|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 4, 2017 8:08:23 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? It stacks up fine - it will just not make the meaningful difference to the club that the Board seem to be expecting. The matchday and non-matchday revenues will be higher. No doubt about it. And even with the club keeping most of the profit from matchdays, there should still be the 400k rent and - say - 300k non-matchday profits (minimum) rolling into the stadium company. If, and it is a big 'if', a substantial chunk of the financing is done by fans then we will surely be willing to see the rent apportioned to our financial instrument (whether it be coupon or dividend) stay within the StadCo to improve the asset. And with, say, 500k a year staying inside the company (I'm assuming a small loan from the Council, but ideally wouldn't even be that) that starts to build a healthy pot for maintenance and improvements. But, and it is a big 'but', it will not finance the expansion required to accommodate Championship football. That is a further 10 million investment. This is probably the point at which the club (whose owner would be the financial beneficiary) would need to step up to the plate. Maybe OUFC could then say: 'Ok, we now want to become part of the ownership structure, and will invest that money in return for zero rent.' At that point, the Trust would be benefitting from non-matchday income, the club from matchday income and all would be shareholders in a 21st century stadium. FWIW, I believe that once the (new) Trust looks seriously at the reality of a 20k plus stadium at Grenoble Road it will decide that it needs to move elsewhere! But that is an argument for another day. What is entirely self-evident just from this discussion is that this deal is very complex! To expect it to have been worked out in a few weeks was really odd. And we haven't even started to get into other complex issues, such as what rights Firoz's other tenants will have over parking on the stadium car-park. That is an even more complex issue which comes with questions over limitations over the underlying asset value if rights are granted in perpetuity. If OxVox reach a framework deal by June they will have done a spectacular job.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Feb 4, 2017 8:21:51 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? It stacks up fine - it will just not make the meaningful difference to the club that the Board seem to be expecting. The matchday and non-matchday revenues will be higher. No doubt about it. And even with the club keeping most of the profit from matchdays, there should still be the 400k rent and - say - 300k non-matchday profits (minimum) rolling into the stadium company. If, and it is a big 'if', a substantial chunk of the financing is done by fans then we will surely be willing to see the rent apportioned to our financial instrument (whether it be coupon or dividend) stay within the StadCo to improve the asset. And with, say, 500k a year staying inside the company (I'm assuming a small loan from the Council, but ideally wouldn't even be that) that starts to build a healthy pot for maintenance and improvements. But, and it is a big 'but', it will not finance the expansion required to accommodate Championship football. That is a further 10 million investment. This is probably the point at which the club (whose owner would be the financial beneficiary) would need to step up to the plate. Maybe OUFC could then say: 'Ok, we now want to become part of the ownership structure, and will invest that money in return for zero rent.' At that point, the Trust would be benefitting from non-matchday income, the club from matchday income and all would be shareholders in a 21st century stadium. FWIW, I believe that once the (new) Trust looks seriously at the reality of a 20k plus stadium at Grenoble Road it will decide that it needs to move elsewhere! But that is an argument for another day. What is entirely self-evident just from this discussion is that this deal is very complex! To expect it to have been worked out in a few weeks was really odd. And we haven't even started to get into other complex issues, such as what rights Firoz's other tenants will have over parking on the stadium car-park. That is an even more complex issue which comes with questions over limitations over the underlying asset value if rights are granted in perpetuity. If OxVox reach a framework deal by June they will have done a spectacular job. A well reasoned appraisal. IMO you are right about the boards false hope that buying the stadium will solve all their financial issues, the only way I could see that working is acquiring the ground and selling the club and ground together to realise its full value to them.
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on Feb 4, 2017 10:12:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 4, 2017 11:26:38 GMT
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. That's on the presumption they are putting actual money in though. I'd would guess with all the cuts and austerity that wouldn't be the case. More likely something that Kassam wants, planning or land, if it's land the council could make their money from the profits of that, like northampton were lending rather than from the stadium
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Feb 4, 2017 11:47:57 GMT
Bob Price, leader of Oxford City Council: “We are having to get a lot of legal advice on the framework of the deal.
“It’s quite unique and there are quite significant issues in terms of liabilities of the trustees should they take over the ownership both short-term and long-term, as well as the relationship with the club.
“The heads of terms we need to be drawn up are quite complex which is why we need advice on it.”But I thought Heads of Terms could be arrived at very quickly?
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on Feb 4, 2017 12:28:41 GMT
Bob Price, leader of Oxford City Council: “We are having to get a lot of legal advice on the framework of the deal.
