Where does the oft quoted £6m (1 Viewer)

[fernandopartridge]

That the Higgs Trust paid for the ACL share come from?

The accounts state it was sold for £4.5m comprising £2m cash & the paying off of the £2.5m 5% debenture loans 2003 (which was a Co-op bank loan from 1995 I think)

Who agreed that the AEHT should be guaranteed a £6.5m return for the share?

Where did the additional £2m come from?

 

---

[wingy]

That the Higgs Trust paid for the ACL share come from?

The accounts state it was sold for £4.5m comprising £2m cash & the paying off of the £2.5m 5% debenture loans 2003 (which was a Co-op bank loan from 1995 I think)

Who agreed that the AEHT should be guaranteed a £6.5m return for the share?

Didn't someone pay off the Clubs £2M + fees incurred up to the point of handing over control to CCC?

Where did the additional £2m come from?

Edit;-
Sorry inside quotes . Didn't someone pay off the fees incurred by the Club up to the point of handing Control to CCC?

 

[fernandopartridge]

It isn't mentioned in the accounts unless I've missed it.

 

[wingy]

It isn't mentioned in the accounts unless I've missed it.

Was It Derek Higgs money put In maybe with one or two other directors?:thinking about:

 

[dongonzalos]

Thought it was they paid 2 million. Plus 4.5 million they were owed.

 

[sky blue john]

That the Higgs Trust paid for the ACL share come from?

The accounts state it was sold for £4.5m comprising £2m cash & the paying off of the £2.5m 5% debenture loans 2003 (which was a Co-op bank loan from 1995 I think)

Who agreed that the AEHT should be guaranteed a £6.5m return for the share?

Where did the additional £2m come from?

Why does it matter seems irrelevant ?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Ah you may be right. 3 directors lent £2m to FIL which was settled as part of the sale to AEHT.

The directors then re-lent the money to the club. So the club in the end paid £2m to the directors for the re loan and would pay £2m to AEHT for the original, but only received £2m to begin with.

 

[oldskyblue58]

The £4.8m was the net amount invested in the scheme by CCFC H. It was made up of payments made in to the scheme £17m less amounts owed (loans & Creditors) £12m in round figures

The CCFC H group invested £4.8m in the project through football investors ltd by 31/05/2002. The directors invested a further £2m via CCFC H in to FIL making 6.8m in total invested in football investors ltd by CCFC H Group.

They sold the interest in FIL and the interest in ACL to AEHC for £6.5m. That £6.5m was made up of 2m in cash to the company £2m in cash to repay the directors (who then reinvested in ccfc h £2m) and the waiver by the Charity of the £2.5m 5% debenture loan they had made previously

CCFC H made a 300k loss on the deal

if you go to the 2003 CCFC H accounts the details are in notes 12,14 and 26

What guarantee of £6.5m?. They were prepared to sell for £5.5m. The option that CCFC Ltd had was never activated and couldn't be while the club owed ACL money outside of normal terms - it is now defunct

 

[fernandopartridge]

The CCFC H group invested £4.8m in the project through football investors ltd by 31/05/2002. The directors invested a further £2m making 6.8m in total invested in football investors ltd by CCFC H Group.

They sold the interest in FIL and the interest in ACL to AEHC for £6.5m. That £6.5m was made up of 2m in cash to the company £2m in cash to repay the directors (who then reinvested in ccfc h £2m) and the waiver by the Charity of the £2.5m 5% debenture loan they had made previously

CCFC H made a 300k loss on the deal

if you go to the 2003 CCFC H accounts the details are in notes 12,14 and 26 give details.

What guarantee of £6.5m?. They were prepared to sell for £5.5m. The option that CCFC Ltd had was never activated and couldn't be while the club owed ACL money outside of normal terms - it is now defunct

The minimum £6.5m was quoted in court papers.

The accounts I'm looking at are CCFC Ltd not holdings.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Who's the third party who invested the £4.8m in FIL?

 

[shmmeee]

The minimum £6.5m was quoted in court papers.

The accounts I'm looking at are CCFC Ltd not holdings.

For corroboration:

The sale agreement had an option, under which CCFC could buy back the shares for an amount to be calculated under a formula based on the sale price and notional interest but with a minimum price of £6.5m.

 

[dongonzalos]

The £4.8m was the net amount invested in the scheme by CCFC H. It was made up of payments made in to the scheme £17m less amounts owed (loans & Creditors) £12m in round figures

The CCFC H group invested £4.8m in the project through football investors ltd by 31/05/2002. The directors invested a further £2m via CCFC H in to FIL making 6.8m in total invested in football investors ltd by CCFC H Group.

They sold the interest in FIL and the interest in ACL to AEHC for £6.5m. That £6.5m was made up of 2m in cash to the company £2m in cash to repay the directors (who then reinvested in ccfc h £2m) and the waiver by the Charity of the £2.5m 5% debenture loan they had made previously

CCFC H made a 300k loss on the deal

if you go to the 2003 CCFC H accounts the details are in notes 12,14 and 26

What guarantee of £6.5m?. They were prepared to sell for £5.5m. The option that CCFC Ltd had was never activated and couldn't be while the club owed ACL money outside of normal terms - it is now defunct

Quite simple really, surprised you didn't see that straight away Fernando.

