Sisu-ccfc-acl-wasps (1 Viewer)

Nick

Administrator
The fair market price was 0, but they were happy to make a donation as it was a charity. That is what SISU said. Some on here agreed. But once Wasps paid much more than 0 the same people said they got it very cheaply :thinking about:

The value must now be minimum 35m as that is how much they managed to raise via bonds. So SISU would need to pay minimum 3.5m for a 10% stake. They didn't even want to pay that much for a 50% stake.
Did wasps pay much more than what was offered with that charitable bid?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
The fair market price was 0, but they were happy to make a donation as it was a charity. That is what SISU said. Some on here agreed. But once Wasps paid much more than 0 the same people said they got it very cheaply :thinking about:

The value must now be minimum 35m as that is how much they managed to raise via bonds. So SISU would need to pay minimum 3.5m for a 10% stake. They didn't even want to pay that much for a 50% stake.

How very strange. I've never read in any of the court transcripts that sisu were offered the chance to bid for the council share. Where did they say that was a charitable bid.

How much exactly was the for 100% for?
 
Last edited:

stupot07

Well-Known Member
The fair market price was 0, but they were happy to make a donation as it was a charity. That is what SISU said. Some on here agreed. But once Wasps paid much more than 0 the same people said they got it very cheaply :thinking about:

The value must now be minimum 35m as that is how much they managed to raise via bonds. So SISU would need to pay minimum 3.5m for a 10% stake. They didn't even want to pay that much for a 50% stake.

No way is it worth £35m and I would be v pissed off if the club paid £3.5m for 10%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Just a set of questions because I have forgotten.

1) it was wasps that the bonds were invested in not acl?

2) wasps used the 250 lease as security, in reality is it is their shares in acl or the whole of acl?

3) wasps then lent acl the money to pay back the council loan? So acl will pay back wasps who will pay back the bonds? At what interest rate are they paying wasps back?

4) if wasps valued the lease at £42m or whatever it is, and that security covers the bond and interest. What impact does selling 10% have? If it's based only on wasps shares they won't have the security to cover bonds and interest? Surely we wouldn't be liability to lose our 10% shares in acl if wasps default?







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Last edited:

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Why would you pay millions for a share in a company that has a £35m bond to repay & annual interest payments of £7m + debt to their owner. What would 10% cost and at what point would we see a return?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Can I ask a question and get the thoughts of others?
At the last SCG meeting I asked SW why they don't approach WASPS and ask to buy into ACL and own a little part of the stadium, say 10%. My question was just waved away.

However, why is this such a silly idea?
If our owners publically said they would like to buy into the Ricoh, firstly it would show long term financial commitment to the Club, secondly they would get 10% of any profits/ f&b (or 10% of any loss). Thirdly it would mean they would be talking in a positive manor to our landlords, (which I hope they are already doing so).
It would make sure we have a long term home and hopefully the opportunity in future years to buy more shares in the ground. Am sure it would cost a lot less to buy into a stadium than to build a new one.
Of course Wasps might say "no chance" but at least then we know the only other option is a new ground, but that means they have to do more than just talk the talk.

If they do eventually build a new ground we all have an idea of what costs are involved, who will own this venue and how our fan base will be effected even further. They would have to compete with the Ricoh for any events, pay and run the place and of course there is the time it will take to get this even to planning stage.

At these exciting times let's all stay positive and keep this thread on subject and not throw useless negatives comments into the debate.

Thoughts?

There are many reasons this wouldn't work.

The valuation for the company according to the bond prospectus was something like £42 million so for any credence at all the 10% would have to be £4 million. For what purpose?

No say in policy, no voting rights on the board, no influence on rent and in a company that I believe has never paid share dividends.

The company rating also is poor with a large liability against it. There would be a possibility it could fold leaving the 10% purchase totally worthless.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Oh look at who has forgotten the truth :) Who would expect that from Grendel.

Wasn't it a 1m charitable donation? So they paid multiples Nick.

The bonds raised 35m. So someone thinks it is worth that much. Didn't say I did though. But how much would it cost to build something similar? Or how much would the land be worth?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Why would you pay millions for a share in a company that has a £35m bond to repay & annual interest payments of £7m + debt to their owner. What would 10% cost and at what point would we see a return?

We would buy 10% of the debts. They would see the same return as they will with the rest of the wasted money.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
We would buy 10% of the debts. They would see the same return as they will with the rest of the wasted money.

We wouldn't by 10% of the debts - acl has the debts
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Oh look at who has forgotten the truth :) Who would expect that from Grendel.

Wasn't it a 1m charitable donation? So they paid multiples Nick.

The bonds raised 35m. So someone thinks it is worth that much. Didn't say I did though. But how much would it cost to build something similar? Or how much would the land be worth?

You said the bid was for £0 and a charitable donation. For ALL of acl was that or half? How much would wasps have paid for the Higgs share alone.

It was £2 million wasn't it?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
How very strange. I've never read in any of the court transcripts that sisu were offered the chance to bid for the council share. Where did they say that was a charitable bid.

How much exactly was the for 100% for?

Don't know about the court transcripts that deal with a timeline of up to the point of the bailout but they certainly were invited by the council leader to make a serious bid and she even went to visit our Joy in London after stating that they would listen to any serious offer.

Tell me. What was SISU's serious offer?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
You said the bid was for £0 and a charitable donation. For ALL of acl was that or half? How much would wasps have paid for the Higgs share alone.

It was £2 million wasn't it?

They never made an offer after they refused to put up guarantees for paying over 10 years for the Higgs 50%. And how were CCC supposed to sell them their part when they wouldn't pay or even negotiate?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Don't know about the court transcripts that deal with a timeline of up to the point of the bailout but they certainly were invited by the council leader to make a serious bid and she even went to visit our Joy in London after stating that they would listen to any serious offer.