“It’s quite unique and there are quite significant issues in terms of liabilities of the trustees should they take over the ownership both short-term and long-term, as well as the relationship with the club.
“The heads of terms we need to be drawn up are quite complex which is why we need advice on it.”But I thought Heads of Terms could be arrived at very quickly? Me bad, forgot to factor in OCC.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Feb 4, 2017 13:20:24 GMT
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. That's on the presumption they are putting actual money in though. I'd would guess with all the cuts and austerity that wouldn't be the case. More likely something that Kassam wants, planning or land, if it's land the council could make their money from the profits of that, like northampton were lending rather than from the stadium If the Council put money in (probably via a loan) then it won't come from revenue budgets where the pressures/cuts are. If they do put money in it will come from capital which can't be used for revenue budgets. If it is Council investment by a loan then interest earned on it can be used for revenue budgets and the Council could gain on reducing revenue costs to a degree by reduced property costs as part of the deal through using the meeting rooms at reduced rates at agreed times etc.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Feb 4, 2017 22:59:15 GMT
That's on the presumption they are putting actual money in though. I'd would guess with all the cuts and austerity that wouldn't be the case. More likely something that Kassam wants, planning or land, if it's land the council could make their money from the profits of that, like northampton were lending rather than from the stadium If the Council put money in (probably via a loan) then it won't come from revenue budgets where the pressures/cuts are. If they do put money in it will come from capital which can't be used for revenue budgets. If it is Council investment by a loan then interest earned on it can be used for revenue budgets and the Council could gain on reducing revenue costs to a degree by reduced property costs as part of the deal through using the meeting rooms at reduced rates at agreed times etc. I've never understood the people on here who are stating that the council would have to put millions into this community deal. As a local authority they have so much more to offer FK. But, if it comes down to it, they could offer guarantees on finance and/or underwrite finance, with provisos of course. The potential returns for their involvement is clear to anyone with a moderate understanding of local affairs. The stadium has enormous potential as a community venue. What Bob Price has stated in his, very timely, press release (very timely, for a politician!) is that a tentative approval for the work carried out so far, is in accordance with OCC. That is a huge step forward and a huge fillip to OxVox. It also means that whatever FK has requested so far is not beyond the realms of an agreement. Well done Jem and the committee.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 5, 2017 9:55:36 GMT
It stacks up fine - it will just not make the meaningful difference to the club that the Board seem to be expecting. The matchday and non-matchday revenues will be higher. No doubt about it. And even with the club keeping most of the profit from matchdays, there should still be the 400k rent and - say - 300k non-matchday profits (minimum) rolling into the stadium company. If, and it is a big 'if', a substantial chunk of the financing is done by fans then we will surely be willing to see the rent apportioned to our financial instrument (whether it be coupon or dividend) stay within the StadCo to improve the asset. And with, say, 500k a year staying inside the company (I'm assuming a small loan from the Council, but ideally wouldn't even be that) that starts to build a healthy pot for maintenance and improvements. But, and it is a big 'but', it will not finance the expansion required to accommodate Championship football. That is a further 10 million investment. This is probably the point at which the club (whose owner would be the financial beneficiary) would need to step up to the plate. Maybe OUFC could then say: 'Ok, we now want to become part of the ownership structure, and will invest that money in return for zero rent.' At that point, the Trust would be benefitting from non-matchday income, the club from matchday income and all would be shareholders in a 21st century stadium. FWIW, I believe that once the (new) Trust looks seriously at the reality of a 20k plus stadium at Grenoble Road it will decide that it needs to move elsewhere! But that is an argument for another day. What is entirely self-evident just from this discussion is that this deal is very complex! To expect it to have been worked out in a few weeks was really odd. And we haven't even started to get into other complex issues, such as what rights Firoz's other tenants will have over parking on the stadium car-park. That is an even more complex issue which comes with questions over limitations over the underlying asset value if rights are granted in perpetuity. If OxVox reach a framework deal by June they will have done a spectacular job. A well reasoned appraisal. IMO you are right about the boards false hope that buying the stadium will solve all their financial issues, the only way I could see that working is acquiring the ground and selling the club and ground together to realise its full value to them. On current football club valuations, that wouldn't work. Championship clubs go for 15 to 20 million it is true, but you wouldn't get 14 mill for club and stadium in League 1.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 5, 2017 13:28:39 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. I think that is a reasonable post but you have to remember that revenue was increased from 2013-2015 (last accounts) by the use of the stadium by London Welsh. Turnover and Profitability seemed to increase significantly over that time. Profit for 2011 and 2012 was £251k and £285k. Profit for the subsequent three years was £759k, £504k and £713K. I don't know what element this was generated as a result of LW but I expect that the Oxvox representatives will be trying to establish this.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 5, 2017 13:35:46 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. Is suggesting a £1M loss being more realistic than suggesting modest increase in revenue/profit. The Stadco has been profitable since day one. Why should that change let alone reverse to a £1M loss? Yes there has to be a way of coping with losses should they occur and this has to be factored in but lets have a sense of proportion over that possibility. PS OUFC have scored two goals v Swindon in the time I have been typing this post!!!!
