Home
I had a three way last night (lucky me!) with two very decent and reasoned ACV supporters and I thought it was worthy of copying and posting on here for others to read if they wish.
I won't name the other two twitterers as at least one of them has their tweets protected from public view but I do hope that both of them firstly doesn't mind me doing this and secondly might encourage them to post more of their views (not only regarding ACV's) in future on the Nuts forum.
The twitter thread started off with a tweet of a Coventry paper where the club was taking court action against being evicted from their ground (Richo Arena) at the end of the season -
(Please forgive some of the curtailed grammar particularly from me as I found great difficulty in keeping to just 140 characters per tweet!).
- this is why ACV's are important
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Me - City has never owned the Ricoh and have & still are tenants How would havin a ACV which btw they considered & rejected have changed things?
- Who owns it is largely irrelevant from ACV standpoint. Power of ACV lies in the options created for community & incentives to cooperate.
Me - Owner can legally give tenant notice to quit, If notice longer than 6 mnths then how would having an AVC prevent it. ACV can't stop a sale.
- Doesn't that depend on the terms of the Head Lease and sub leases? ACV gives a right to bid. It's not perfect. But better than nothing.
- It also put local interest groups on notice and stops sales by stealth. Never underestimate both information and impact of PR.
- Chair of OxVox said it well "(we) will now never wake up one morning to read in the paper that the Stadium has been sold, with no recourse."
Me - CC not appealing notice to quit so assume that's legal within the lease. ST's have right to bid under ACV but owner can sell to who he wants
- That's right. No obligation to accept community bid even if it's better. It's the "soft" incentives that become important.
- Only if the lease contains a break clause. Otherwise security is for the duration of the lease.
- So, BWFC probably protected by generous lease terms from council. If club sells and rents back, the investor may impose riskier terms (?)
Me - CC not appealing notice to quit so assume that's legal within the lease. ST's have right to bid under ACV but owner can sell to who he wants
- Notice to quit under business tenancy can be served for number of reasons such as a breach of lease or rent arrears I don't know the facts
- I've worked with sale & leasebacks as a method of financing. Not in football though. The terms can be onerous when you need lower rent costs
Me - Not being funny but if ST so worried about Macron being sold then raise the money and buy it themselves. Only same as what they would 1/2
Me - ...have to do if sale proposed under ACV. If they can't raise the money then little chance of raising it in the future too. 2/2
- Fund raising tends to only work in adversity. Whether Bolton can afford to or has the appetite to would be tested.
- ACV doesn't prevent sale or borrowing against the asset. Just gives notice of any sale to keep in the public domain
- Not just the ST who could bid but anyone including Local Authority.
Me - And again the owner can sell to whom he wants and shun both the council and ST if he had a mind too - even if they bid the most.
Me - Fund raising would have to be in the millions and is not a realistic chance that would be achieved. So AVC from the ST is no real 1/2
Me - ...prevention of ground being sold to whoever the owner wants but merely a delaying tactic at best. Nowt wrong in that but wont stop a sale
- Well no that's incorrect. An ACV gives Local Authority compulsory purchase rights under the Localism Act 2011.
Me - ok, in that case could you see a council spend millions on buying ground when they are underfunded for schools, elderly provision, etc, etc
- That again I've no idea on just correcting the facts. Only time will tell. I'm not keen on a sale and lease back personally
Me - Neither am I but what are the alternatives if no sale lined up and Mr A not got the money? Doubt Mr A himself is to thrilled to do this.
- The alternative is we accept our lot for the short term even if that's league one football. Just my belief. Glad the decisions aren't mine
Me - We have to get to the end of season first and I suspect sale and leaseback is only realistic option right now to keep the club afloat.
- And when those sale proceeds dry up?
Me - Its cash flow that is the prob right now. Next season costs again lowered Pratley Dervite wages gone. More likely then to live within means
- I'd sooner live within means and get relegated.
Me - You miss the point - if we dont get cash flow SOON we go into Admin and Administrator sells assets anyway. We don't have the luxury of 1/2
Me - Of not selling off something NOW and sale leaseback seems to be the chosen option to do this.
