|
Post by Yellow River on Feb 3, 2017 9:30:43 GMT
Ok - so if the Stadium makes a £1m loss and can't cover it, gets into financial trouble, who covers this? Where would this leave the club? In theory, you could have the Stadium company in Admin, with the Club a creditor? Not trying to be awkward, just playing devils advocate looking at worst case scenarios. That scenario has been the one that has concerned me most. Especially if another 1 million is needed to get the stadium back to an average standard (fixing leaks, making good bad jobs, etc) Current state of the stadium and it's lack of maintenance over the years will no doubt be part of the deal. The devil will be in the detail & that's why we have to be patient.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Feb 3, 2017 9:50:55 GMT
Let's all give up and keep paying extortionate rent for substandard accomodation to Firoz then That won't change, only the landlord will. I hope this group will sell to the club eventually. When you keep saying the club, this really means the owner doesn't it? As has been pointed out, some owners are good, some are bad... and we all know what can happen when a bad owner has his hands on the ground. Do you really want the possibility of that happening again? The stadium owned by a trust is surely the best way for long term stability of the 'club'. Lower rent than currently, and the ability to share in, and/or generate extra income from stadium usage.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 10:08:52 GMT
Well that's exactly what de thought he could do right up until recently. How many threads does it need explaining that the stadium will not bring in the millions of profit . Say de pumps another £10m into the club, because he owns bricks and mortar , what then ? It's not like a house, where you can cash out your investment at the end, stadium don't go up massively in value so He still doesn't get it back, unless he sells that bricks and mortar. So it really is no different . Ok - so if the Stadium makes a £1m loss and can't cover it, gets into financial trouble, who covers this? Where would this leave the club? In theory, you could have the Stadium company in Admin, with the Club a creditor? Not trying to be awkward, just playing devils advocate looking at worst case scenarios. What happens in the exact same situation if de owns the stadium ?? Plus run properly it should never be able to get near that much debt. If like it says above oufc pay a rent that is enough that stadco breaks even (no profit, and then is responsible for maintenance. They would have to go some to lose £1m. If the money to do the deal is also coming from friendly sources like Stewart then there is going to be less to have to pay back as the stadco won't have loans against it. What would make sense is for de/oufc to buy in at that stage, they then also become part of the trust, have a say in how it's run, and also keep the borrowing against the stadium lower
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 3, 2017 10:48:16 GMT
When the last StadCo accounts were published for the year to end September 2015, the company had "debts" of around £7m. The lions share of this (just over £4m) was to other Firoka companies. Another £1.4m was "Deferred grant income" - I would assume this to be an amortisation of the Football Federation grant for building the stadium.
The company made a pre-tax profit of £713,672.
Now bear in mind that these figures are generated in a scenario where the potential revenues were far from being maximised. There are still plenty of people who won't spend money at the stadium because it will in some way benefit Kassam.
So, if the purchase of the stadium is to be funded by some combination of "soft" loans, charitable donations (depending on how the new StadCo is constituted), a share issue etc, and this is coupled with an upswing in the revenues obtained through food and beverage sales, use of the facilities by the wider community etc etc, then I believe it would be safe to assume that profitability should actually increase.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Feb 3, 2017 10:54:15 GMT
Far too many unknowns for me. If DE owns the Stadium - he has an asset to offset any of his own losses against. Business is tough, just because it 'should' be run correctly doesn't mean it will or make profit. We shouldn't need to bring in 'emergency funding' to help the stadium company out of trouble. Loans are loans, it doesn't matter if they are soft - still piles up the debt. If this is the case, who is responsible for paying these back?
I'm guessing that you think that SD will be part of the group that is helping to fund this initially - but if it's not run properly, you seem to be suggesting that he gives more soft loans to bail out something that he is part of.
I'm struggling to see how that is any different from DE having to prop up the club?
