the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 much depends on the type of building I had a flat worth 200k that was insured for 400 because it was 140 years old and another at 120k insured at 50 odd because it was a cheep new build where all the value was in the land. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 No shit Sherlock, it's what I do for a living. If somethings valued at over £100m one year, just over £1m the next then back up to £80m 6 months later then there's something very fishy going on. Replacement cost for insurance purposes is not a true valuation, I have properties worth between £40-£50k yet they are valued at £550k on a replacement basis. So am I correct in saying there'd really need to be some proof that someone would even be interested in paying more, rather than just the valuations, for such a claim? After all the assets could sit rotting away forever waiting for someone to pay the 'value'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So am I correct in saying there'd really need to be some proof that someone would even be interested in paying more, rather than just the valuations, for such a claim? After all the assets could sit rotting away forever waiting for someone to pay the 'value'. Correct. A liquidation event, and I include admin in that, is basically a firesale. You realise what you reasonably can for the assets. Surveyed values wont be even close to market value in a liquidation event because everyone knows that the assets must be sold and that the administrators wont hold them forever. However, a difference of approximately 75-79 million in value would certainly have people questioning the "firesale value" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Correct. A liquidation event, and I include admin in that, is basically a firesale. You realise what you reasonably can for the assets. Surveyed values wont be even close to market value in a liquidation event because everyone knows that the assets must be sold and that the administrators wont hold them forever. However, a difference of approximately 75-79 million in value would certainly have people questioning the "firesale value" True, but then you need to factor in that the assets in question can only realistically be used for a football club. Celtic are hardly going to buy them, Partick Thistle and Queens Park couldn't afford them, so the newco sale was all that could be done. There's not much scope for another newco to be started considering we're well into the football season now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 So am I correct in saying there'd really need to be some proof that someone would even be interested in paying more, rather than just the valuations, for such a claim? After all the assets could sit rotting away forever waiting for someone to pay the 'value'. What I'm saying albeit rather labouredly is that none of the valuations are acurate refections of the value, not DM Hall's original £100m+ or the currently alleged £80m nor LSH's. If DM Hall did both valuations on a replacement value then the second valuation should be higher, considerably so due to inflation in the construction sector. If both DM Hall and LSH have valued the properties on the same basis then there is something seriously amiss. It's clear that if sold and rented back at £500k per annum then a value of £10m giving a 5% return is easily achievable, remember there was rumour of the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund (iirc) purchasing the assets. It will be those more learned in the finer points of law than me or thee that decide such matters but it'll be no great shock if the liquidators raise concerns regarding the various valuations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 True, but then you need to factor in that the assets in question can only realistically be used for a football club. Celtic are hardly going to buy them, Partick Thistle and Queens Park couldn't afford them, so the newco sale was all that could be done. There's not much scope for another newco to be started considering we're well into the football season now. Not so, the assets could be used for property development - extreme case but it could have been done. Arsenal did it with Highbury. The stands other than the Struth Stand could be pulled down and developed on. I do agree that the likelihood of anything other than football purposes would be limited, especially when the asset purchasers would be using them for the same trade. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Not so, the assets could be used for property development - extreme case but it could have been done. Arsenal did it with Highbury. The stands other than the Struth Stand could be pulled down and developed on. I do agree that the likelihood of anything other than football purposes would be limited, especially when the asset purchasers would be using them for the same trade. Technically speaking it's only the original facade of the Struth Stand that's 'B' listed (iirc Highbury was the same English equivalent Grade 2) the rest of it could be knocked down (again re Highbury). It's quite possible that permission would be granted to lift the listing and demolish the facade too, we're about to see a 'B' listed building vanish in London Road! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Not so, the assets could be used for property development - extreme case but it could have been done. Arsenal did it with Highbury. The stands other than the Struth Stand could be pulled down and developed on. I do agree that the likelihood of anything other than football purposes would be limited, especially when the asset purchasers would be using them for the same trade. I did say realistically, several factors like the cost of demolition, decontamination, Govan being a shitehole etc make it pretty unlikely. Would be a massive gamble to say the least if they were to take the assets back on that basis and terminate a tonne of jobs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I did say realistically, several factors like the cost of demolition, decontamination, Govan being a shitehole etc make it pretty unlikely. Would be a massive gamble to say the least if they were to take the assets back on that basis and terminate a tonne of jobs. It would certainly be very,very messy but Green claiming an £80m valuation has effectively given them a stick with which to beat him, they may use that stick to extract a further payment in regards to the assets, he'd have to argue in court against his own figures! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It would certainly be very,very messy but Green claiming an £80m valuation has effectively given them a stick with which to beat him, they may use that stick to extract a further payment in regards to the assets, he'd have to argue in court against his own figures! We'll see, the smaller creditors have all been fairly understanding having done business with Rangers for a long time if I remember right and at least a good number were paid by the RFFF. So really it would probably be HMRC or Ticketus launching an objection. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.