 

[oldskyblue58]

"The sale agreement had an option, under which CCFC could buy back the shares for an amount to be calculated under a formula based on the sale price and notional interest but with a minimum price of £6.5m"

so is that an amount plus interest that cant be less than 6.5m or is it 6.5m capital plus interest?

 

[shmmeee]

"The sale agreement had an option, under which CCFC could buy back the shares for an amount to be calculated under a formula based on the sale price and notional interest but with a minimum price of £6.5m"

so is that an amount plus interest that cant be less than 6.5m or is it 6.5m capital plus interest?

Sounds to me like £6.5m or the formula, whichever is more.

 

[oldskyblue58]

so basically saying that using the option the charity was prepared to sell for no return but no loss minimum

but there is a clause I believe in the sale agreement that the club can not activate the option if it owes ACL money outside of normal terms.

CCFC Ltd had the option. So the attempt to buy the AEHC shares by SISU not CCFC Ltd was outside the sales agreement and the minimum didn't apply

 

[oldskyblue58]

so the focus on a minimum in court is factual but a little misleading really because no one was actually relying on it :thinking about:

 

[shmmeee]

It applied before the club went on rent strike. Was this before or after the start of negotiations? I forget.

 

[oldskyblue58]

it did but only whenever all the bills were within the agreed payment terms .... were they?

 

[wingy]

It applied before the club went on rent strike. Was this before or after the start of negotiations? I forget.

Wasn't TF speaking to them behind the scenes while Ken sat on the bench.

October /November time ,4-5 months before the debenture and rent with holding.

 

[shmmeee]

Wasn't TF speaking to them behind the scenes while Ken sat on the bench.

October /November time ,4-5 months before the debenture and rent with holding.

Fisher came in December 2011 IIRC, Labovitch a month or two earlier. Rent strike started 2 April 2012. The meeting with Joy was 3 days earlier where she threatened to stop funding the club. Negotiations on rent began in October 2011, so just before Fisher arrived (at least officially).

For context, we were in the Championship at that point (outside the relegation places at the time of the rent strike, with 6 games to go).

Not trying to start a fight, but tells you all you need to know when at a time when Championship survival was a very real possibility, our owner was busy threatening to not support the club any longer.

 

[stupot07]

You are right Shhmeee had we not started the striker, we'd have won all six games and would have avoided relegation by at least 8 points...


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

 

[shmmeee]

You are right Shhmeee had we not started the striker, we'd have won all six games and would have avoided relegation by at least 8 points...


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

As I said, not trying to start a fight. Just tells you something about priorities IMO, someone who cared or understood about football would've at least waited a month to see where we were.

We were a point clear on equal games, with a far better GD than the team below us (and 5 points ahead of 23rd). We didn't need to win all of our last 6, but we did need more than 2 points. Don't get me wrong, we got relegated over (at least) a season. I'm not claiming the rent strike caused it, I'm just saying it wasn't a foregone conclusion at that point.

I'll put it another way: if a company you were a shareholder in had a CEO that ignored a very real risk to the business costing at least £5-6m a year in revenue in order to focus on a cost issue that at best saves you £1.4m/year, would you be happy?

 

[stupot07]

I don't want to get into a debate about this either, I'm fed up with it all, but the commercial side doesn't have to stop because of what's happening on the pitch. You can say it's about priorities waiting wouldn't have changed a thing IMO, we would have still been rent striking etc even if we'd avoided relegation. I don't see how waiting a month would have made any difference to the football side.

And we don't know that they were ignoring the risk of being relegated. Hadn't the loan window closed at that point? What could Joy and tim have done to improve the football side at that point in time? Sit on the bench and show their support?

Edit. Yes loan window closed on 22 March.


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

 

[shmmeee]

I don't want to get into a debate about this either, I'm fed up with it all, but the commercial side doesn't have to stop because of what's happening on the pitch. You can say it's about priorities waiting wouldn't have changed a thing IMO, we would have still been rent striking etc even if we'd avoided relegation. I don't see how waiting a month would have made any difference to the football side.

And we don't know that they were ignoring the risk of being relegated. Hadn't the loan window closed at that point? What could Joy and tim have done to improve the football side at that point? Sit on the bench and show their support.

Edit. Yes loan window closed on 22 March.


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

LOL at "sit on the bench"

I dunno, IMO these things filter down from management.

Waiting would IMO change the appropriate timing. If I was going to do what Sisu are attempting, I'd have really given it a go in L1 with no distractions, then I'd have brought up the issue of rent should we go up. If you don't go up after the first two seasons, you do a very understandable spiel about cost cutting and refocussing the club. IMO there's a golden period after you come down where you're a big fish in a small pond, we essentially destroyed that and went from being the 3rd best supported club to the worst.

As you say, it's all conjecture, but for me it adds weight to the argument that even with revenues the ability of Sisu to understand the football business is limited.

 

[lordsummerisle]

and the waiver by the Charity of the £2.5m 5% debenture loan they had made previously
[/B]

Did the Charity write off a £2.5million loan to the club then?