There is no pending land deal... (3 Viewers)

[Nick]

You must know who he means?
Not exactly hard to work out we have all known for a while.

When you say plant.... Do you mean employee of somebody?
I know a few, just trying to see which one you are talking about and if I know about that one or not

 

---

[skybluetony176]

You must know who he means?
Not exactly hard to work out we have all known for a while.

Plant or plank?

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Plant or plank?

The plants that we are sure about are definitely Planks

 

[letsallsingtogether]

When you say plant.... Do you mean employee of somebody?
I know a few, just trying to see which one you are talking about and if I know about that one or not

I recon you would already know......

 

[Nick]

I recon you would already know......

Pm me with what you know

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Forget about PM'ing, name and shame.

We haven't had a good planting for a while

 

[Jack Griffin]

So you agree with SISU, the loan to ACL is illegal state aid? I can't see a difference between a loan made to ACL 100% owned by CCFC or a loan made to ACL 100% owned by Wasps.

No, why do you childishly put words into my mouth.

The loan to ACL was not state aid as proved in court because CCC had a stake in it, but a loan to CCFC which CCC has no stake in would be state aid.

As for what Wasps deal is vis a viz loans, I've as much idea as anyone else, i.e no idea & nor have you and anyone who does know will have signed an NDA.

 

[chiefdave]

The loan to ACL was not state aid as proved in court because CCC had a stake in it, but a loan to CCFC which CCC has no stake in would be state aid.

As for what Wasps deal is vis a viz loans, I've as much idea as anyone else, i.e no idea & nor have you and anyone who does know will have signed an NDA.

We know that CCC have made a new loan to ACL who are now 100% owned by Wasps, hence the SISU action to get the new loan linked into the JR. So if loaning ACL owned by CCFC would be state aid how is loaning money to ACL owned by Wasps not?

 

[italiahorse]

We know that CCC have made a new loan to ACL who are now 100% owned by Wasps, hence the SISU action to get the new loan linked into the JR. So if loaning ACL owned by CCFC would be state aid how is loaning money to ACL owned by Wasps not?

.... because CCC still has a stake in the Ricoh as they own the freehold.
No one can tell me what rent, if any, ACL (Wasps) pays to CCC so there may also be financial implications via that route.

 

[Jack Griffin]

We know that CCC have made a new loan to ACL who are now 100% owned by Wasps, hence the SISU action to get the new loan linked into the JR. So if loaning ACL owned by CCFC would be state aid how is loaning money to ACL owned by Wasps not?

Actually we don't, however likely it might seem.

 

[Grendel]

.... because CCC still has a stake in the Ricoh as they own the freehold.
No one can tell me what rent, if any, ACL (Wasps) pays to CCC so there may also be financial implications via that route.

The owning of freehold is irrelevant. It will have zero value as real estate.
The loan value has been increased by £1 million according to the CET which is a one of oayment - so rent is £4,000 a year.

 

[Grendel]

Actually we don't, however likely it might seem.

No Council Jack of course we don't.

Next you will be telling us that CCFC are building a new ground as Tim Fisher says so

 

[italiahorse]

The owning of freehold is irrelevant. It will have zero value as real estate.
The loan value has been increased by £1 million according to the CET which is a one of oayment - so rent is £4,000 a year.

You don't know the deal and a FOI for rental payments are unknown due to Confidentiality Agreements.
Zero value ........ that depends on the above.

 

[chiefdave]

.... because CCC still has a stake in the Ricoh as they own the freehold.
No one can tell me what rent, if any, ACL (Wasps) pays to CCC so there may also be financial implications via that route.

In which case CCC making a loan to CCFC to allow them 100% ownership of ACL from the outset wouldn't have been state aid. Do CCC have a stake in all the businesses they have made loans to, Combe Abbey for example?

 

[Grendel]

You don't know the deal and a FOI for rental payments are unknown due to Confidentiality Agreements.
Zero value ........ that depends on the above.

No zero value depends on the lease length. Read any article on lease valuations and observe the principal that the longer the lease the reduced value of the land and property.

Then read articles on lease valuations that exceed a property life span and observe the view that the leaseholder is then effectively the freeholder.

Your continued clutching at straws that this is a good deal and hiding behind commercial confidentiality isfooling no one. Articles in the local media have made some obvious indications as to the structure of the loan and the lease . It's fairly obvious the whole deal was weighted heavily in wasps favour and to then suggest the council have a big annual lease bonus is folly based on nothing. If there was such a bonus the CET would have had wind of it .

