new stadium build ???
So why do Sisu see this as an issue at the Ricoh ???????

dongonzalos · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Given that contract is to a company half owned by the company flogging the leasehold then yes you can.

Contracts are there to be broken again, hey

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

dongonzalos said:
Contracts are there to be broken again, hey

It's not actually anything to do with that.

Reality is both sides are as intransigent as the other. Sisu won't I guess table a first bid as they don't trust the council to hawk the bid to anyone else to see if they can better it and likewise the council will spin around semantics like this to try and force a higher price.

One things for sure - if Birmingham council can sell the NEC, LG etc we sure as helm can dispose of the Ricoh. I suspect few Birmingham folk will be weeping about the good old community asset.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Given that contract is to a company half owned by the company flogging the leasehold then yes you can.

But hypothetically, if CCC facilitated some sort of merger, or acquisition of ACL in SISU's favour; then they wouldn't need the freehold, would they?

Grendel · Jan 15, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
But hypothetically, if CCC facilitated some sort of merger, or acquisition of ACL in SISU's favour; then they wouldn't need the freehold, would they?

My understanding of the interview was actually the opposite. They can buy the freehold but ACL remains as per contract in other words the council
Is effectively still the management company. We know sisu have already stated they want a different management company so that is never going to happen.

skybluetony176 · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Given that contract is to a company half owned by the company flogging the leasehold then yes you can.

i thought 2 memebers of ACL board represented Higg, 2 represented CCC and 2 are Indipendant? surely that means they own 1/3 and no one has the controlling stake?

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

chiefdave · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
Given that contract is to a company half owned by the company flogging the leasehold then yes you can.

Not that simple is it? ACL paid up front for the lease which has 40 years left to run. You can't just rip that up and say tough you're out and someone else is in.

The contracts with the casino, hotel etc would depend on the wording but unless they have a clause allowing cancellation in the event of new owners of ACL how are you just going to just cancel all the contracts?

There's likely to be compensation payouts to all those who have leases with ACL and ACL for early termination of their lease, who is going to pay all those.

The only way I could see it would be for ACL to go bust which would presumably void all contracts.

I can't really see why you would want to do it. Unless you were planning to get in the casino and hotel business surely it's a plus that there's already those businesses in place and existing contracts which you will recieve the benefit of?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
My understanding of the interview was actually the opposite. They can buy the freehold but ACL remains as per contract in other words the council
Is effectively still the management company. We know sisu have already stated they want a different management company so that is never going to happen.

But that's the 'compromise' situation to aim for, isn't it? CCC could facilitate it; and no sane person would be up in arms about ACL disappearing if it assisted the football team. The unified income would greatly assist FFP too.

That's achievable. The freehold obviously isn't - and probably neve has been. And I still can't see what benefit the freehold would have over this situation.

Apart from the stadium as an asset being a vehicle to carry debt. Which isn't SISU's ultimate ambition, I'm sure....

shmmeee · Jan 15, 2014

skybluetony176 said:
i thought 2 memebers of ACL board represented Higg, 2 represented CCC and 2 are Indipendant? surely that means they own 1/3 and no one has the controlling stake?

Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

It's 50/50 in terms of shares AFAIK.

dongonzalos · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
It's not actually anything to do with that.

Reality is both sides are as intransigent as the other. Sisu won't I guess table a first bid as they don't trust the council to hawk the bid to anyone else to see if they can better it and likewise the council will spin around semantics like this to try and force a higher price.

One things for sure - if Birmingham council can sell the NEC, LG etc we sure as helm can dispose of the Ricoh. I suspect few Birmingham folk will be weeping about the good old community asset.

What's it worth?
Are they going to do anything to ensure it is retained as a community asset and not turned into housing?

G man the NEC if sold would be a prime example of how the Ricoh would need to be sold. Unfortunately what you say can't legally happen can. If the NEC is sold guarantees will be in place that the land can't be sold off and will continue to be used as planned.
This is what we want here and SISU seem uncomfortable about.
So it was a good one to mention

covcity4life · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
It's not actually anything to do with that.

Reality is both sides are as intransigent as the other. Sisu won't I guess table a first bid as they don't trust the council to hawk the bid to anyone else to see if they can better it and likewise the council will spin around semantics like this to try and force a higher price.

One things for sure - if Birmingham council can sell the NEC, LG etc we sure as helm can dispose of the Ricoh. I suspect few Birmingham folk will be weeping about the good old community asset.

leicestershire council also sold the walkers stadium back to the club.

Danceswithhorses · Jan 15, 2014

covcity4life said:
leicestershire council also sold the walkers stadium back to the club.

Didn't the club buy the stadium from an an american pension fund, and not leicester council ?

luwalla · Jan 15, 2014

ive got to be honest, and i can only go on gut feeling here, as i dont know this woman and i dont know the internal goings on at the council. But id like to think i can read people & understand intentions from the way they present ... i was in sales for years and you get to know people & how to read them... she did not come across as a person that wanted to do a deal, plain & simple.