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 5, 2017 13:45:42 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 don't think that having a tennant as part of the ownership structure could work. The Stadium under the ownership of a Trust will have to be run on sound business principles (unlike football clubs) to ensure that it does not get into a mess itself a tennant has a vested interest that could conflict with the aims of the Trust. The recent behaviour of the OUFC Board concerns me and is another reason they should not be involved.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 5, 2017 13:50:16 GMT
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? Probably because he would have total control of the Stadium and its operations if he owned it outright and he/future owners could secure debt against it. He may be willing to help finance it for reduced rent but I can't see that working. My belief is that the Trust should be stand alone to ensure no conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 5, 2017 14:04:50 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. In my view minimising debt has to be key in addition to contributions from "wealthy fans" a thousand "non wealthy fans' contributing an average of only £2,000 each could help considerably and give many people the opportunity to create a legacy for the benefit for OUFC and the wider community.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 5, 2017 19:30:23 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. In my view minimising debt has to be key in addition to contributions from "wealthy fans" a thousand "non wealthy fans' contributing an average of only £2,000 each could help considerably and give many people the opportunity to create a legacy for the benefit for OUFC and the wider community. Yes; agreed. I was asked about this by OxVox, and have offered to help, both in terms of contributing myself but also drumming up support. I told Jem that I thought it reasonable to expect that 2 million could be raised from supporters (extra Stewdonald), maybe more. 1 million from 10 wealthy fans who would get rotating representation on the new body, and 1 million in 500 chunks of 2k from the broader support base, who could be represented thru OxVox. Given that the business value of the entity would be at least 8 million, and the underlying development value of its asset around 20 million, it would be a sane investment; not a write-off by any means.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 5, 2017 19:33:09 GMT
In my view minimising debt has to be key in addition to contributions from "wealthy fans" a thousand "non wealthy fans' contributing an average of only £2,000 each could help considerably and give many people the opportunity to create a legacy for the benefit for OUFC and the wider community. Yes; agreed. I was asked about this by OxVox, and have offered to help, both in terms of contributing myself but also drumming up support. I told Jem that I thought it reasonable to expect that 2 million could be raised from supporters (extra Stewdonald), maybe more. 1 million from 10 wealthy fans who would get rotating representation on the new body, and 1 million in 500 chunks of 2k from the broader support base, who could be represented thru OxVox. Given that the business value of the entity would be at least 8 million, and the underlying development value of its asset around 20 million, it would be a sane investment; not a write-off by any means. I should add that the above was simply my suggestion/ best guess and by no means OxVox policy. I'm sure that the OxVox committee has taken similar informal soundings from a wide range of people.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Feb 5, 2017 19:48:04 GMT
I know that this has been mentioned before, but it is one thing paying off the debt on the ground,
But another stand, filling in the corners (so 20K Stadium WHEN we get into the Championship) and updating the current Stadium (which will cost a few quid, but goodness what do Swin*** need to do to get their wreck into shape?) will cost many millions....
