Matty_CCFC
New Member
To answer the opening thread.
I/we have never been inside Sixfields and never will.
I/we have never been inside Sixfields and never will.
Turnover was obviously up due to the Olympics, but how much did they have to pay to host it? It would seem to be a lot and this could be the main reason that profit was down. ACL are stating that whilst hosting the Olympics they couldn't hold other events, that makes sense.
In the early years of a long lease the fact that the term is reducing will have no material affect on the value of the company. Anyone wanting to buy the business will see a profitable company with a secure tenure, so it's entirely possible that a business can increase in value whilst a lease is reducing.
Of course the lease has a value. But it's not the only factor in valuing a business, is it?
A business like ACL takes a lease, perhaps buys it with a commercial loan or mortgage. The lease is a vehicle to raise profits has a value as an asset. The value of the lease sits as a liability, depreciated until it's paid off.
Are you talking about the value of the lease as an asset, like the £18.8m shown in the accounts? But this isn't the sole determinant in valuing a business that holds that lease, is it?
Agreed. Looking at their accounts recently posted, it is a clean audit report, with no entries from the auditor citing doubts about the business as a Going Concern. The balance sheet is decent, with cash in the bank, and an increasing net asset schedule; and the auditor has to consider not less than 12 months from when he signs the report with regards his forward prognosis; which gives the business - in effect - decent outlook to until February 2015. Again, I have no idea of how the next set of accounts will look, but this doesn't look like a business sitting on the cusp of death and destruction from it's trading position alone.
Which, for me, is perhaps why the JR has got the focus it has; as smoking ACL out of the Ricoh by starvation alone looks like it could - and again I use the word could - be a long waiting game. And played on that basis alone - who can last longer ignoring the JV; ACL or CCFC would be a difficult call to make. The latter point - in my opinion alone - being a significant misjudgement SISU made
If ACL can break even which it looks like they can then they can last as long as they like.
How long can SISU last losing 6 million a year?
They should test the water and offer twenty million to be paid over 100 years for all of ACL.
With a view if them genuinely trying to get promotion then try and get 20 million of their investment back by selling the package
ACL was previously valued at £6 million what are you on about.
Higgs, which is half of ACL, is available for about 6m to our club. The same 6m that they gave our club after CCC gave our club that share. Show us where it is said that ACL is only worth 6m.
I think so, but then again I've never gone on about how brilliantly ACL are doing aand are going to continue to do without the club.
Some seem able to hold two contrasting opinions at the same time.
IIRC Higgs share was offered to us for £10m.
Not sure if serious.
Do you seriously think that someone can't think they have that plan but not think it's working?
ACL was previously valued at £6 million what are you on about.
Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.
That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".
Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.
That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".
Some think that are definitely distressing ACL, whilst also saying that ACL are doing not being distressed.
That is the very definition of inconsistent, rather like the arguments on player transfers that "they are being sold for peanuts" whilst at the same time "trousering the profits on player sales".
Exactly the same then as Grendel when he says ACL are being used by the Council as a cash cow when ACL have never paid a dividend.
Bloody hell - what's wrong with you? It's simply to state that SISU are probably trying; but it isn't working.
Why so obstinate?
Exactly the same then as Grendel when he says ACL are being used by the Council as a cash cow when ACL have never paid a dividend.
Bloody hell - what's wrong with you? It's simply to state that SISU are probably trying; but it isn't working.
Why so obstinate?
No, you're deliberately misunderstanding the point as realisation has finally hit you.
I'm talking about the value to ACL of the lease agreement that they had with the club, that still had 40 years to run.
Think was valued at around £40million.
That hasn't been replaced.
Higgs, which is half of ACL, is available for about 6m to our club. The same 6m that they gave our club after CCC gave our club that share. Show us where it is said that ACL is only worth 6m.
Please understand the basic facts. The Higgs share of ACL was available, not Higgs themselves, a charity taken over by a hedge fund? Really?
You're changing you stance as often as your previously held view is proven to be false. You were confusing the value of the lease on ACL's books with the value of ACL as a trading business.
I still don't understand the vagueness of your comment 'value to ACL'. Do you mean it's asset value, or it's length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?
Is it not working though?
Surely the value of ACL has been distressed by around the £40million that was remaining on the clubs lease?
Do you think that the value of ACL has gone up or not since the club left?
How would you value its length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?
You're changing you stance as often as your previously held view is proven to be false. You were confusing the value of the lease on ACL's books with the value of ACL as a trading business.
I still don't understand the vagueness of your comment 'value to ACL'. Do you mean it's asset value, or it's length of duration as a vehicle to earn from?
Surely the value of ACL has been distressed by around the £40million that was remaining on the clubs lease?
iAnybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.
A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.
That's not really distressed though is it, that's a loss of future revenues which may or may not be replaced by other revenues (doesn't necessarily have to be a replacement anchor tenant).
Of course that also assumes the rent was always going to stay at the £1.2m pa level, we know that vastly reduced rent has been offered so that's not really the caes. The very fact that it's been offered would give some indication that ACL are in a position where they don't need that amount every year to survive.
i am not.
The value of ACL as a trading business included the 40 years remaining lease between them and the club, valued at around £40million.
That has nothing to do with the duration of ACL's lease on the Ricoh, it is pertinent to their business value.
That value was wiped off with the breaking of the lease, so therefore the valuation of ACL will be lower now than it was when they had the lease in place with the club.
Anybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.
A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.
Do you think that the lease agreement broken between Sisu and ACL was worthless to both of them?
That's not really distressed though is it, that's a loss of future revenues which may or may not be replaced by other revenues (doesn't necessarily have to be a replacement anchor tenant).
It will still affect the value of ACL to any potential buyer, whether that be Sisu or A.N. Other(who has been seen in Varsity having a drink with Elliott and Hoffman).
I think it was the value that ACL gave themselves for the remainder of the lease.
That doesn't answer the opening thread then does it :thinking about:To answer the opening thread.
I/we have never been inside Sixfields and never will.
i am not.
The value of ACL as a trading business included the 40 years remaining lease between them and the club, valued at around £40million.
That has nothing to do with the duration of ACL's lease on the Ricoh, it is pertinent to their business value.
That value was wiped off with the breaking of the lease, so therefore the valuation of ACL will be lower now than it was when they had the lease in place with the club.
Anybody looking to take over a business would value it on current and future income and contracts.
A valuation with a contract with one customer worth £40million would be considerably higher than one without.
Do you think that the lease agreement broken between Sisu and ACL was worthless to both of them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?