- But if there's nothing to hide why object to an ACV? All of this just detracts from the bigger issue of lack of finance to compete
Me - Who says there's something hidden? Money need to run the club. Less assets, less sale price, less profit the Mr A. In everybodys 1/2
Me - (interests) to keep the club up and not go into Admin. If ST took over they would have to sell assets to. Theres no buyer or MrA wouldn't be doing this
- Well you clearly know more facts than me.
Me - Just my logic. If KA 95% total owner, has someone in the wings to buy, then why is frigging about to get a sale & lease back on the ground?
- Again if you know that then you know more facts than I
Me - I don't know but why else do it? It cant be in Mr A's own interest selling off his own assets to rent back can it? Must be a reason then.
(The next four points have been added since the conversation last night (by one of the participants) to which I would have replied that we/Anderson/the club might not have the luxury of time, if cash flow now means the Administrator is stood outside the door now and can't wait 6 months or more!)
- 1/ Let's be fair ... we don't know his financial position or plans. What we can say is that it is possible the stadium can be used to
- 2/ finance a takeover to reduce the private burden of equity. An ACV provides a layer of protection (but limited as you rightly point out)
- 3/ it also provides a time and space for alternative action, which may or may not work. Some like to try, others prefer fatalism.
- 4/ We have a ST now and not to file an ACV when there was so much uncertainty would have been negligent if them at best.
- I suppose some may say they're not his assets. But there's no simple answer. Whatever we as fans say or do will have no influence.
Me - You should join & post on Bolton Nuts forum Gary, Far easier having a discussion and others can and will join in rather than etheral tweets
- Maybe! Let's just hope for a win tomorrow to lift the gloom
END
There are bits and pieces that have since been added but the above is as true a record as I can piece together from the tweets of last night - which although I was part of the conversation - I think is a reasonable and verily balanced debate on the subject.
- My own view is ST and Mr A do need to sit down and talk this through to gauge each position & perspective. Legals not the best start.
- Only one winner there!!
-
Me - I don't know but why else do it? It cant be in Mr A's own interest selling off his own assets to rent back can it? Must be a reason then.
I won't name the other two twitterers as at least one of them has their tweets protected from public view but I do hope that both of them firstly doesn't mind me doing this and secondly might encourage them to post more of their views (not only regarding ACV's) in future on the Nuts forum.
The twitter thread started off with a tweet of a Coventry paper where the club was taking court action against being evicted from their ground (Richo Arena) at the end of the season -
(Please forgive some of the curtailed grammar particularly from me as I found great difficulty in keeping to just 140 characters per tweet!).
- this is why ACV's are important
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Me - City has never owned the Ricoh and have & still are tenants How would havin a ACV which btw they considered & rejected have changed things?
- Who owns it is largely irrelevant from ACV standpoint. Power of ACV lies in the options created for community & incentives to cooperate.
Me - Owner can legally give tenant notice to quit, If notice longer than 6 mnths then how would having an AVC prevent it. ACV can't stop a sale.
- Doesn't that depend on the terms of the Head Lease and sub leases? ACV gives a right to bid. It's not perfect. But better than nothing.
- It also put local interest groups on notice and stops sales by stealth. Never underestimate both information and impact of PR.
- Chair of OxVox said it well "(we) will now never wake up one morning to read in the paper that the Stadium has been sold, with no recourse."
Me - CC not appealing notice to quit so assume that's legal within the lease. ST's have right to bid under ACV but owner can sell to who he wants
- That's right. No obligation to accept community bid even if it's better. It's the "soft" incentives that become important.
- Only if the lease contains a break clause. Otherwise security is for the duration of the lease.
- So, BWFC probably protected by generous lease terms from council. If club sells and rents back, the investor may impose riskier terms (?)