Tell me. What was SISU's serious offer?

Was this the same council leader that also said that the club need to build bridges before they are considered as purchasers?
 

Nick

Administrator
Oh look at who has forgotten the truth :) Who would expect that from Grendel.

Wasn't it a 1m charitable donation? So they paid multiples Nick.

The bonds raised 35m. So someone thinks it is worth that much. Didn't say I did though. But how much would it cost to build something similar? Or how much would the land be worth?
Wasn't it 2?.a bit less than what wasps actually paid but was dismissed by many on here as nowhere near enough.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
They never made an offer after they refused to put up guarantees for paying over 10 years for the Higgs 50%. And how were CCC supposed to sell them their part when they wouldn't pay or even negotiate?

They offered £2 million cash for the Higgs share didn't they?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Was this the same council leader that also said that the club need to build bridges before they are considered as purchasers?

Grendull dodge a question. I'm surprised because you're always insisting it's something that you don't do.

I'll ask again.

What was SISU's serious offer?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Wasn't it 2?.a bit less than what wasps actually paid but was dismissed by many on here as nowhere near enough.

So the donation was enough then Nick?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
They offered £2 million cash for the Higgs share didn't they?

So how do you know any cash was offered? The previous offer went from cash to paying over 10 years with no guarantee of funds.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Considering it was slightly less than what wasps paid then it wasn't far off was it?

The SISU offer was when we were still playing there and paying rent. The Wasps offer was when nobody was playing there and no rent for 18 months.

The SISU plan of devaluing the arena worked. They were like some on here that were too blind to see that someone else would be interested though. But many of us were worried about it. But those that were wrong now try to blame CCC for everything.
 

Samo

Well-Known Member
Jesus H Christ people... let it go.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Grendull dodge a question. I'm surprised because you're always insisting it's something that you don't do.

I'll ask again.

What was SISU's serious offer?

The council had stated that the share was not for sale to the club.

Sisu made a serious offer for the Higgs share which in the light of the actual price for the whole company was more than fair.

The "donation" astute keeps waffling on about was a joke reference regarding its status as a charity and would have been deemed a donation if s sale has happened

I'm pretty certain it was £2 million cash as well following the collapse of the proposed 10 year offer.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
The council had stated that the share was not for sale to the club.

So when SISU were told that the door was open to have negotiations it meant nothing? You know that mainly bullshit came from SISU but you take their word for it all the time. In fact I am not going to bite on any of your bullshit. Find another victim WUM.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
The council had stated that the share was not for sale to the club.

Sisu made a serious offer for the Higgs share which in the light of the actual price for the whole company was more than fair.

The "donation" astute keeps waffling on about was a joke reference regarding its status as a charity and would have been deemed a donation if s sale has happened

I'm pretty certain it was £2 million cash as well following the collapse of the proposed 10 year offer.

So they made no serious offer after not only being invited to do so the council leader travelled down to London to meet Joy? Yes or No?

We all know what happened on the Higgs share I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Unless you're trying to dodge the question of course? No, no. You don't do that. What was SISU's serious offer again after being very publicly invited to make one?
 
Last edited:

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
So they made no serious offer after not only being invited to do so the council leader travelled down to London to meet Joy? Yes or No?

We all know what happened on the Higgs share I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Unless you're trying to dodge the question of course? No, no. You don't do that. What was SISU's serious offer again after being very publicly invited to make one?

Are you still there Grendull?
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I don't think Wasps want to sell and nor do SISU want to buy a part (only a fire sale for lock stock and barrel).

Maybe serious questions should be asked about the club's medium term strategy (not that I think you would get any answers should you ask).

1) How is security of venue being assured till a new venue becomes available, have any alternatives to the Ricoh been found? *
2) What are current expectations of how long it will take till a new stadium site is identified?
3) Would the club prepared to go back on the statement that a new stadium must be outside Coventry
4) How long do they expect the litigation against the City Council to continue?

* Neither do I think Wasps would kick SISU out, especially in view of statements like this from Wasps CEO Eastwood..
“He stated this stadium was now the permanent home of the Wasps but they also want it to be the permanent home of the Sky Blues and would not do things to change that but there may well be the need for some compromise and pragmatism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jas365

Well-Known Member
The prospect of playing away from the Ricoh after this season is very real. I'd like us to have nothing to do with Wasps while they are in the city. Rather than trying to form some kind of partnership, we should be looking to distance ourselves from them as much as possible

Completely disagree(about playing away from ricoh), we will be walking out next august at the ricoh 100% certain
 
Last edited:

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
At these exciting times let's all stay positive and keep this thread on subject and not throw useless negatives comments into the debate.

The problem is, your premise is something I can't buy into as formal association with a franchise operation, and thus acknowledgement and acceptance will see me out.

The positive thing from my POV would be to campaign for CCC to modify their local plan to take into account the need for a football stadium, thus paving the way for our club to have its own identity some time in the future and offering hope.

That would be the positive thing. In effect the club needs to be offered no option but to actually build a new ground, rather than token lip service with easy get-outs.

All other options are negative, as they involve either sharing, partial control, or utter subservience.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
The problem is, your premise is something I can't buy into as formal association with a franchise operation, and thus acknowledgement and acceptance will see me out.

The positive thing from my POV would be to campaign for CCC to modify their local plan to take into account the need for a football stadium, thus paving the way for our club to have its own identity some time in the future and offering hope.

That would be the positive thing. In effect the club needs to be offered no option but to actually build a new ground, rather than token lip service with easy get-outs.

All other options are negative, as they involve either sharing, partial control, or utter subservience.

But whatever happens nobody can force SISU to build a stadium.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top