|
|
|
Post by foley on Feb 3, 2017 10:54:22 GMT
When the last StadCo accounts were published for the year to end September 2015, the company had "debts" of around £7m. The lions share of this (just over £4m) was to other Firoka companies. Another £1.4m was "Deferred grant income" - I would assume this to be an amortisation of the Football Federation grant for building the stadium. The company made a pre-tax profit of £713,672. Now bear in mind that these figures are generated in a scenario where the potential revenues were far from being maximised. There are still plenty of people who won't spend money at the stadium because it will in some way benefit Kassam. So, if the purchase of the stadium is to be funded by some combination of "soft" loans, charitable donations (depending on how the new StadCo is constituted), a share issue etc, and this is coupled with an upswing in the revenues obtained through food and beverage sales, use of the facilities by the wider community etc etc, then I believe it would be safe to assume that profitability should actually increase. Totally agree Miles. I can only think that the plan is to significantly increase the use of the Stadium and grow the profits. Small examples recently have been the stopping of using the restaurant on matchdays as well as not even having the event for the 1986 promotion team at the Stadium. Oxvox have mentioned looking at spaces unused under the East Stand. I would imagine that there would be significant opportunities for growth of revenues.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Feb 3, 2017 10:58:36 GMT
Far too many unknowns for me. If DE owns the Stadium - he has an asset to offset any of his own losses against. Business is tough, just because it 'should' be run correctly doesn't mean it will or make profit. We shouldn't need to bring in 'emergency funding' to help the stadium company out of trouble. Loans are loans, it doesn't matter if they are soft - still piles up the debt. If this is the case, who is responsible for paying these back? I'm guessing that you think that SD will be part of the group that is helping to fund this initially - but if it's not run properly, you seem to be suggesting that he gives more soft loans to bail out something that he is part of. I'm struggling to see how that is any different from DE having to prop up the club? Oxvox are doing a huge amount of work on this. It is making a profit at the moment and they will be looking at significantly increasing revenues and profits (and it isn't difficult to see where some of this could come from) At the moment I think that you are looking a little too much at the downside. With lots of stay away customers at the moment, the Stadium is making a decent profit. I am sure that things will be clearer in due course, but to me there are far more relevant issues as opposed to whether the community trust will right royally stuff up a good business opportunity and turn a healthy profit into a loss...
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Feb 3, 2017 11:04:10 GMT
I'm just being realistic - you can't assume anything in business. Projections and forecasts look great on paper - but this doesn't pay the bills.
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Feb 3, 2017 11:12:00 GMT
I would love to know if "only" the club will pay rent for use of the stadium and if so why?
Why can't the "Owner" on behaif of oufc be part of the Trust? with a clause if he/she leaves the club the next "Owner" has the same option? this way the club pays no rent and all parties involved have same responsibilty of upkeep of the stadium and benefits from income streams
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 3, 2017 11:17:58 GMT
Far too many unknowns for me. If DE owns the Stadium - he has an asset to offset any of his own losses against. Business is tough, just because it 'should' be run correctly doesn't mean it will or make profit. We shouldn't need to bring in 'emergency funding' to help the stadium company out of trouble. Loans are loans, it doesn't matter if they are soft - still piles up the debt. If this is the case, who is responsible for paying these back? I'm guessing that you think that SD will be part of the group that is helping to fund this initially - but if it's not run properly, you seem to be suggesting that he gives more soft loans to bail out something that he is part of. I'm struggling to see how that is any different from DE having to prop up the club? Yes, he has an asset to secure lending against - which is how we got into a god-awful mess in the mid '90s. The big difference between DE "propping up the club" and SD "propping up" the stadium company really should be obvious. The club building up debt has immediate ramifications for it's long-term survivability, but such debt being against a StadCo does not. There is also the point that SD is significantly wealthier than DE and, I would suggest, more inclined to use that to support the club over a longer term (sorry, Stewart, not trying to spend your money for you!). As Foley suggests, I think you are being overly-pessimistic with this and whilst asking the "what if?" questions is absolutely right, you only seem to be doing that of one party. And, yes, you are being pessimistic rather than realistic.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 3, 2017 11:25:33 GMT
I would love to know if "only" the club will pay rent for use of the stadium and if so why? Why can't the "Owner" on behaif of oufc be part of the Trust? with a clause if he/she leaves the club the next "Owner" has the same option? this way the club pays no rent and all parties involved have same responsibilty of upkeep of the stadium and benefits from income streams You could argue that the club as an entity could be a member of any community trust, but I don't think having the "owner" as an individual would work. More fundamentally, why would such a position allow the club to pay no rent? As the primary tenant of the stadium, surely they would have to pay something, either through significantly contributing to the initial purchase, or through a rental payment of some sort? And I'd be quite certain that other parties using the facilities will be charged some form of rent whether it's a longer-term rental of a "community" facility, or short-term items such as conferences and events. Not levelling this criticism directly at you horseman, but some of the posts on here seem to be straying into some sort of bizarre world where it's expected that the club will not purchase the stadium, pay no rent, AND get all the revenues. I simply can't get my head round how ANY deal on these terms could be financially viable.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Feb 3, 2017 11:34:36 GMT
