Nonleagueherewecome
Well-Known Member
Surely "our" choice rather than "their"?
Not quite.
It's all about the lease. Buying it out or let sit with a company being liquidated.
If bought out it must be with some compensation - thus the 1 year rent on top of the outstanding £630K.
You could argue that the compensation should be higher - three years or more, but in ANY case, I think sisu have made a total offer that will see ACL get their £630k minus a part of the administration fee. The offer would not be effected by the compensation, it would remain the same no matter what. They don't want to give ACL more.
So forget the 50 pence in the pound or whatever - sisu decided they would only pay ACL what was owed before the administration (minus a part of the administration cost).
You can call it 'smart' or 'shrewed' or 'immoral' or 'unfair', but it's not illegal. It's their choice.
While if they do sign it I think this will be the reason I don't really agree with you. They wouldn't have failed in their duty as long as they were doing what they thought was right, As long as they can argue why they made the decision and why they thought it was right for the success of the arena surely that is fine. Companies are constantly taking decisions that are gambles but they feel that the gamble is worth it.
You can also make just as strong an argument for us being more likely to play at the ricoh by rejecting the cva as you could for signing it. If your other paragraph was correct there isn't a 600k reason to sign the cva and that makes it much easier not too.
The £600k will make a huge impact on the bottom line in ACL accounts! But it's the difference in having the club playing at RA in 3 or 4 years or not at all that will hang on the directors neck. They have no reason to believe a refusal of signing the CVA will increase the chances of sisu deciding to negotiate a short term deal, whereas signing the CVA will bring them to the table. At the very least I guess ACL would have had consulted all other stakeholders and ask their consent to refuse the CVA at the risk of the club not coming back to play another match.
The £600k will make a huge impact on the bottom line in ACL accounts! But it's the difference in having the club playing at RA in 3 or 4 years or not at all that will hang on the directors neck. They have no reason to believe a refusal of signing the CVA will increase the chances of sisu deciding to negotiate a short term deal, whereas signing the CVA will bring them to the table. At the very least I guess ACL would have had consulted all other stakeholders and ask their consent to refuse the CVA at the risk of the club not coming back to play another match.
I think they will stay.
1) While they build their own stadium if offered terms that are better overall to what they have to pay at Northampton.
2) Permanently if they are offered all the shares in ACL at terms that will overall make a better business case for the club compared with building their own stadium.
WILL play in the city giving ACL long term profits and income !
I understand all that, I'm not sure why that makes what I said "not quite"
If they sign the CVA they are getting what they were owed before 630k you say + 1 years rent, multiplied by 0.259 giveing the 500k or so they are going to get if they sign the cva (afraid I can't find the article with the correct figures). You are saying though perhaps if they don't sign the cva they actually are owed 50mill instead but the amount of money that is there to give them is the same lowering the amount they get in the pound. But really they are going to get the same or a similar amount of money. If this is the case Appleton has been misleading on an unbelievable scale. It's misleading because we are being told they should sign the cva or they will only get 0.5p in the pound. If that is actually the same amount of money as 25.9p in the pound what difference does it make? none!
Why aren't they negotiating a deal to buy a share from a % of payments based on ticket sales .. their stance is crazy.. there have always been possibilities.. it is not good business to be intransigent.
It is SISU who are saying "there is no alternative to moving", ACL keep saying "we want the club to stay"
Yes - but I also said many times 'I think'. So it's only what I assume as I have no inside information or access to all the documents. For once I think both parties have been good at keeping actual facts out of the press and only feed their own spin.
If I am right ... have Appelton been misleading? Hmm, I don't think so. It's semantics - spin - but then you have all the other feeding us their spin: PWKH, Fisher, Guildfoyle not forgetting the MP's and MEP's. We tend to listen to the side we already agree with and react with anger when the opposition state something we don't like or don't want. Most are telling the truth, but none are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ok now your confusing me, what 600k difference? with what you said there wouldn't be a 600k difference.
Option 1 - accept the cva get 25.9p of the debt they were previously owned + a 1 year compensation for breaking the lease.
Option 2 - Reject the CVA, limited gets liquidated, they still get a similar amount of money but its a much smaller percentage of what they are owned because now they are owed the full lease (is this not what you said to me earlier this morning?) so it's only 0.5p in the pound.
anyway back to my CIV 5 game about to invade china, thank you for your thoughts and things I'd not considered, be interesting to see how the morning pans out.
No, you have misunderstood me. My fault most likely!
I meant to say that the amount they would recieve if they sign the CVA would be the same no matter how much rent compensation was written into the deal. That is what I referred to as being 'smart' or 'immoral'.
I really have no idea if they will receive the exact same amount if they sign or refuse the CVA.
Sorry for the confusion!
Good luck - I played CIV I and II in my younger days. Excellent game, took forever to play through, but the AI was easy to beat.
I understand your logic.
And while I am no CVA or insolvency expert too and mostly go with what is said by the various stakeholders and what I can find on the internet I can see only come up with this:
Signing the CVA will value the remaining of the lease at the compensation offered - £1.2m, while refusing the lease it will be valued at the total length of the lease - 40 something years or $45m.
Does that add up?
Refusal of the CVA will mean liquidation of Limited as there really are no assets in Limited ... the Golden Share has no real value, has it? ... so a liquidator will have nothing much to sell.
The liquidator would also have to look after the main creditors ... Otium, ccfc Holdings and SBS&L. This mean a potential buyer would have to at least match Otium's bid, and still there's no guarantee the bidder will be granted the Golden Share ... he may be able to play a the Ricoh, but he does not have any players, no manager, no training facilities etc. and the FL may decide (at their discretion) a new owner is unlikely to fullfil the fixtures.
Does that make sense?
Then there is the duty of the ACL directors. If they gamble and refuse the CVA and the golden share still goes to Otium and they refuse to play again at the Ricoh as a consequence of the refused CVA, then the directors have failed their duty to maximize the success of the Arena and its stakeholders.
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?