Revenue growth (so any new stand having additional Corporate box/ facilities, bars, classrooms etc) will be necessary to make this work.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 5, 2017 21:18:37 GMT
I know that this has been mentioned before, but it is one thing paying off the debt on the ground, But another stand, filling in the corners (so 20K Stadium WHEN we get into the Championship) and updating the current Stadium (which will cost a few quid, but goodness what do Swin*** need to do to get their wreck into shape?) will cost many millions.... Revenue growth (so any new stand having additional Corporate box/ facilities, bars, classrooms etc) will be necessary to make this work. This is a very complex issue, on a number of fronts. Securing the ground from an unsatisfactory landlord is one thing. It makes us more sustainable and investible as a club, because the natural structural loss should in time reduce from the current 1 million a year (which has been more or less constant over the last ten years) to more like 500k a year, and that is including a competitive League 1 budget and a proper Academy. In the lower leagues, clubs are mostly fundamentally worthless, as all you are doing is buying a company that has a black hole to fill every year. DE paid 4 mill to IL, and my consortium offered 2 mill, but even that was done thru gritted teeth, as there was no asset; just a loss-making company. So it is very much in the fans' interests to make the club a safer rich man's toy in the lower leagues. Come the Championship, things are a bit different. There, the average value of clubs is circa 18 million. With our huge and growing catchment area and glamorous brand name, we could be worth even more. At that level, it would be farcical for the fans to beggar themselves to make any owner fabulous amounts of money. If any owner wanted to develop OUFC from being worth 2 or 3 million to 20 million, he would have to under-write the necessary investment so to do, as he would be the one benefitting financially from it in terms of the value of the club. Otherwise, one could imagine a scenario where an unscrupulous owner persuaded the fans to invest in buying and upgrading the stadium, only to be flogging the club on the side. Monetising to potential owners the value of those owners being given a top stadium to play in for minimal rent. That would be a straight transfer of value from the pockets of fans to owner of club. That is why I say that at some point the club need to become a partner in the new entity, or else - if it prefers - make its contribution thru increased rent, guaranteed over a number of years to enable financing of stadium build. As I state once again for the record, my strong view is that once a responsible new entity sees the financial reality of upgrading Grenoble Road compared to selling it for development and using that money to move to a new site, it will go down the latter route. In my view, the numbers are inescapable (and that is before we even get onto where the county's stadium should be, geographically). Argument for another day. But in the here and now, this (buying the ground) is not being done to grant the club a windfall or to enable us to be a 20 mill sustainable Championship club. It is being done to minimise our riskiness as a run-of-the-mill lower league club. Which is an admirable aim for a supporters trust. We cannot keep relying on the next person who can chuck in 1 million a year for a few years. At 500k a year price tag it becomes a lot more affordable.
|
|
|
Post by ryaniobirdio on Feb 5, 2017 21:27:59 GMT
It makes me sad when I go to stadiums like Rotherham, or look at a ground like Brighton's, and then look at what we have. Then I remember we don't even own it and I curl into a ball. What I would give for a decent size, properly finished stadium that is OURS.
I'm not an expert but with the demand for land in and around Oxford already far outstripping supply, I can't see the council being willing to let us build somewhere new as time goes on. Every single day that passes it slips further from our grasp. That's how it feels.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased OxVox have done what they have. I'm a lifetime member and if they asked me for £2,000 to secure the deal I'd write a cheque for double that. Them owning it is infinitely better than Kassam continuing to, in theory. I just don't know where it ends up. I don't see the end game. Presumably they do. I'm willing to trust and support them all the way.
But my god. It really shouldn't have come to this.
|
|
|
Post by manorlounger on Feb 5, 2017 21:31:06 GMT
Yes; agreed. I was asked about this by OxVox, and have offered to help, both in terms of contributing myself but also drumming up support. I told Jem that I thought it reasonable to expect that 2 million could be raised from supporters (extra Stewdonald), maybe more. 1 million from 10 wealthy fans who would get rotating representation on the new body, and 1 million in 500 chunks of 2k from the broader support base, who could be represented thru OxVox. Given that the business value of the entity would be at least 8 million, and the underlying development value of its asset around 20 million, it would be a sane investment; not a write-off by any means. I should add that the above was simply my suggestion/ best guess and by no means OxVox policy. I'm sure that the OxVox committee has taken similar informal soundings from a wide range of people. I am more inclined to suggest a wider subscription base. With current season ticket holders in excess off 5000 I would envisage far more than 500 who would want to be involved. Granted, not maybe in the sum of 2k, more modest a sum but, involved all the same. A share issue would be my vision of participation. This would need a level of regulation and representation but I can also well see OxVox as that representation. I am in full agreement with you Charlie that this would be a sane investment. With proper management and the right expertise, there is no reason why the stadium should not prosper, even become a "go to" venue.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 6, 2017 0:50:53 GMT