Far too many unknowns for me. If DE owns the Stadium - he has an asset to offset any of his own losses against. Business is tough, just because it 'should' be run correctly doesn't mean it will or make profit. We shouldn't need to bring in 'emergency funding' to help the stadium company out of trouble. Loans are loans, it doesn't matter if they are soft - still piles up the debt. If this is the case, who is responsible for paying these back? I'm guessing that you think that SD will be part of the group that is helping to fund this initially - but if it's not run properly, you seem to be suggesting that he gives more soft loans to bail out something that he is part of. I'm struggling to see how that is any different from DE having to prop up the club? Yes, he has an asset to secure lending against - which is how we got into a god-awful mess in the mid '90s. The big difference between DE "propping up the club" and SD "propping up" the stadium company really should be obvious. The club building up debt has immediate ramifications for it's long-term survivability, but such debt being against a StadCo does not. There is also the point that SD is significantly wealthier than DE and, I would suggest, more inclined to use that to support the club over a longer term (sorry, Stewart, not trying to spend your money for you!). As Foley suggests, I think you are being overly-pessimistic with this and whilst asking the "what if?" questions is absolutely right, you only seem to be doing that of one party. And, yes, you are being pessimistic rather than realistic. When you cut through all of this it boils down to the fact that hardly any club in the UK runs at a profit - all are in some manner reliant on a wealthy investor who is prepared to invest without any real chance of a return. That's a sorry state of affairs which I put mostly on the PL.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Feb 3, 2017 13:22:05 GMT
That scenario has been the one that has concerned me most. Especially if another 1 million is needed to get the stadium back to an average standard (fixing leaks, making good bad jobs, etc) Current state of the stadium and it's lack of maintenance over the years will no doubt be part of the deal. The devil will be in the detail & that's why we have to be patient. My assumption is, that it is, and OxVox are on it, but even so, does concern me. I'd be worried that a short term bodge will be done and the real work will have to be done a year or two down the line. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd report the StadCo to the H&S people at the council because I've seen a few people almost stack it in the East Stand concourse where the roof is leaking.
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Feb 3, 2017 14:08:37 GMT
I would love to know if "only" the club will pay rent for use of the stadium and if so why? Why can't the "Owner" on behaif of oufc be part of the Trust? with a clause if he/she leaves the club the next "Owner" has the same option? this way the club pays no rent and all parties involved have same responsibilty of upkeep of the stadium and benefits from income streams You could argue that the club as an entity could be a member of any community trust, but I don't think having the "owner" as an individual would work. More fundamentally, why would such a position allow the club to pay no rent? As the primary tenant of the stadium, surely they would have to pay something, either through significantly contributing to the initial purchase, or through a rental payment of some sort? And I'd be quite certain that other parties using the facilities will be charged some form of rent whether it's a longer-term rental of a "community" facility, or short-term items such as conferences and events. Not levelling this criticism directly at you horseman, but some of the posts on here seem to be straying into some sort of bizarre world where it's expected that the club will not purchase the stadium, pay no rent, AND get all the revenues. I simply can't get my head round how ANY deal on these terms could be financially viable. I did say the Owner "on behaif" of the club You say the club are "primary" tenant but surely that is only the current position, once the stadium becomes community owned then All current bets are off and new Deals have to be negociated hence why i asked why the club/owner cannot be part of the trust. Surely anyone involved in the trust are not going to be paying rent when they wish to use it (eg council/s) so why can't oufc(owner) be part of it and have the same privilege? am i missing something?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 3, 2017 15:22:35 GMT
I did say the Owner "on behaif" of the club You say the club are "primary" tenant but surely that is only the current position, once the stadium becomes community owned then All current bets are off and new Deals have to be negociated hence why i asked why the club/owner cannot be part of the trust. Surely anyone involved in the trust are not going to be paying rent when they wish to use it (eg council/s) so why can't oufc(owner) be part of it and have the same privilege? am i missing something? So, the club is going to pony up the required sums to help purchase the stadium then?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 16:51:40 GMT
