fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The council worry was the effective role reversal, SISU would become an ACL creditor.
The council worry was the effective role reversal, SISU would become an ACL creditor.The claim in the JR was that they would discharge the loan and then write it off, discharging doesn't mean the same as paying it off in full.
Extracts from JR
SISU would discharge and write off the Bank loan debt, in return for the lease to ACL being extended to 125 years
SISU considered that the Bank debt could be purchased for £2m-5m. It was part of
their plan that the debt be purchased – in whole, or at least as to 50%, by them – for
that sum. They were not prepared to offer more. The Heads of Terms supposed that,
the debt having been purchased, it would be entirely written off; although the Council
was sensible to the possibility that SISU might purchase the debt from the Bank
(which had no constraints on the person to whom the loan and mortgage might be
transferred) and use their position as creditor to put further pressure on ACL and thus
the Council.
Not sure that there was an open and competitive market in this case.
Why did they buy the loan of the bank?
A fair few of us were worried about SISU doing it. But glad Wasps have. Who here thinks that they will raise the 50m needed by May 2022? I wouldn't like to think that we had to raise 50m in 7 years. And we come from Coventry. They are nearly 100 miles away from their supporters. 1 bad season and they will certainly be in trouble.
Anyone keen for a party if it happens?
i find that a depressing point of view in that you don't think it likely that we would have taken steps to secure a long-term home for the club by then.Whilst I will feel sorry for the Wasps fans who move their team further away and didn't bring their club to our stadium (their owners and the council did) and are pawns in this, I won't be disappointed if we get a second crack at the Ricoh.
Certainly wasn't and by not having an open and competitive market the council can't possibly claim to have got the best return possible for the taxpayer.
Certainly wasn't and by not having an open and competitive market the council can't possibly claim to have got the best return possible for the taxpayer.
Whilst I will feel sorry for the Wasps fans who move their team further away and didn't bring their club to our stadium (their owners and the council did) and are pawns in this, I won't be disappointed if we get a second crack at the Ricoh.
To get a commercial return on money in the bank
They considered ACL was vulnerable to SISU buying out the loan and using it to obtain ACL (JR 78)
If it was found that Wasps is the best return for the tax payers would you be happy with that ?
Or in reality should CCC only accept a reasonable Sisu bid ?
You make it sound like they were selling a Volvo estate. They weren't selling in a competitive market, there aren't a dozen other arenas in the whole country with the spec of the Ricoh let alone Coventry and there aren't dozens of potential buyers lining up. No one regardless of who owned the Ricoh was going to sell it in a competitive market, it's a very narrow market and that is the reality of it. So narrow some would have you believe that there was only one show in town and to some degree they were right as only one outfit made a serious bid for the Ricoh and it wasn't SISU.
I think an open and honest sale process should have taken place where any potential buyer was able to bid on the same thing. IMO that is the only way to achieve best return. If that process had taken place there would have been huge pressure on SISU to bid. If they didn't and someone else purchased it then I think it would be fair to direct blame / anger at SISU.
But they were able to bid on the same thing. SISU didn't bid. It's that simple.
Doesn't matter how narrow the market is you should properly place it on that market to ensure every potential buyer is aware of its availability and on what terms.
You're right many people didn't believe anyone else would be interested but the very fact there was indicates they were wrong and that there may well have been other interested parties.
It was on the market and very publicly. I saw it on TV and read about it in the newspapers. Did you miss it?
They had already been told to Fuck off by the Council and they would never purchase ACL at whatever price.
You have to be pretty simple not to understand that.
With one potential buyer having already been told "Don't bother - no deal"
How can you tell someone to fuck off who hasn't actually placed a bid? If they had we wouldn't be having this conversation, I'd be as outraged as you. Because I would then have reason to be. SISU let your argument down the minute they chose not to bid. Serious or otherwise.
What was the bid then after they were very publicly invited to make a serious offer? A rough figure will do.
Yep, pr again at work.It was on the market and very publicly. I saw it on TV and read about it in the newspapers. Did you miss it?
Err you said Sisu would not buy out the loan and £5 million was the maximum?
Are you now admitting that they could have bought out the loan?
What they say and what they do are two different things.
At the time they would not be aware of other interested parties so they would just wait in Northampton for it to come down.
A year should do it ? :facepalm:
They had already been told to Fuck off by the Council and they would never purchase ACL at whatever price.
You have to be pretty simple not to understand that.
They did in 2012. It was rejected and Hell would Freeze over before they purchased the Ricoh. When meetings restarted Lucas decide to plaster it all over the local media - when asked not to.
The message was loud and clear.
The Yorkshire Bank correspondence was pretty adamant that the loan value would not be reduced. When the Council tried to get it cheaper the wording in the response was very strong.
They did in 2012. It was rejected and Hell would Freeze over before they purchased the Ricoh. When meetings restarted Lucas decide to plaster it all over the local media - when asked not to.
The message was loud and clear.
But they were able to bid on the same thing. SISU didn't bid. It's that simple.
It was on the market and very publicly. I saw it on TV and read about it in the newspapers. Did you miss it?
i find that a depressing point of view in that you don't think it likely that we would have taken steps to secure a long-term home for the club by then.
ACL said they could not service the full loan and YB said they could. (JR78) How strong is that ?
vii) Some of these concerns, at least, with the benefit of hindsight, were notwarranted; because (i) SISU’s attempt to buy the Higgs Charity share in ACLhad failed by the end of August 2012, and (ii) SISU were not prepared to buythe Bank debt at a price anything like the price for which the Bank wasprepared to sell it. The Bank considered that ACL could service the full£15.5m loan, restructured. However, at the time and without the benefit ofhindsight, the Council’s concerns about SISU were reasonable: the only wayin which SISU were likely to obtain a return on their substantial investmentwas to obtain a share in the Arena, and cheaply. That was an essential part oftheir plan.
Yep, pr again at work.
Yet when they were going to meet not long after that, the council told the press about it after it as stressed to be away from the media and confidential.
If a letter is sent to you stressing a meeting to be confidential and not in the press, if you really wanted that meeting to happen and go well, you wouldn't go to the press would you?
They didn't do it when dealing with wasps, so can't be a standard procedure..
For CCC's share? I don't think so.
You clearly like a conspiracy theory. Why do you think that SISU never ever placed a bid for CCC's share of ACL even after being invited to do so and AL going to London to see JS in person to hear it straight from the horses mouth?
I've asked myself this many times. Why didn't SISU just put a bid in? Any bid? Serious or not? The only answer I can think of is that they couldn't risk it being accepted. It's a theory anyway.
Maybe you could point me to some of the marketing material they sent out to potential purchasers, locally, nationally and internationally stating that ACL was for sale with a 210 year lease extension.
Lucas went to London as part of the PR war to "get" Seppella. She's not very bright but clearly bright enough to fool the likes of you and Italia.
Was there a list of potential purchasers then? Can you point me to that list.
The lease extention was sold seperately from ACL was it not? It wasn't part of ACL. That had a seperate purchase price IIRC.
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?