Your "I don't know" stance then applies to everything doesn't it? I guess we are building a new ground after all - I mean the club says so and we don't know otherwise do we?

 

[SimonGilbert]

The loan value has been increased by £1 million according to the CET which is a one of oayment - so rent is £4,000 a year.

Has it? I don't remember writing that.

At one point in the negotiations there was talk of £1m being removed from the loan. However, my understanding is that may not have happened.

In fact, we don't know if there is even a new loan agreement. But I'd be surprised if the last loan agreement hadn't been altered at all.

Fact is, we're unlikely to know the precise details unless it all ends up in court again. Which is a possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chiefdave]

No zero value depends on the lease length. Read any article on lease valuations and observe the principal that the longer the lease the reduced value of the land and property.

There's a document on the CCC website, or at least there was, that shows the final costs of the Arena 2000 project and how it was funded. It clearly states in that the value of the freehold is minimal at that point as there is 50 years left on the lease but the value of the freehold will increase the closer it gets to the end of the lease. If that was true for a 50 year lease then there's no way the freehold has any value with 240 years left on the lease.

 

[jas365]

We know that CCC have made a new loan to ACL who are now 100% owned by Wasps, hence the SISU action to get the new loan linked into the JR. So if loaning ACL owned by CCFC would be state aid how is loaning money to ACL owned by Wasps not?

I don't remember reading anywhere that there was a new loan, I was under the impression that when Wasps bought ACL they also took on the existing debt i.e. the loan between ACL and CCC.

 

[Grendel]

Has it? I don't remember writing that.

At one point in the negotiations there was talk of £1m being removed from the loan. However, my understanding is that may not have happened.

In fact, we don't know if there is even a new loan agreement. But I'd be surprised if the last loan agreement hadn't been altered at all.

Fact is, we're unlikely to know the precise details unless it all ends up in court again. Which is a possibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? I thought it was in the article when you knocked £10 million off the takeover "value"

Didn't an article also say the loan terms had been reduced to twenty years?

 

[SimonGilbert]

Really? I thought it was in the article when you knocked £10 million off the takeover "value"

Didn't an article also say the loan terms had been reduced to twenty years?

I didn't knock £10m off anything. The negotiations were nothing to do with me! The figure did change by £10m from what councillors were originally briefed. Why? Only those involved know.

I think this is the story you are referring to? http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/rugby-club-wasps-20m-takeover-7893659

Another thing which obviously changed was that Higgs eventually sold their share in ACL directly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[italiahorse]

No zero value depends on the lease length. Read any article on lease valuations and observe the principal that the longer the lease the reduced value of the land and property.

Then read articles on lease valuations that exceed a property life span and observe the view that the leaseholder is then effectively the freeholder.

Your continued clutching at straws that this is a good deal and hiding behind commercial confidentiality isfooling no one. Articles in the local media have made some obvious indications as to the structure of the loan and the lease . It's fairly obvious the whole deal was weighted heavily in wasps favour and to then suggest the council have a big annual lease bonus is folly based on nothing. If there was such a bonus the CET would have had wind of it .

Your "I don't know" stance then applies to everything doesn't it? I guess we are building a new ground after all - I mean the club says so and we don't know otherwise do we?

never said it was a good deal ?
Think you'll find I said it was the best deal available.

I am clever enough to know that a lease does lower the value but unlike you I also know it's not zero.

The old deal had a rental payment on ACL profits over a set figure and because we don't know the current deal we can only assume it is still the case.

I don't know because other than the council and wasps we, including YOU, don't know the deal.

I have requested the information via FOI and have been quoted confidentiality.

Sometimes you need to admit you don't know.

 

[martcov]

We know that CCC have made a new loan to ACL who are now 100% owned by Wasps, hence the SISU action to get the new loan linked into the JR. So if loaning ACL owned by CCFC would be state aid how is loaning money to ACL owned by Wasps not?

I thought we didn't know, but that the repayment terms of the loan are now shorter. I was under the impression that SISU wanted to know if it was a new loan and that some think it is the original loan, just shorter. But I, like nearly everyone else on the planet, don't know. I would think that the council checked this out before proceeding.

 

[chiefdave]

I don't remember reading anywhere that there was a new loan, I was under the impression that when Wasps bought ACL they also took on the existing debt i.e. the loan between ACL and CCC.