You could argue that the club as an entity could be a member of any community trust, but I don't think having the "owner" as an individual would work. More fundamentally, why would such a position allow the club to pay no rent? As the primary tenant of the stadium, surely they would have to pay something, either through significantly contributing to the initial purchase, or through a rental payment of some sort? And I'd be quite certain that other parties using the facilities will be charged some form of rent whether it's a longer-term rental of a "community" facility, or short-term items such as conferences and events. Not levelling this criticism directly at you horseman, but some of the posts on here seem to be straying into some sort of bizarre world where it's expected that the club will not purchase the stadium, pay no rent, AND get all the revenues. I simply can't get my head round how ANY deal on these terms could be financially viable. I did say the Owner "on behaif" of the club You say the club are "primary" tenant but surely that is only the current position, once the stadium becomes community owned then All current bets are off and new Deals have to be negociated hence why i asked why the club/owner cannot be part of the trust. Surely anyone involved in the trust are not going to be paying rent when they wish to use it (eg council/s) so why can't oufc(owner) be part of it and have the same privilege? am i missing something? I haven't seen anyone say the club/Darryl can't be part of the make up of the trust ? I don't see that means we won't still have to pay rent though. It may mean it's slightly less as the loans to acquire it to start with would be less, and they would have a say in how it's run as well. All depends how it's worked, if Stewart is putting up a large chunk, would he be happy for others to use it at the same price rent as oufc ? Would oufc rent be less the more they put in ? Lots of different scenarios, that will only be explained when the report is published, the only thing that I can see is, whatever happens it will be better than what we currently have, and oxvox/sd wouldn't sign us up to a situation that isn't favourable to oufc
|
|
|
Post by horseman on Feb 3, 2017 18:07:40 GMT
I did say the Owner "on behaif" of the club You say the club are "primary" tenant but surely that is only the current position, once the stadium becomes community owned then All current bets are off and new Deals have to be negociated hence why i asked why the club/owner cannot be part of the trust. Surely anyone involved in the trust are not going to be paying rent when they wish to use it (eg council/s) so why can't oufc(owner) be part of it and have the same privilege? am i missing something? So, the club is going to pony up the required sums to help purchase the stadium then? well DE made offers for the stadium so for a % of that offer he on behaif of oufc would be part of the trust so why not?
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Feb 3, 2017 18:14:26 GMT
That won't change, only the landlord will. I hope this group will sell to the club eventually. Whether that changes or not, the club have said many a time that the requirement is to grow revenues through the use of the stadium (which currently go to FK). So this most certainly would change if the ground is owned by the community trust. Do we have guarantees of that? Does anyone know how many investors are putting money into this, who they are and what they want out of this? Will all parties get along with each other? Who will be the ultimate decision maker and ultimate beneficial owner? Does the deal include the whole of the stadium i.e the conferencing part too?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 18:21:56 GMT
Whether that changes or not, the club have said many a time that the requirement is to grow revenues through the use of the stadium (which currently go to FK). So this most certainly would change if the ground is owned by the community trust. Do we have guarantees of that? Does anyone know how many investors are putting money into this, who they are and what they want out of this? Will all parties get along with each other? Who will be the ultimate decision maker and ultimate beneficial owner? Does the deal include the whole of the stadium i.e the conferencing part too? I would guess nearly everyone being asked or who are investing are doing so for the benefit of oufc, rather than looking to make profit.
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on Feb 3, 2017 19:09:17 GMT
Do we have guarantees of that? Does anyone know how many investors are putting money into this, who they are and what they want out of this? Will all parties get along with each other? Who will be the ultimate decision maker and ultimate beneficial owner? Does the deal include the whole of the stadium i.e the conferencing part too? I would guess nearly everyone being asked or who are investing are doing so for the benefit of oufc, rather than looking to make profit. Nice sentiment but very unlikely. What happens when one of the parties wants to realise his investment? If the council are involved what happens when the councillors who support this deal are no longer councillors?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Feb 3, 2017 19:53:41 GMT
Nice sentiment but very unlikely. What happens when one of the parties wants to realise his investment? If the council are involved what happens when the councillors who support this deal are no longer councillors? Why very unlikely? It seems that when it comes to Eales' investing, it's for the love of it and not a return, but if any other investment is made then clearly they must be in it to turn a buck! And, again, the likelihood of this being a straight cash deal is absolutely tiny. Much more likely that it involves other property and planning deals, so the actual "investment" to be realised may not actually be that much.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 20:29:56 GMT