Me - CC not appealing notice to quit so assume that's legal within the lease. ST's have right to bid under ACV but owner can sell to who he wants
- Notice to quit under business tenancy can be served for number of reasons such as a breach of lease or rent arrears I don't know the facts
- I've worked with sale & leasebacks as a method of financing. Not in football though. The terms can be onerous when you need lower rent costs
Me - Not being funny but if ST so worried about Macron being sold then raise the money and buy it themselves. Only same as what they would 1/2
Me - ...have to do if sale proposed under ACV. If they can't raise the money then little chance of raising it in the future too. 2/2
- Fund raising tends to only work in adversity. Whether Bolton can afford to or has the appetite to would be tested.
- ACV doesn't prevent sale or borrowing against the asset. Just gives notice of any sale to keep in the public domain
- Not just the ST who could bid but anyone including Local Authority.
Me - And again the owner can sell to whom he wants and shun both the council and ST if he had a mind too - even if they bid the most.
Me - Fund raising would have to be in the millions and is not a realistic chance that would be achieved. So AVC from the ST is no real 1/2
Me - ...prevention of ground being sold to whoever the owner wants but merely a delaying tactic at best. Nowt wrong in that but wont stop a sale
- Well no that's incorrect. An ACV gives Local Authority compulsory purchase rights under the Localism Act 2011.
Me - ok, in that case could you see a council spend millions on buying ground when they are underfunded for schools, elderly provision, etc, etc
- That again I've no idea on just correcting the facts. Only time will tell. I'm not keen on a sale and lease back personally
Me - Neither am I but what are the alternatives if no sale lined up and Mr A not got the money? Doubt Mr A himself is to thrilled to do this.
- The alternative is we accept our lot for the short term even if that's league one football. Just my belief. Glad the decisions aren't mine
Me - We have to get to the end of season first and I suspect sale and leaseback is only realistic option right now to keep the club afloat.
- And when those sale proceeds dry up?
Me - Its cash flow that is the prob right now. Next season costs again lowered Pratley Dervite wages gone. More likely then to live within means
- I'd sooner live within means and get relegated.
Me - You miss the point - if we dont get cash flow SOON we go into Admin and Administrator sells assets anyway. We don't have the luxury of 1/2
Me - Of not selling off something NOW and sale leaseback seems to be the chosen option to do this.
- But if there's nothing to hide why object to an ACV? All of this just detracts from the bigger issue of lack of finance to compete
Me - Who says there's something hidden? Money need to run the club. Less assets, less sale price, less profit the Mr A. In everybodys 1/2
Me - (interests) to keep the club up and not go into Admin. If ST took over they would have to sell assets to. Theres no buyer or MrA wouldn't be doing this
- Well you clearly know more facts than me.
Me - Just my logic. If KA 95% total owner, has someone in the wings to buy, then why is frigging about to get a sale & lease back on the ground?
- Again if you know that then you know more facts than I
Me - I don't know but why else do it? It cant be in Mr A's own interest selling off his own assets to rent back can it? Must be a reason then.
(The next four points have been added since the conversation last night (by one of the participants) to which I would have replied that we/Anderson/the club might not have the luxury of time, if cash flow now means the Administrator is stood outside the door now and can't wait 6 months or more!)
- 1/ Let's be fair ... we don't know his financial position or plans. What we can say is that it is possible the stadium can be used to
- 2/ finance a takeover to reduce the private burden of equity. An ACV provides a layer of protection (but limited as you rightly point out)
- 3/ it also provides a time and space for alternative action, which may or may not work. Some like to try, others prefer fatalism.
- 4/ We have a ST now and not to file an ACV when there was so much uncertainty would have been negligent if them at best.
- I suppose some may say they're not his assets. But there's no simple answer. Whatever we as fans say or do will have no influence.
Me - You should join & post on Bolton Nuts forum Gary, Far easier having a discussion and others can and will join in rather than etheral tweets
- Maybe! Let's just hope for a win tomorrow to lift the gloom
END
There are bits and pieces that have since been added but the above is as true a record as I can piece together from the tweets of last night - which although I was part of the conversation - I think is a reasonable and verily balanced debate on the subject.
- My own view is ST and Mr A do need to sit down and talk this through to gauge each position & perspective. Legals not the best start.
- Only one winner there!!
-
Me - I don't know but why else do it? It cant be in Mr A's own interest selling off his own assets to rent back can it? Must be a reason then.
