|
Post by alfonso2016 (Suspended) on Oct 23, 2016 9:50:14 GMT
A straight forward question "How does a stadium owned by a "Community Trust" be of any benefit to Oxford United as a football club?
Will they be offered a reduction in rent and service charge?
Will the club keep all revenue made on match days?
The main question that needs clarity is future funding to maintain the stadium.
Would it it not be a better option to back DE and his open offer to buy the stadium as then the club will be better served. I'm sure his "Community Stadium" would be a better option for both the club and Oxfordshire without taking out grants and loans which will need servicing.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 23, 2016 10:11:49 GMT
How does backing him help when fk won't sell to an individual?
|
|
|
Post by pooroldboy on Oct 23, 2016 10:18:40 GMT
Do any of you trust Kassam over this COMMUNITY sale. I dont
|
|
|
Post by m on Oct 23, 2016 10:27:11 GMT
A straight forward question "How does a stadium owned by a "Community Trust" be of any benefit to Oxford United as a football club? Will they be offered a reduction in rent and service charge? Will the club keep all revenue made on match days? The main question that needs clarity is future funding to maintain the stadium. Would it it not be a better option to back DE and his open offer to buy the stadium as then the club will be better served. I'm sure his "Community Stadium" would be a better option for both the club and Oxfordshire without taking out grants and loans which will need servicing. Why is a "community stadium" better than a stadium owned by a "community trust"? What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 23, 2016 11:55:48 GMT
FK sells to DE (or any other individual) = No leverage over City or County council for other land or future beneficial dealing.
FK sells to Community (which would have to include City and possibly County councils) and he has leverage and influence by virtue of the sale particulars.
It is quite clear which he prefers and which will give him more. This is how he does business.
Why would he sell for no potential gain? He doesn't need the money, he does need potential. That's how speculators profit.
DE and the club can be part of the community just as much as any other investor. That might even mean we, as supporters through OxVox, can participate as co-owners. A prospect that I would embrace to secure the future of OUFC. One of the reasons I joined OxVox was to be part of a collective with a voice and not just a keyboard warrior!
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Oct 23, 2016 12:01:27 GMT
And up pops another new poster, registered three days ago, with a one topic agenda. How about posting under your real name "alfonso" if you want to be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Oct 23, 2016 12:27:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 23, 2016 13:06:11 GMT
My biggest questions are - if the Stadium is majority owned by 'The Community' will DE be happy to keep his soft debt? If the Stadium makes a loss, conference center, etc. Who has that debt? Will it be the trust? Will it be OxVox? It won't be DE because the club will be a tenant. Will the 'Community Trust' have enough cash to maintain the stadium, pitch, floodlights, etc.
|
|
|
Post by alfonso2016 (Suspended) on Oct 23, 2016 14:55:35 GMT
There is two sides to most issues ands I notice that already I have been challenged to post under my real name rather than put the answers to the serious questions that I and others have been asking ourselves. Believe it or not Colin B there are many of us that have some real concerns over what Oxvox has taken on regarding the stadium.some of us do believe that the stadium should be owned by the club and not a third party. Kassam has something in mind that will be to HIS advantage and it's no doubt land and land values with planning permission. I and many others would not be happy if our council tax was used to line the pockets of Kassam or to purchase a stadium on behalf of a business. As a City Council Tax payer and a County tax payer, I would not want my taxes being spent on schemes such as this. The fact that church's are now having to open up to families to help offset the closures of family centres due to council cuts is just one area along with many other cuts to local services.
By all means keep communication open with Kassam , but don't think for one moment you will not be challenged by local tax payers and supporters who want to know where the funding is coming from and what safeguards will be in place. The fact that you are dealing with Kasssam is also a concern to some.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 23, 2016 15:00:19 GMT
Yet it's not actually been said that the council will putting in any money? What's ur solution if fk won't sell to an individual/the club?
|
|
|
Post by alfonso2016 (Suspended) on Oct 23, 2016 16:52:55 GMT
Yet it's not actually been said that the council will putting in any money? What's ur solution if fk won't sell to an individual/the club? That's not my problem. I'm not happy that the Council either the City or County may put tax payers money into what is no concern to them. The owner of the club has an offer on the table and the supporters should back that offer. If Kassam refuses to sell to the club then sit tight and let Kassam sweat or the club could look at at alternative venues. Oxfordshire Councils are not in a position to fund these type of schemes. If funding is available from elsewhere then fine, but who will be held responsible for covering any loans or grants? Public services are woefully short on funds across the board and any monies available should be used to improve social services to the vulnerable members of our society, not used to massage the egos of others like Kassam. if I remember Kassam promised to take us on a journey, promised that he would not sell the club without the stadium, now look what he is saying.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 23, 2016 16:56:12 GMT
But again, and u can correct me if I've missed it, they have not once said the council will be putting money in. It could very well be a supporters/ community trust with investment from fans normal and rich, some of which may even currently own our club who knows. But would it not be worth waitin to find out the plan before slagging it off ? I'm also not sure that sitting tight will make fk sweat. 500k plus, more if we go up for the next 10 years isn't exactly a burden to him is it
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 23, 2016 18:05:26 GMT
Yet it's not actually been said that the council will putting in any money? What's ur solution if fk won't sell to an individual/the club? That's not my problem. I'm not happy that the Council either the City or County may put tax payers money into what is no concern to them. The owner of the club has an offer on the table and the supporters should back that offer. If Kassam refuses to sell to the club then sit tight and let Kassam sweat or the club could look at at alternative venues. Oxfordshire Councils are not in a position to fund these type of schemes. If funding is available from elsewhere then fine, but who will be held responsible for covering any loans or grants? Public services are woefully short on funds across the board and any monies available should be used to improve social services to the vulnerable members of our society, not used to massage the egos of others like Kassam. if I remember Kassam promised to take us on a journey, promised that he would not sell the club without the stadium, now look what he is saying. How could it be that you are aware of the intentions and aims of both authorities and their financial status? Have you given due consideration to the implications of both or either getting involved in the co-operative ownership of the stadium? Have you considered the opportunities that would arise out of such an arrangement? How much do both spend currently on sporting events and similar functions? I suspect that in reality you have little idea of how public services are funded. Certainly your suggestion that getting involved with a community ownership would have a detrimental effect on social services is way off. Kassam has made it clear that he will not sell to an individual. He has, however, spoken favourably of a community owned stadium. Let's wait and hear how this could be achieved before setting up political soap boxes.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 23, 2016 18:13:17 GMT
Not only that but a local authority could just guarantee a loan, not actually putting any money in similar to ntfc but not corrupt, they could then agree to give kassam a deal on the land with them taking a percentage. That way come the end of the deal they have had land developed for housing that they need, made a wedge from kassam, and possibly have an ongoing income from being jointly involved with the stadium. As well as luke manorlounger says being able to hold events and functions at a lower cost than they are now. Therefore actually really benefiting the people you say are going to miss out because of it . Until it's announced I can't se how a deal can be slagged off, as u just don't know what it will consist of
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 23, 2016 19:39:08 GMT
I see no valid reason for the council to buy the stadium. They may loan funds to help the Community Trust on a commercial basis but that would not be detrimental to the local taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 23, 2016 20:05:26 GMT
My biggest questions are - if the Stadium is majority owned by 'The Community' will DE be happy to keep his soft debt? If the Stadium makes a loss, conference center, etc. Who has that debt? Will it be the trust? Will it be OxVox? It won't be DE because the club will be a tenant. Will the 'Community Trust' have enough cash to maintain the stadium, pitch, floodlights, etc. Of course if the stadium makes a loss then the owner of the stadium has to bear the loss. This has to be factored into the business plan when the stadium is purchased. Why wouldn't the new owner be able to cover the overheads of running the stadium? What difference to DE's soft debt would a change of stadium owner make?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 23, 2016 20:26:53 GMT
A straight forward question "How does a stadium owned by a "Community Trust" be of any benefit to Oxford United as a football club? As a football club it will ensure that future owners are not able to mortgage the stadium to cover overspending. It may not be beneficial to the future owner but it may help secure the future of the club. We have seen debt secured against the Manor in the past and that put the future of the club in serious doubt. We have also seen other clubs futures being risked by massive unaffordable debt being secure against their stadia. It will mean that any owner will not be able to risk the future of the club without risking their own cash. In addition if the stadium is purchased by a trust with the objective of securing the future of the club the any surplus funds generated by the ownership can be used for the benefit of the club. Kassam does not need to sell. He takes over £500k from the almost every year. If he retains ownership then he will continue to inhibit the progress of the current owner. How does the current stadium ownership benefit the club?
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 23, 2016 21:56:22 GMT
My biggest questions are - if the Stadium is majority owned by 'The Community' will DE be happy to keep his soft debt? If the Stadium makes a loss, conference center, etc. Who has that debt? Will it be the trust? Will it be OxVox? It won't be DE because the club will be a tenant. Will the 'Community Trust' have enough cash to maintain the stadium, pitch, floodlights, etc. Of course if the stadium makes a loss then the owner of the stadium has to bear the loss. This has to be factored into the business plan when the stadium is purchased. Why wouldn't the new owner be able to cover the overheads of running the stadium? What difference to DE's soft debt would a change of stadium owner make? Ok, so as long as the owners of the stadium could absorb any losses, that's ok. However, a cash contingeny is a must for this to be viable. The difference is DE may have been happy to take on the soft debt on the basis that he would own the stadium - if that's not the case, what's in it for him? He has already stated that the club isn't viable without owning the stadium. If he isn't the owner, why would he continue to bankroll us?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 23, 2016 23:07:35 GMT
You are right that profits can not be guaranteed and contingency for losses must be addressed. It is equally important that the Stadco existing revenue stream are maintained and the complex is managed in an effective manner to minimise the risk of losses. The potential for losses will increase in the line with the size of financing ongoing costs. It is just a important that the owner of the stadium have the skills required to run it. That will apply whether a trust or DE owns the stadium. If DE purchased the stadium then the capital has to come from somewhere and there will always be a cost associated with that capital (interest if borrowed or loss of return on capital if provided from cash resources). Capital is never free of cost.
DE has been prepared to take on soft debt to date, he bought the club without the stadium and he must have known that Kassam had little desire to sell. I have nothing against DE but if he is prepared to overspend to move the club forward then he has to finance the club without risking its future. He has done a great job of reducing the capital he has had to commit by rightly selling two of OUFC's assets for the best price. If he bought the stadium he would have to commit the capital needed to fund the purchase price (£10-£15M) and continue to fund losses/overspending. Yes the stadium may start to provide a return but Kassam has hardly any debt assigned to the Stadco so it's ability to help finapnce the club will reduce in line with financing costs.
If fans get behind the purchase then they can help reduce the financing costs. For example shares may be issued and loan notes, at lower cost than commercial borrowing/ higher coupon than the paltry interest rates available from banks, may be issued. The Oxvox statement stated that the stadium would be purchased for the benefit of OUFC. That has to be more attractive to DE of the current situation. OUFC will be able to organise events at the stadium in the knowledge that profits will benefit them whether that be direct or via the Stadco/trust. Yes there will be less control by DE and I can see that being a negative for him. However, the future of OUFC has to be the focus of fans. Does anyone really know the depth of DE's pockets. Everyone thought that Maxwell had piles of cash, IL was, on paper, very wealthy at one point but that changed and he was not able/willing to continue to take the club forward.
Did you go to Coventry last week. Their stadium has gone from the home of the sky blues to the home of the wasps with very little chance of them ever regaining it. This was as a result of poor ownership of the club. Darlington went out of business be casuse an owner decided to fund a white elephant of a ground. Portsmouth were very close to going bust before their fans took control. Rushden & Diamonds virtually went out of existence following years of overspending and their supporters trust could not maintain the club. I am sure that there are many other examples.
If DE did purchase the stadium would it really make a difference to his ambition of taking us to The Championship?
|
|
|
Post by old on Oct 24, 2016 7:56:25 GMT
Of course if the stadium makes a loss then the owner of the stadium has to bear the loss. This has to be factored into the business plan when the stadium is purchased. Why wouldn't the new owner be able to cover the overheads of running the stadium? What difference to DE's soft debt would a change of stadium owner make? Ok, so as long as the owners of the stadium could absorb any losses, that's ok. However, a cash contingeny is a must for this to be viable. The difference is DE may have been happy to take on the soft debt on the basis that he would own the stadium - if that's not the case, what's in it for him? He has already stated that the club isn't viable without owning the stadium. If he isn't the owner, why would he continue to bankroll us? Your last paragraph is very relevant Finlander. We will have to wait and see if this project by Oxvox is successful. I would hope that DE would continue to fund the club as it may well prove difficult to sell the club as a standalone business if the club is still a tenant. We will just have to wait and see what the outcome will be. One thing for certain is that Kassam will be the winner either way.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 24, 2016 9:07:01 GMT
Ok, so as long as the owners of the stadium could absorb any losses, that's ok. However, a cash contingeny is a must for this to be viable. The difference is DE may have been happy to take on the soft debt on the basis that he would own the stadium - if that's not the case, what's in it for him? He has already stated that the club isn't viable without owning the stadium. If he isn't the owner, why would he continue to bankroll us? Your last paragraph is very relevant Finlander. We will have to wait and see if this project by Oxvox is successful. I would hope that DE would continue to fund the club as it may well prove difficult to sell the club as a standalone business if the club is still a tenant. We will just have to wait and see what the outcome will be. One thing for certain is that Kassam will be the winner either way. Kassam is always the winner. He was able to take about £3/4 Million from the Stadco in the last accounts and the Leisure Complex "Investment Property" was revalued up by £3m to £23M in that set of accounts for the same period. I haven't looked at the hotels yet!
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 24, 2016 12:24:14 GMT
If fans get behind the purchase then they can help reduce the financing costs. For example shares may be issued and loan notes, at lower cost than commercial borrowing/ higher coupon than the paltry interest rates available from banks, may be issued. The Oxvox statement stated that the stadium would be purchased for the benefit of OUFC. That has to be more attractive to DE of the current situation. OUFC will be able to organise events at the stadium in the knowledge that profits will benefit them whether that be direct or via the Stadco/trust. Yes there will be less control by DE and I can see that being a negative for him. However, the future of OUFC has to be the focus of fans. Does anyone really know the depth of DE's pockets. Everyone thought that Maxwell had piles of cash, IL was, on paper, very wealthy at one point but that changed and he was not able/willing to continue to take the club forward. Scoob's whole post is very good but this in particular caught my eye. To be able to invest in the club with a potential return would be very attractive. In a similar vein, if DE was to invest in the stadium then he too would be looking at a return but also saving on the huge rent that is currently charged along with "service charges" that are disputed. A win, win situation.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Oct 24, 2016 17:57:14 GMT
A straight forward question "How does a stadium owned by a "Community Trust" be of any benefit to Oxford United as a football club? Will they be offered a reduction in rent and service charge? Will the club keep all revenue made on match days? The main question that needs clarity is future funding to maintain the stadium. Would it it not be a better option to back DE and his open offer to buy the stadium as then the club will be better served. I'm sure his "Community Stadium" would be a better option for both the club and Oxfordshire without taking out grants and loans which will need servicing. I'm not ITK at all but from the outside looking in: 1. How could a not for profit landlord who's raison d'etre of supporting the club not benefit the club compared to a commercial profiteering landlord? 2. Surely this is very likely. Even if you gave investors a return, surely it's going to be less than FK's profit as these people are mostly going to be in it to support the club not as a pure investment vehicle. 3. You would think that or some sort of profit share would be highly likely given the whole point of doing this is to benefit the club. This of course assumes a few things (as you have done with your questions), but it's what appears to be most likely to me.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2016 10:38:13 GMT
A straight forward question "How does a stadium owned by a "Community Trust" be of any benefit to Oxford United as a football club? Will they be offered a reduction in rent and service charge? Will the club keep all revenue made on match days? The main question that needs clarity is future funding to maintain the stadium. Would it it not be a better option to back DE and his open offer to buy the stadium as then the club will be better served. I'm sure his "Community Stadium" would be a better option for both the club and Oxfordshire without taking out grants and loans which will need servicing. I'm not ITK at all but from the outside looking in: 1. How could a not for profit landlord who's raison d'etre of supporting the club not benefit the club compared to a commercial profiteering landlord? 2. Surely this is very likely. Even if you gave investors a return, surely it's going to be less than FK's profit as these people are mostly going to be in it to support the club not as a pure investment vehicle. 3. You would think that or some sort of profit share would be highly likely given the whole point of doing this is to benefit the club. This of course assumes a few things (as you have done with your questions), but it's what appears to be most likely to me. I am also not ITK, but for this to work: - The rent for the Stadium for the club must clearly be reduced - Revenues must be made to grow significantly (just a really small example, but the Denis Smith Promotion winning dinner is not happening at the Kassam. Ridiculous if you think about it. It has been well documented about the lunches before games which would clearly generate additional income. There must be lots of similar instances) - So the club must be able to share the profits on such revenues as well as providing facilities to the community - somehow the 4th stand, bringing the ground up to standard etc has to be funded. I look on with interest how Oxvox are going to achieve all of that!!
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 11:57:39 GMT
But that's my point - Stadco made a profit of around £500k - if the rent is reduced so is the profit. Straight off the bottom line .
The profit is then reduced to a tiny amount - nowhere near enough to sustain a club challenging for promotion.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Oct 25, 2016 12:07:26 GMT
But that's my point - Stadco made a profit of around £500k - if the rent is reduced so is the profit. Straight off the bottom line . The profit is then reduced to a tiny amount - nowhere near enough to sustain a club challenging for promotion. You are talking about Stadco here. Not exactly the pinnacle of stadium management or conference facilitator. Run properly the stadium could generate a very tidy turnover.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2016 13:01:38 GMT
And surely most of that 500K profit is coming directly from the club anyway!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 13:19:52 GMT
But that's my point - Stadco made a profit of around £500k - if the rent is reduced so is the profit. Straight off the bottom line . The profit is then reduced to a tiny amount - nowhere near enough to sustain a club challenging for promotion. But in the same breath the club isn't spending that 500k either. And everything they do on top then becomes profit. As it stands it would break even with Oufc paying no rent
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2016 15:01:15 GMT
But that's my point - Stadco made a profit of around £500k - if the rent is reduced so is the profit. Straight off the bottom line . The profit is then reduced to a tiny amount - nowhere near enough to sustain a club challenging for promotion. Er not necessarily. I reckon that revenue could be significantly grown. The plan must be to grow profits (which shouldn't be too difficult) and reduce the rent to the club. The structure will be interesting (ie) I may be totally wrong but would assume that the Trust owning the ground wouldn't make a profit? I am assuming it would pay back any debt and reinvest any surplus into the Ground (does anybody have any idea of how this would work?)
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2016 15:03:12 GMT
But that's my point - Stadco made a profit of around £500k - if the rent is reduced so is the profit. Straight off the bottom line . The profit is then reduced to a tiny amount - nowhere near enough to sustain a club challenging for promotion. Er not necessarily. I reckon that revenue could be significantly grown. The plan must be to grow profits (which shouldn't be too difficult) and reduce the rent to the club. The structure will be interesting (ie) I may be totally wrong but would assume that the Trust owning the ground wouldn't make a profit? I am assuming it would pay back any debt and reinvest any surplus into the Ground (does anybody have any idea of how this would work?) As a follow up didn't the Oxvox statement state that they were speaking to Stadium architects about the growth of Stadium revenue steams. I am suspecting that if owned by the community the Stadium/ Conference facilities would be used far far more than it is at the moment
|
|