Maybe it was just the way she presented herself & the current situation.. but shane kept having to really push her to get answers & a lot of the time her explanations were flaky at best. Her wall was up, a lot of huffing & puffing a lot of "oh its all very technical, you wouldnt understand shane" kind of attitude & to be frank didnt come across as an easy person to deal with.

As i say, it could just be the way she presents herself & the way that she talks... but bearing in mind how long this fiasco has been dragging on & the sensitivity of the situation, if she cant present it well now & get across what the actual situation is or come across in a reasonable manner to the fans / public then i think that speaks volumes about whats going on behind the scenes

thaiskyblue · Jan 15, 2014

luwalla said:
ive got to be honest, and i can only go on gut feeling here, as i dont know this woman and i dont know the internal goings on at the council. But id like to think i can read people & understand intentions from the way they present ... i was in sales for years and you get to know people & how to read them... she did not come across as a person that wanted to do a deal, plain & simple.

Maybe it was just the way she presented herself & the current situation.. but shane kept having to really push her to get answers & a lot of the time her explanations were flaky at best. Her wall was up, a lot of huffing & puffing a lot of "oh its all very technical, you wouldnt understand shane" kind of attitude & to be frank didnt come across as an easy person to deal with.

As i say, it could just be the way she presents herself & the way that she talks... but bearing in mind how long this fiasco has been dragging on & the sensitivity of the situation, if she cant present it well now & get across what the actual situation is or come across in a reasonable manner to the fans / public then i think that speaks volumes about whats going on behind the scenes

What's your gut feeling on "the invisible woman " then (mrs Seppella ), ?

Qwerty70 · Jan 15, 2014

Both sides won't budge. Both at fault. Professional relationships completely broken down, basically they can't stand each other n even struggle 2 b in same room. Two divorcing parents who cause suffering n pain 2 children because intent on causing each other max pain. Ann, joy, Higgs charity all at fault n all should hang heads in shame. Lets are what history writes in 20 years, I doubt anyone involved will come out with any credit.

luwalla · Jan 15, 2014

thaiskyblue said:
What's your gut feeling on "the invisible woman " then (mrs Seppella ), ?

dont know.. never heard her speak.

Ive heard tim fisher speak though & met him ... and id have to say that i wouldnt find it easy to deal with him either, for many of the same reasons. slipery with his answers, came across smug at times, and also used the old " oooh its very technical, you wouldnt understand" manner. the one impression i did come away with though, is that they wanted to buy the Ricoh if they could.. Big difference between the two here, is that i come away with totally the opposite opinion everytime someone from the council / ACL speaks. They dont want to sell.

I had alwasy had the impression that the Higgs charity were more open to the idea of selling & would be happy to walk away.. so i found it interesting that Miss Lucas said this morning, that the Higgs charity are not interested in selling... which she quickly followed up with "well thats my understanding anyway" . Again just my gut feeling, but i have alwasy felt that despite it being a 50/50 deal between them, the council are the ones that lead the Higgs charity into doing what they want. And littl ethings like that comment from her this monring, can only conform my suspicions.

jas365 · Jan 15, 2014

covcity4life said:
leicestershire council also sold the walkers stadium back to the club.

Leicester bought their stadium back from Teachers Insurance in America, who took on ownership of it when they went bust.

dongonzalos · Jan 15, 2014

Grendel said:
It's not actually anything to do with that.

Reality is both sides are as intransigent as the other. Sisu won't I guess table a first bid as they don't trust the council to hawk the bid to anyone else to see if they can better it and likewise the council will spin around semantics like this to try and force a higher price.

One things for sure - if Birmingham council can sell the NEC, LG etc we sure as helm can dispose of the Ricoh. I suspect few Birmingham folk will be weeping about the good old community asset.

The NEC group said no decision has yet been taken regarding a potential sale.

Richard Taffler, professor of finance at Warwick Business School, said the process of valuing assets such as the NEC is done by predicting the future revenue and taking away the running costs.

“But it’s not as straightforward as that because then you have to discount back to the present, because owing to inflation, £1 is worth less in the future than it is now,” he said.

He added that the trouble with valuing a venue such as the NEC is the uncertainty of its future performance and the amount of investment needed to make it profitable.

“[Birmingham City] council hasn’t released a financial appraisal and estimate yet, but it’s likely the NEC is probably only worth £300m.

“It is not especially cash-generative.”

The problem, Professor Taffler said, is that analysis ignores non-financial aspects.

“Birmingham City Council must be careful not to jeopardise the value of [the NEC] to the West Midlands economy.

“It should ensure it is sold as a going concern and that the buyer doesn’t capitalise the land.

“In other words, to make sure they don’t knock it down and build houses.”

shane o'connor (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency