Nick
Administrator
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
You must know who he means?
Not exactly hard to work out we have all known for a while.
You must know who he means?
Not exactly hard to work out we have all known for a while.
The plants that we are sure about are definitely PlanksPlant or plank?
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
Pm me with what you knowI recon you would already know......
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.
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?
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.
Actually we don't, however likely it might seem.
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.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
...... 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....
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.
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.
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?