I would guess nearly everyone being asked or who are investing are doing so for the benefit of oufc, rather than looking to make profit. Nice sentiment but very unlikely. What happens when one of the parties wants to realise his investment? If the council are involved what happens when the councillors who support this deal are no longer councillors? What if the council are not putting up any actual money! Their "investment" is keeping a football club sustainable in the county. The two main investors could be Stewart and Darryl for example, plus maybe a share scheme amounts other fans. Who would u say is going to call their money in ? You ? Me ? Again I think your looking at it from a negative angle, people investing won't be doing so to make money. Their are other clubs that have gone down this route. Again your points apply just as much if not more so to any individual owning the stadium. Say Darryl buys it, we go on a smaller but shorter lease, what happens when he wants to realise his investment ?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 3, 2017 20:58:38 GMT
Nice sentiment but very unlikely. What happens when one of the parties wants to realise his investment? If the council are involved what happens when the councillors who support this deal are no longer councillors? What if the council are not putting up any actual money! Their "investment" is keeping a football club sustainable in the county. The two main investors could be Stewart and Darryl for example, plus maybe a share scheme amounts other fans. Who would u say is going to call their money in ? You ? Me ? Again I think your looking at it from a negative angle, people investing won't be doing so to make money. Their are other clubs that have gone down this route. Again your points apply just as much if not more so to any individual owning the stadium. Say Darryl buys it, we go on a smaller but shorter lease, what happens when he wants to realise his investment ? This thread is becoming speculative to an alarming degree. What we do know is that whatever the structure of the entity, and whatever it's financing, there is a very considerable investment required in the stadium to make it fit for Championship football. The new entity will need to spend immediately and stockpile cash for the fourth stand. As such, it is highly unlikely that the new entity will be able to let OUFC play for free. It will desperately need that income to prevent what finlandia warns against. The real benefit to the club will be the ability to make profitable use of the stadium on match-days. It's realistic to think that that will see an upswing to the club, as tenant, of 150k/250k per annum. That is meaningful, does not jeopardise the overall profitability of the StadCo and is to everyone's benefit. Firoka has always been short-sighted about the possibilities of being a real partner to its main tenant. 'Can't see the wood for the trees' is, I think, the right phrase. One can be sure that the new entity will not be so short-sighted. Once local businesses know that profits are being devoted to the long-term improvement of the stadium they will be much more likely to want to use the venue during the week.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 21:11:17 GMT
What if the council are not putting up any actual money! Their "investment" is keeping a football club sustainable in the county. The two main investors could be Stewart and Darryl for example, plus maybe a share scheme amounts other fans. Who would u say is going to call their money in ? You ? Me ? Again I think your looking at it from a negative angle, people investing won't be doing so to make money. Their are other clubs that have gone down this route. Again your points apply just as much if not more so to any individual owning the stadium. Say Darryl buys it, we go on a smaller but shorter lease, what happens when he wants to realise his investment ? This thread is becoming speculative to an alarming degree. What we do know is that whatever the structure of the entity, and whatever it's financing, there is a very considerable investment required in the stadium to make it fit for Championship football. The new entity will need to spend immediately and stockpile cash for the fourth stand. As such, it is highly unlikely that the new entity will be able to let OUFC play for free. It will desperately need that income to prevent what finlandia warns against. The real benefit to the club will be the ability to make profitable use of the stadium on match-days. It's realistic to think that that will see an upswing to the club, as tenant, of 150k/250k per annum. That is meaningful, does not jeopardise the overall profitability of the StadCo and is to everyone's benefit. Firoka has always been short-sighted about the possibilities of being a real partner to its main tenant. 'Can't see the wood for the trees' is, I think, the right phrase. One can be sure that the new entity will not be so short-sighted. Once local businesses know that profits are being devoted to the long-term improvement of the stadium they will be much more likely to want to use the venue during the week. But is it not quite possible that profits from the non footballing activities will go back into the stadium, for further improvements rather than actually into the people who put the money up. I thought that's was the overall idea of a trust. As in not for profit
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 3, 2017 21:22:03 GMT