The loan is now on a shorter term so would need a new loan agreement, hence the club asking the court to accept that the new loan be consider as a continuation of the existing loan for the purposes of the JR. Anyway new loan or not CCC now have a loan outstanding to ACL which is owned 100% by Wasps, as some on here are stating a similar loan to a CCFC owned ACL would be state aid how is this not?

And of course we are told the Wasps deal has taken 2 years to complete so at the point CCC initially made the loan to ACL they would have known the Wasps takeover was in the pipeline.

However I think that assumption that if ACL were owned by CCFC a loan couldn't be given is incorrect as CCC have also given loans to other organisations which are privately owned.

 

[jas365]

The loan is now on a shorter term so would need a new loan agreement, hence the club asking the court to accept that the new loan be consider as a continuation of the existing loan for the purposes of the JR. Anyway new loan or not CCC now have a loan outstanding to ACL which is owned 100% by Wasps, as some on here are stating a similar loan to a CCFC owned ACL would be state aid how is this not?

And of course we are told the Wasps deal has taken 2 years to complete so at the point CCC initially made the loan to ACL they would have known the Wasps takeover was in the pipeline.

However I think that assumption that if ACL were owned by CCFC a loan couldn't be given is incorrect as CCC have also given loans to other organisations which are privately owned.

But it's all assumption isn't it? Do we know a new agreement is needed? I have a mortgage and I can change the payment terms without changing the agreement. How does anyone but a select few know the precise terms of the deal and whether or not a new agreement is needed?

Any talk of the JR is just a waste of time, as is the case itself. At some point they'll all turn up to court (again) and SISU will lose (again).

We can sit here and talk about the loan all we want, it's not going to change the fact that it's happened and we have to accept the situation.

 

[chiefdave]

Any talk of the JR is just a waste of time, as is the case itself. At some point they'll all turn up to court (again) and SISU will lose (again).

Indeed and the point I was originally making wasn't regarding the JR. My point was from day 1 CCC could have given 100% control of ACL to CCFC and loan them the money to purchase the lease on a longer term and lower interest rate than would be commercially available. Several posters have claimed that would be impossible as it would be state aid however there is currently a loan to ACL, which is 100% owned by Wasps, that the same people are stating isn't state aid. There are also other loans from CCC to private businesses, such as Combe Abbey, which haven't triggered court cases for state aid.

So the question remains why would CCC making a loan to a 100% CCFC owned ACL be state aid yet the other loans they have made to private businesses are not?

 

[jas365]

Indeed and the point I was originally making wasn't regarding the JR. My point was from day 1 CCC could have given 100% control of ACL to CCFC and loan them the money to purchase the lease on a longer term and lower interest rate than would be commercially available. Several posters have claimed that would be impossible as it would be state aid however there is currently a loan to ACL, which is 100% owned by Wasps, that the same people are stating isn't state aid. There are also other loans from CCC to private businesses, such as Combe Abbey, which haven't triggered court cases for state aid.

So the question remains why would CCC making a loan to a 100% CCFC owned ACL be state aid yet the other loans they have made to private businesses are not?

I've no idea, and I'm post caring to be honest. What's done is done and can't be changed. Maybe I don't spend enough time on here, but I've seen little mention of the state aid issue.

The whole argument about why CCC sold to Wasps ant not SISU maybe comes back to the fact that the relationship with SISU is just too toxic:

The never ending court battles
The litigation at every possibility
The lies, lies and damn lies that they never seem to learn from.

I guess we'll never know the answer to this, but there was no guarantee that selling ACL to SISU would ever benefit the football club as much as we would have wanted.

For what it's worth my own preference would have been for ACL to remain as it was until new owners moved in, however long that would have taken.

 

[Nick]

For what it's worth my own preference would have been for ACL to remain as it was until new owners moved in, however long that would have taken.

I think most people would prefer that, especially as ACL was going from strength to strength. Let it tick over...

I doubt anybody has an issue with SISU being sacked off if a proper owner is going to come in, then let ACL deal with them..

 

[chiefdave]

For what it's worth my own preference would have been for ACL to remain as it was until new owners moved in, however long that would have taken.

That's the most annoying part. CCC repeatedly stated ACL was fine with or without us playing there, was performing well, profitable, growing business etc. Unless they weren't being truthful there was no reason at all to sell, especially not at a knockdown price. Even if they didn't want to deal with SISU they could have just left things as they were and waited for them to eventually leave.

What they've done with the sale to Wasps and the lease extension is cause a problem for the football club for decades, if not centuries, to come.

 

[wingy]

That's the most annoying part. CCC repeatedly stated ACL was fine with or without us playing there, was performing well, profitable, growing business etc. Unless they weren't being truthful there was no reason at all to sell, especially not at a knockdown price. Even if they didn't want to deal with SISU they could have just left things as they were and waited for them to eventually leave.

What they've done with the sale to Wasps and the lease extension is cause a problem for the football club for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Doesn't that bring us back to the question of motives for coming/bringing us back .

Various theories .

The length of our deal suggests a couple of answers ,It does not really back up that It was a condition of Wasps as It's so short term .

Political in the sense that CCC didn't wish to be held responsible fro permanently banishing us from Coventry (possible).

Apparently the Club only asked for a one year deal Initially, doesn't back up the Idea that FL forced us back really does It. Why would they only ask for one year anyway ?

For me the whole thing resides In Stadium naming rights due this year IIRC.

Failure to bring the same level would explain going from treading water while CCFC changed owners to a failure of ACL and the loan.

Even with CCFC back at our current level the naming rights would be Inadequate ,that for me was the motivation for CCC doing the deal with Wasps.JMO.

 

[italiahorse]

I've no idea, and I'm post caring to be honest. What's done is done and can't be changed. Maybe I don't spend enough time on here, but I've seen little mention of the state aid issue.

The whole argument about why CCC sold to Wasps ant not SISU maybe comes back to the fact that the relationship with SISU is just too toxic:

The never ending court battles
The litigation at every possibility
The lies, lies and damn lies that they never seem to learn from.

I guess we'll never know the answer to this, but there was no guarantee that selling ACL to SISU would ever benefit the football club as much as we would have wanted.

For what it's worth my own preference would have been for ACL to remain as it was until new owners moved in, however long that would have taken.

...... and they have already broke one lease so why would they not break another if it suited them ?

 

[torchomatic]

And your new team have fled 85 miles once. Could they not do the same if things don't work out.?

...... and they have already broke one lease so why would they not break another if it suited them ?

 

[Nick]

...... and they have already broke one lease so why would they not break another if it suited them ?

Was it 25 years at 1.3 million with no revenues? Imagine how many times over that could buy ACL....

 

[Rusty Trombone]

Was it 25 years at 1.3 million with no revenues? Imagine how many times over that could buy ACL....

I've seen this 'no revenue' comment a couple of times now, but of course the biggest stadium related income is from tickets and we got all that, we got pitchside advertising, car parking, a shop to sell stuff, and I believe we also got income from selling meals in whatever the VIP bits are called.

So what income did we miss out on? ACL made a relatively small profit each year, and didn't pay dividends, so isn't this missing income a bit of a red herring?

And of course, we did actually have the right to 50% of all match day and non match day income, including the £1.3m rent, but sold it.

 

[wingy]

I've seen this 'no revenue' comment a couple of times now, but of course the biggest stadium related income is from tickets and we got all that, we got pitchside advertising, car parking, a shop to sell stuff, and I believe we also got income from selling meals in whatever the VIP bits are called.

So what income did we miss out on? ACL made a relatively small profit each year, and didn't pay dividends, so isn't this missing income a bit of a red herring?

And of course, we did actually have the right to 50% of all match day and non match day income, including the £1.3m rent, but sold it.

While I appreciate there was a time when ACL at start up were totally reliant on CCFC to at least cover the repayment ,that should have changed within 18months .

As the business grew for ACL and when the lease was taken up our rent should have been halved .

Then the £30 million shortfall funded by the lease and CCC's £10M was for the whole shebang ,so that poses why CCFC should fund the Jaguar halls

part of the lease /shortfall , that should have been ACL's baby .

Finally naming rights ,a percentage of that could have either gone to the club ,offset some of It's rent or better used than paying Daniel Gidney an exorbitant salary.

 

[Grendel]

I've seen this 'no revenue' comment a couple of times now, but of course the biggest stadium related income is from tickets and we got all that, we got pitchside advertising, car parking, a shop to sell stuff, and I believe we also got income from selling meals in whatever the VIP bits are called.

So what income did we miss out on? ACL made a relatively small profit each year, and didn't pay dividends, so isn't this missing income a bit of a red herring?

And of course, we did actually have the right to 50% of all match day and non match day income, including the £1.3m rent, but sold it.

Most matchday parking goes to ACL, the biggest revenue earner was naming rights, they paid to rent the shop and had to pay extra every time they used the pitch to train on.