|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 15:14:44 GMT
I hope so, but it leaves me feeling uneasy about debt if the stadium doesn't make enough. Who will bankroll?
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Oct 25, 2016 15:14:54 GMT
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 At the OxVox meeting about the stadium, it was said that under the East Stand is a massive 'space', that is completely unfinished and basically boarded up. Convert that into a modern day supporters club and you'll increase match day revenues significantly. That kind of place could also be used as a meeting room for the local community as well.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 16:01:56 GMT
I hope so, but it leaves me feeling uneasy about debt if the stadium doesn't make enough. Who will bankroll? That's no different to if we owned it though surely ?
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 16:20:44 GMT
The main difference is DE. If we owned DE would have a tangible asset to protect the debt. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Why would he continue to bankroll?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 16:31:18 GMT
The main difference is DE. If we owned DE would have a tangible asset to protect the debt. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Why would he continue to bankroll? But daryl has already said himself in the past that he would like to put the stadium into some sort of trust if he owned so it could never be split from the club again. Why would he continue to bankroll? Because he would now have a stadium which he is having to potentially fork out less rent on, which he can go ahead and improve to meet demand, which he can put in place revenue streams that just ain't available at the min on matchdays, like sponsorship, catering, restaurant, additional stands. He would also possibly benefit from non matchday income from conferences, stadium hire and all that without having to stump up and initial £10-15m himself
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 19:00:50 GMT
Positive - but nothing is easy or simple with United
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 25, 2016 19:07:56 GMT
The main difference is DE. If we owned DE would have a tangible asset to protect the debt. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Why would he continue to bankroll? How would it protect the debt? If DE bought the ground he would have to pay for it! i.e. If, for example, he paid £13M (the only confirmed figure quoted to date) then he would have to stump up £13M to buy it and/or a mortgage against it. That debt would then be secured against the value leaving no free equity to secure any club debt. The only way that he could secure club debt would be if the stadium value increases over time. That may happen, of course, but definitely not immediately if he pays Kassam full market value (or more). In fact a stadium has very limited opportunity to sell so the value is very insecure. A Community Trust purchase would remove an element of risk from the club. This illustrates the problem of owners coming in, overspending to secure possible upward movement of the club. This has already happened but DE has recouped some of that "investment/overspending" by selling players but he will probably have to "overspend/Invest" to take us up another level. That is all great whilst OUFC are moving upwards but when that stalls (as it usually does) then the debt just grows. OUFC end up with a stadium encumbered by massive debt then we have a problem. There are many many many many examples of clubs getting into serious financial difficulties and losing their stadium. If the Community Trust can attract funding at a relatively low cost (various methods available) then that will allow them to reduce the rent. Possibly not immediately. However, the main advantages will be to allow the club to widen its revenue streams, provide stability of the tenure of the stadium, and clarity of costs. The stadium should be treated like a residential property. The owner pays a mortgage over a long period so eventually it owns the property unencumbered by debt. This will take decades but that is another important point about the ownership being held by a trust. The trust is in it for the long term for the benefit of OUFC not to prop up the short term ego/potential gains of the club owner. Too many people are looking at this on a short term basis not the long game.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 19:10:08 GMT
Positive - but nothing is easy or simple with United That is true, but this is the most positive the stadium situation has looked in 15 years. And it certainly couldn't be worse than what we currently have.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 19:38:29 GMT