This thread is becoming speculative to an alarming degree. What we do know is that whatever the structure of the entity, and whatever it's financing, there is a very considerable investment required in the stadium to make it fit for Championship football. The new entity will need to spend immediately and stockpile cash for the fourth stand. As such, it is highly unlikely that the new entity will be able to let OUFC play for free. It will desperately need that income to prevent what finlandia warns against. The real benefit to the club will be the ability to make profitable use of the stadium on match-days. It's realistic to think that that will see an upswing to the club, as tenant, of 150k/250k per annum. That is meaningful, does not jeopardise the overall profitability of the StadCo and is to everyone's benefit. Firoka has always been short-sighted about the possibilities of being a real partner to its main tenant. 'Can't see the wood for the trees' is, I think, the right phrase. One can be sure that the new entity will not be so short-sighted. Once local businesses know that profits are being devoted to the long-term improvement of the stadium they will be much more likely to want to use the venue during the week. But is it not quite possible that profits from the non footballing activities will go back into the stadium, for further improvements rather than actually into the people who put the money up. I thought that's was the overall idea of a trust. As in not for profit I think so, but it depends on whether the investment is structured as debt or equity. If it is debt to the Council, then they will have to collect that. If it is equity from wealthy fans then it will doubtless go back into the asset, as it would be improving the value of the asset. This is why 'friendly' money would be preferable. Not to alleviate club rent, but to ensure that said rent is gradually building the capacity and capability of OUFC's home. If, in five years, OUFC is paying 500k for a 20,000 capacity stadium from which it keeps a significant proportion of matchday income then that will be so much better than where we are now.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 3, 2017 21:25:22 GMT
But is it not quite possible that profits from the non footballing activities will go back into the stadium, for further improvements rather than actually into the people who put the money up. I thought that's was the overall idea of a trust. As in not for profit I think so, but it depends on whether the investment is structured as debt or equity. If it is debt to the Council, then they will have to collect that. If it is equity from wealthy fans then it will doubtless go back into the asset, as it would be improving the value of the asset. This is why 'friendly' money would be preferable. Not to alleviate club rent, but to ensure that said rent is gradually building the capacity and capability of OUFC's home. If, in five years, OUFC is paying 500k for a 20,000 capacity stadium from which it keeps a significant proportion of matchday income then that will be so much better than where we are now. That's always the way I've imagined it would work. The council just offering the sweetener. Their payout coming in the form of much needed housing on what ever planning fk gets, as well as a facility they can use cheaper than they do at present and a big pr tick in saying we helped our local football side people vote for us
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 3, 2017 21:44:10 GMT
I think so, but it depends on whether the investment is structured as debt or equity. If it is debt to the Council, then they will have to collect that. If it is equity from wealthy fans then it will doubtless go back into the asset, as it would be improving the value of the asset. This is why 'friendly' money would be preferable. Not to alleviate club rent, but to ensure that said rent is gradually building the capacity and capability of OUFC's home. If, in five years, OUFC is paying 500k for a 20,000 capacity stadium from which it keeps a significant proportion of matchday income then that will be so much better than where we are now. That's always the way I've imagined it would work. The council just offering the sweetener. Their payout coming in the form of much needed housing on what ever planning fk gets, as well as a facility they can use cheaper than they do at present and a big pr tick in saying we helped our local football side people vote for us No - I'd be amazed if the Council did not need to collect the interest. They just couldn't explain away spending public money on that when other things are under so much pressure.
|
|
|
Post by Barts on Feb 3, 2017 22:13:54 GMT
If the council were to give land as part of any deal, then there would be a value to the land and that (I'm guessing) would be the trust's debt too them.
I think things like this (structuring the finance) on top of negotiations for the ground itself, go along way to explain why it's going too take a few months too push through.
|
|
|
Post by jimmycarterxi on Feb 4, 2017 1:17:11 GMT
I would love to know if "only" the club will pay rent for use of the stadium and if so why? Why can't the "Owner" on behaif of oufc be part of the Trust? with a clause if he/she leaves the club the next "Owner" has the same option? this way the club pays no rent and all parties involved have same responsibilty of upkeep of the stadium and benefits from income streams I'm sure if we owned our own ground then we the fans would be more than happy to help with the upkeep of the stadium for free
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Feb 4, 2017 7:15:47 GMT
Ok-so very rough figures. I know that some fans still boycott the food/beer at the Stadium. But, lets say bottom line profit is £800k - lets take out £500k for rent/service charge, that leaves £300k - now we have 28 home games per season; Kassam takes all revenue from the ground/bar. Caterers are charged a fixed rent for the season, so that match-day revenue is fixed.
We aren't even including Stadco revenue for non match-days.
The point I'm trying to make is that if non-match-day funds go back to the trust, say £200k we are only left with £100k which has beengenerated on match-days through the season. That's not a lot left in the pot
Also, the club will only benefit from revenue at a maximum of 30 days a year. Even if fans start using the bars on match-days and the rent is reduced, with the non-match-day revenue being used to run the stadium, up-keep, etc, I'm still not sure this will be enough to even make a dent.
I know my figures are lose to say the least, but even with FK maximizing margins on beer (this will surely be lower under a trust) the match-day revenue, although a welcome revenue stream, is very low.
With the trust needing to take the non-match-day for running costs, I'm not sure how this stacks up?
|
|