The main difference is DE. If we owned DE would have a tangible asset to protect the debt. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Why would he continue to bankroll? How would it protect the debt? If DE bought the ground he would have to pay for it! i.e. If, for example, he paid £13M (the only confirmed figure quoted to date) then he would have to stump up £13M to buy it and/or a mortgage against it. That debt would then be secured against the value leaving no free equity to secure any club debt. The only way that he could secure club debt would be if the stadium value increases over time. That may happen, of course, but definitely not immediately if he pays Kassam full market value (or more). In fact a stadium has very limited opportunity to sell so the value is very insecure. A Community Trust purchase would remove an element of risk from the club. This illustrates the problem of owners coming in, overspending to secure possible upward movement of the club. This has already happened but DE has recouped some of that "investment/overspending" by selling players but he will probably have to "overspend/Invest" to take us up another level. That is all great whilst OUFC are moving upwards but when that stalls (as it usually does) then the debt just grows. OUFC end up with a stadium encumbered by massive debt then we have a problem. There are many many many many examples of clubs getting into serious financial difficulties and losing their stadium. If the Community Trust can attract funding at a relatively low cost (various methods available) then that will allow them to reduce the rent. Possibly not immediately. However, the main advantages will be to allow the club to widen its revenue streams, provide stability of the tenure of the stadium, and clarity of costs. The stadium should be treated like a residential property. The owner pays a mortgage over a long period so eventually it owns the property unencumbered by debt. This will take decades but that is another important point about the ownership being held by a trust. The trust is in it for the long term for the benefit of OUFC not to prop up the short term ego/potential gains of the club owner. Too many people are looking at this on a short term basis not the long game. Look I agree, as long as the consortium has enough to buy the Stadium and have a very good contingency fund. If the stadium is £13m we need a good pot for emergencies, unseen costs, player acquisition, etc. You can't expect handouts from DE or SD if we need it. This needs to be profit making - I'm concerned because I can count the clubs on one hand that run at a profit. With our small fanbase, one relagation and a 10% drop in crowds could be fatal. If we have the funds, then fantastic. It will be great.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2016 19:48:27 GMT
Look I agree, as long as the consortium has enough to buy the Stadium and have a very good contingency fund. If the stadium is £13m we need a good pot for emergencies, unseen costs, player acquisition, etc. You can't expect handouts from DE or SD if we need it. This needs to be profit making - I'm concerned because I can count the clubs on one hand that run at a profit. With our small fanbase, one relagation and a 10% drop in crowds could be fatal. If we have the funds, then fantastic. It will be great. I'm probably being thick, but this 'consortium'? What is that? Do you mean the group of people and organisations who might make up the trust to buy the stadium? If so, why would they need a contingency fund for 'player acquisition'? DE would still own the club, wouldn't he?
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2016 19:54:42 GMT
If the Community Trust can attract funding at a relatively low cost (various methods available) then that will allow them to reduce the rent. Possibly not immediately. However, the main advantages will be to allow the club to widen its revenue streams, provide stability of the tenure of the stadium, and clarity of costs. The stadium should be treated like a residential property. The owner pays a mortgage over a long period so eventually it owns the property unencumbered by debt. This will take decades but that is another important point about the ownership being held by a trust. The trust is in it for the long term for the benefit of OUFC not to prop up the short term ego/potential gains of the club owner. Too many people are looking at this on a short term basis not the long game. Look I agree, as long as the consortium has enough to buy the Stadium and have a very good contingency fund. If the stadium is £13m we need a good pot for emergencies, unseen costs, player acquisition, etc. You can't expect handouts from DE or SD if we need it. This needs to be profit making - I'm concerned because I can count the clubs on one hand that run at a profit. With our small fanbase, one relagation and a 10% drop in crowds could be fatal. If we have the funds, then fantastic. It will be great. I actually think that far more than £13M is required. The forth stand needs to be built and the ground needs tidying up (to put it mildly). I actually think that if the ground is community based and if the deal is right, then the club can benefit hugely from increased revenue from football and non football functions, so that a 10% drop in crowds is less fatal. At the moment the club is losing what £1M pa when we are doing well. If the crowd drops 10% then DE has to pick up all of the additional losses. If the club can grow non football revenues, then if the crowds drop, this is less of an issue. IF Oxvox pull this off the only way that it will be a good deal is if it benefits the football club financially as well as the community.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Oct 25, 2016 20:01:15 GMT
Look I agree, as long as the consortium has enough to buy the Stadium and have a very good contingency fund. If the stadium is £13m we need a good pot for emergencies, unseen costs, player acquisition, etc. You can't expect handouts from DE or SD if we need it. This needs to be profit making - I'm concerned because I can count the clubs on one hand that run at a profit. With our small fanbase, one relagation and a 10% drop in crowds could be fatal. If we have the funds, then fantastic. It will be great. I'm probably being thick, but this 'consortium'? What is that? Do you mean the group of people and organisations who might make up the trust to buy the stadium? If so, why would they need a contingency fund for 'player acquisition'? DE would still own the club, wouldn't he? Yes, but why would he bankroll without full ownership of the biggest asset which would be the ground and all the profits that it may bring. You can't expect him to spend his own cash if the club runs at a loss. Without the ground, what would he own?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 20:06:28 GMT
I'm probably being thick, but this 'consortium'? What is that? Do you mean the group of people and organisations who might make up the trust to buy the stadium? If so, why would they need a contingency fund for 'player acquisition'? DE would still own the club, wouldn't he? Yes, but why would he bankroll without full ownership of the biggest asset which would be the ground and all the profits that it may bring. You can't expect him to spend his own cash if the club runs at a loss. Without the ground, what would he own? Exactly what he brought . Don't forget to start with he was saying that stadium ownership would be nice, but not necessarily needed. It's only since working with stadco has become impossible that he decided to make some offers
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 25, 2016 20:16:18 GMT
I'm probably being thick, but this 'consortium'? What is that? Do you mean the group of people and organisations who might make up the trust to buy the stadium? If so, why would they need a contingency fund for 'player acquisition'? DE would still own the club, wouldn't he? Yes, but why would he bankroll without full ownership of the biggest asset which would be the ground and all the profits that it may bring. You can't expect him to spend his own cash if the club runs at a loss. Without the ground, what would he own? Umm - exactly what he does now? But with what will be a better relationship with the owners of the ground, who might well reduce the rent, profit share the advertising, be reasonable about the catering, keep the facilities in proper repair etc etc etc Here is a quote from DE : "The announcement that Firoz Kassam will sell the ground to a Community Trust is hugely positive news!" There was a load more positive stuff about it in his statement as well.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 25, 2016 20:18:19 GMT
Also while not many clubs might make a profit, quite a few are in exactly that situation. Pompey and westham for example.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 25, 2016 20:47:34 GMT
I'm probably being thick, but this 'consortium'? What is that? Do you mean the group of people and organisations who might make up the trust to buy the stadium? If so, why would they need a contingency fund for 'player acquisition'? DE would still own the club, wouldn't he? Yes, but why would he bankroll without full ownership of the biggest asset which would be the ground and all the profits that it may bring. You can't expect him to spend his own cash if the club runs at a loss. Without the ground, what would he own? What he does now but with very much better terms and a better ground?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Oct 25, 2016 22:22:07 GMT
How would it protect the debt? If DE bought the ground he would have to pay for it! i.e. If, for example, he paid £13M (the only confirmed figure quoted to date) then he would have to stump up £13M to buy it and/or a mortgage against it. That debt would then be secured against the value leaving no free equity to secure any club debt. The only way that he could secure club debt would be if the stadium value increases over time. That may happen, of course, but definitely not immediately if he pays Kassam full market value (or more). In fact a stadium has very limited opportunity to sell so the value is very insecure. A Community Trust purchase would remove an element of risk from the club. This illustrates the problem of owners coming in, overspending to secure possible upward movement of the club. This has already happened but DE has recouped some of that "investment/overspending" by selling players but he will probably have to "overspend/Invest" to take us up another level. That is all great whilst OUFC are moving upwards but when that stalls (as it usually does) then the debt just grows. OUFC end up with a stadium encumbered by massive debt then we have a problem. There are many many many many examples of clubs getting into serious financial difficulties and losing their stadium. If the Community Trust can attract funding at a relatively low cost (various methods available) then that will allow them to reduce the rent. Possibly not immediately. However, the main advantages will be to allow the club to widen its revenue streams, provide stability of the tenure of the stadium, and clarity of costs. The stadium should be treated like a residential property. The owner pays a mortgage over a long period so eventually it owns the property unencumbered by debt. This will take decades but that is another important point about the ownership being held by a trust. The trust is in it for the long term for the benefit of OUFC not to prop up the short term ego/potential gains of the club owner. Too many people are looking at this on a short term basis not the long game. Look I agree, as long as the consortium has enough to buy the Stadium and have a very good contingency fund. If the stadium is £13m we need a good pot for emergencies, unseen costs, player acquisition, etc. You can't expect handouts from DE or SD if we need it. This needs to be profit making - I'm concerned because I can count the clubs on one hand that run at a profit. With our small fanbase, one relagation and a 10% drop in crowds could be fatal. If we have the funds, then fantastic. It will be great. Who is expecting handouts from anyone. Unlike most football clubs the Stadium needs to be run on a proper business basis. As I have said on other threads and in other posts there is a whole range of ways the stadium can be run. It could be that the Trust simply owns the Bricks and Mortar and leases that outright to the football club on a long lease at a specified rent with the club running the Stadco and taking all revenue/profit. Alternatively the Trust continues to run the Stadco and takes more of the revenue to cover its costs or somewhere in-between. Probably the first option is preferable as the Trustees will have less of a burden. In the first option the rent would then need to simply cover the cost of the financing. Additional cash will be need to be raised to provide a contingency fund and legal costs at the outset. That is no different to any start up business. The contingency would only be needed if the rent was not paid but there is always a risk of that happening at some time. The Stadco Profit is not particularly relevant to the viability of any purchase but the Earnings Before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortisation are. This is the cash generated before those items are taken into account. The 2015 account for the Stadco produced EBITDA of £908K but that included the last season of London Welsh. (2012 = £560k, 2013 = £930k, 2014 = £673k). Most of those figures would be wiped out if rent was no longer payable (2013-2015 includes rent from LW which has already stopped). Kassam has hardly any debt registered directly against the Stadco so most of the EBITDA (less tax) passes to his other companies. If the stadium is purchased at £13M then any immediate improvement in OUFC's financial situation would be difficult to achieve and that is why the stadium was not bought by the previous owner. Please also remember that if DE purchased the stadium then he will have to finance the purchase whether that be by a cash injection of the purchase price or other forms of financing or a combination. Whatever way it is done there is a cost either in interest terms or loss of return on capital employed so DE purchasing is not a no cost option. This is all speculation so lets see what proposals OXVOX come up with but it is not a complicated as some like to suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 26, 2016 8:06:12 GMT
I'd be interested see if FK ultimately was happy if the Trust owned the Bricks and Mortar but gave a long lease the club. In fact, it would be interesting to see what FK sees as a Trust owning the stadium looks like.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 26, 2016 9:20:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by arthurturner on Oct 26, 2016 10:20:11 GMT
Court Farm Place is owned by Oxford City Council. Oxford City FC could ground share with OUFC in a Community Stadium. I've no idea what Court Farm Place's development value is (some of you may) but its sale by the Council would go a long way to funding the purchase.
|
|
|
Post by stewdonald on Oct 26, 2016 11:23:18 GMT
You could of course go the other way. Get £8 million off Kassam to leave Grenoble Road (reckon u might even get £10 million) and use it to develop Oxford City. Develop a car park the other side of the bypass. Great access and with the building of new Barton would just be a couple of extra fields below it. You could redevelop two sides of Court Place Farm and increase capacity. If the council would then fund say a £4 million loan you could build another stand and you would have a ground easily as good as the current one for a small loan to the council. Keep the best stand for now that is there and we could grow the ground as needed.
Buying the Kassam is likely to be far more expensive and will need quite a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to standard - whereas as with the £12 million you would get from moving (there may even be grants available - don't know and naming rights) you would have 3 new stands that could be designed much better than the existing ones and would be brand new.
There is also the argument of a quick bus service from Oxford Parkway which would be just up the road. Not quite Water Eaton deal that some would like but it is a good spot for the ground and Kassam would definitely go for it as he would maximise his income from Grenoble Road. It ONLY hinges on the council saying yes and the organisation of some car parking on the field across the road. Even then people say new grounds don't have car parking! We also don't have to worry about sharing the car park on a saturday and I am sure all the families that want to go to the cinema and bowling would prefer to do so without the club there. Win Win.
One thing with the Kassam is we are so far away from the pitch that the atmosphere is not as good as it could be - this would give us a chance to improve that and we will never do that at the Kassam. The Manor used to be tight and had a great atmosphere at times. You can also build slightly steeper stands now so with a steeper rake you can have a much smaller footprint.
It may be a way not to burden the club with too much debt and get an improved stadium. However I do not know the proposed detail on the stadium and the council may well have said no already. The reality is the council already have a site for football in the city so why not just improve it rather than have 2 and use Kassam's money to pay for it rather than give him some more.
Funding is the big issue when buying the Kassam. Oxvox have done superbly to get Kassam to the table and now it comes down to money. This is where it gets difficult - there may well be plans but if money becomes an issue this could be a good back up plan.
|
|
|
Post by tbfuth14 on Oct 26, 2016 12:23:33 GMT
You could of course go the other way. Get £8 million off Kassam to leave Grenoble Road (reckon u might even get £10 million) and use it to develop Oxford City. Develop a car park the other side of the bypass. Great access and with the building of new Barton would just be a couple of extra fields below it. You could redevelop two sides of Court Place Farm and increase capacity. If the council would then fund say a £4 million loan you could build another stand and you would have a ground easily as good as the current one for a small loan to the council. Keep the best stand for now that is there and we could grow the ground as needed. Buying the Kassam is likely to be far more expensive and will need quite a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to standard - whereas as with the £12 million you would get from moving (there may even be grants available - don't know and naming rights) you would have 3 new stands that could be designed much better than the existing ones and would be brand new. There is also the argument of a quick bus service from Oxford Parkway which would be just up the road. Not quite Water Eaton deal that some would like but it is a good spot for the ground and Kassam would definitely go for it as he would maximise his income from Grenoble Road. It ONLY hinges on the council saying yes and the organisation of some car parking on the field across the road. Even then people say new grounds don't have car parking! We also don't have to worry about sharing the car park on a saturday and I am sure all the families that want to go to the cinema and bowling would prefer to do so without the club there. Win Win. One thing with the Kassam is we are so far away from the pitch that the atmosphere is not as good as it could be - this would give us a chance to improve that and we will never do that at the Kassam. The Manor used to be tight and had a great atmosphere at times. You can also build slightly steeper stands now so with a steeper rake you can have a much smaller footprint. It may be a way not to burden the club with too much debt and get an improved stadium. However I do not know the proposed detail on the stadium and the council may well have said no already. The reality is the council already have a site for football in the city so why not just improve it rather than have 2 and use Kassam's money to pay for it rather than give him some more. Funding is the big issue when buying the Kassam. Oxvox have done superbly to get Kassam to the table and now it comes down to money. This is where it gets difficult - there may well be plans but if money becomes an issue this could be a good back up plan. I actually prefer this plan! It's important to keep all options open though, whether that be the Kassam, CPF or WE.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Oct 26, 2016 14:05:43 GMT
Court Farm Place is owned by Oxford City Council. Oxford City FC could ground share with OUFC in a Community Stadium. I've no idea what Court Farm Place's development value is (some of you may) but its sale by the Council would go a long way to funding the purchase. Financially not a bad idea but I am not sure that Oxford City would like playing in a 20,000 Stadium! It would be like watching MK Dons or Coventry.
|
|
|
Post by Jem on Oct 26, 2016 14:17:45 GMT
Just noticed that 'alfonso2016', who started this thread, now has 'suspended' next to the name! What does that mean?!!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 26, 2016 14:19:04 GMT
Just noticed that 'alfonso2016', who started this thread, now has 'suspended' next to the name! What does that mean?!! I think he's a multi, or Myles has a Spanish cousin living with him using his internet 😉
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Oct 26, 2016 14:47:48 GMT
I really can't see the council "giving" us (OUFC) Court Place Farm.
My gut feeling over the history of the clubs City and United is that OUFC has been the club to be run commercially for its own gain or loss, whereas OCFC has been the council's baby for community projects. So OCFC have had Court Place Farm, the all weather pitches, indoor pitches, and run a large number of community teams whereas we run teams with the ultimate aim of improving the men's senior teams.
Also as Charlie has said, a sustainable Championship club needs at least 20K capacity, could that ever be achieved at Court Place Farm, especially as I don't think there is developable land around it to get the ancillary bars, hotels, restaurants? Look at Bolton / MK/ Coventry as recent grounds we've been to, all out of town but with those facilities.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Oct 26, 2016 15:10:25 GMT
Didn't cpf get looked at pretty seriously before the kassam was decided on. It was ruled out even then as just not being suitable
|
|
|
Post by arthurturner on Oct 26, 2016 15:53:07 GMT
You could of course go the other way. Get £8 million off Kassam to leave Grenoble Road (reckon u might even get £10 million) and use it to develop Oxford City. Develop a car park the other side of the bypass. Great access and with the building of new Barton would just be a couple of extra fields below it. You could redevelop two sides of Court Place Farm and increase capacity. If the council would then fund say a £4 million loan you could build another stand and you would have a ground easily as good as the current one for a small loan to the council. Keep the best stand for now that is there and we could grow the ground as needed. Buying the Kassam is likely to be far more expensive and will need quite a lot of money spent on it to bring it up to standard - whereas as with the £12 million you would get from moving (there may even be grants available - don't know and naming rights) you would have 3 new stands that could be designed much better than the existing ones and would be brand new. There is also the argument of a quick bus service from Oxford Parkway which would be just up the road. Not quite Water Eaton deal that some would like but it is a good spot for the ground and Kassam would definitely go for it as he would maximise his income from Grenoble Road. It ONLY hinges on the council saying yes and the organisation of some car parking on the field across the road. Even then people say new grounds don't have car parking! We also don't have to worry about sharing the car park on a saturday and I am sure all the families that want to go to the cinema and bowling would prefer to do so without the club there. Win Win. One thing with the Kassam is we are so far away from the pitch that the atmosphere is not as good as it could be - this would give us a chance to improve that and we will never do that at the Kassam. The Manor used to be tight and had a great atmosphere at times. You can also build slightly steeper stands now so with a steeper rake you can have a much smaller footprint. It may be a way not to burden the club with too much debt and get an improved stadium. However I do not know the proposed detail on the stadium and the council may well have said no already. The reality is the council already have a site for football in the city so why not just improve it rather than have 2 and use Kassam's money to pay for it rather than give him some more. Funding is the big issue when buying the Kassam. Oxvox have done superbly to get Kassam to the table and now it comes down to money. This is where it gets difficult - there may well be plans but if money becomes an issue this could be a good back up plan.
|
|
|
Post by arthurturner on Oct 26, 2016 15:58:50 GMT
Even if CFP could be developed as you suggest, what currently is the incentive for FK to pay that sort of money to the club to leave?
|
|
|
Post by WeAreTheResurrection on Oct 26, 2016 16:14:25 GMT
Even if CFP could be developed as you suggest, what currently is the incentive for FK to pay that sort of money to the club to leave? I'm assuming that with no team playing at the stadium he would be able to knock it down and sell all the land off for more housing or residential development, and earn significantly more money from it.
|
|