I know that this has been mentioned before, but it is one thing paying off the debt on the ground, But another stand, filling in the corners (so 20K Stadium WHEN we get into the Championship) and updating the current Stadium (which will cost a few quid, but goodness what do Swin*** need to do to get their wreck into shape?) will cost many millions.... Revenue growth (so any new stand having additional Corporate box/ facilities, bars, classrooms etc) will be necessary to make this work. SD suggested a cost of £7.5M to upgrade to a 20,000 seat stadium. If another £1m could be raised from investment by fans then the cost of financing £6.5 Million at 3pc over 30 years would be £325k per annum. At 50% occupancy those extra seats could generate £1.3M at an average ex VAT price of £15 per seat (probably around the current average price). The average price and occupancy should increase in the Championship so would add massive value for the Club (75% occupancy at £20 per ticket would give revenue of £2.6M to the club in addition to much increased revenue from the existing stands). Also there would be the ability to add value by including Exec Boxes, Lounges, retail space and non-match day revenue. I do not feel that it would be too difficult to build a strong business/investment case to develop the stadium. The whole stadium needs to be upgraded and developed to provide as much seven day a week use as possible.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Feb 6, 2017 1:04:03 GMT
I should add that the above was simply my suggestion/ best guess and by no means OxVox policy. I'm sure that the OxVox committee has taken similar informal soundings from a wide range of people. I am more inclined to suggest a wider subscription base. With current season ticket holders in excess off 5000 I would envisage far more than 500 who would want to be involved. Granted, not maybe in the sum of 2k, more modest a sum but, involved all the same. A share issue would be my vision of participation. This would need a level of regulation and representation but I can also well see OxVox as that representation. I am in full agreement with you Charlie that this would be a sane investment. With proper management and the right expertise, there is no reason why the stadium should not prosper, even become a "go to" venue. I agree. We also have to remember that OUFC have a much wider general supporter base than just the current average crowd. I know people who follow the fortunes of the club but rarely, if ever ,attend games but may consider investing in the stadium. If sold/marketed properly I believe that well over £2M could be raised. I suggested this figure as being s conservative figure when I was on the board of Oxvox and in conversations recently. If the whole package including purchase is put together properly, which I am sure it will be, then the stadium could be considered an attractive investment for a wide number of people throughout the county and beyond. It will provide a legacy for the future benefit of the wider community too.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 6, 2017 8:44:57 GMT
I am more inclined to suggest a wider subscription base. With current season ticket holders in excess off 5000 I would envisage far more than 500 who would want to be involved. Granted, not maybe in the sum of 2k, more modest a sum but, involved all the same. A share issue would be my vision of participation. This would need a level of regulation and representation but I can also well see OxVox as that representation. I am in full agreement with you Charlie that this would be a sane investment. With proper management and the right expertise, there is no reason why the stadium should not prosper, even become a "go to" venue. I agree. We also have to remember that OUFC have a much wider general supporter base than just the current average crowd. I know people who follow the fortunes of the club but rarely, if ever ,attend games but may consider investing in the stadium. If sold/marketed properly I believe that well over £2M could be raised. I suggested this figure as being s conservative figure when I was on the board of Oxvox and in conversations recently. If the whole package including purchase is put together properly, which I am sure it will be, then the stadium could be considered an attractive investment for a wide number of people throughout the county and beyond. It will provide a legacy for the future benefit of the wider community too. Yes. Do I think that the new Trust will be able to raise sufficient funds thru a combination of stewdonald, a group of wealthy fans, the broader fanbase and a small amount of lending to purchase the stadium in this deal? Yes. Do I think that subsequently the Trust will be able to make enough to put right the dilapidation and out-dated things here and there? Yes. Do I think that the Trust would plough another 8-10 mill into the stadium to turn it into a 20k capacity stadium? No - that would need to involve the club, either thru the owner investing capital or thru agreeing to pay increased rent.
|
|
|
Post by brassmonkey on Feb 6, 2017 11:01:01 GMT
Have BMW or other large businesses been contacted as part of this coalition? stadium naming sponsorship would potentially add a large chunk of cash for improvements.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 6, 2017 12:09:10 GMT
I know that this has been mentioned before, but it is one thing paying off the debt on the ground, But another stand, filling in the corners (so 20K Stadium WHEN we get into the Championship) and updating the current Stadium (which will cost a few quid, but goodness what do Swin*** need to do to get their wreck into shape?) will cost many millions.... Revenue growth (so any new stand having additional Corporate box/ facilities, bars, classrooms etc) will be necessary to make this work. This is a very complex issue, on a number of fronts. Securing the ground from an unsatisfactory landlord is one thing. It makes us more sustainable and investible as a club, because the natural structural loss should in time reduce from the current 1 million a year (which has been more or less constant over the last ten years) to more like 500k a year, and that is including a competitive League 1 budget and a proper Academy. In the lower leagues, clubs are mostly fundamentally worthless, as all you are doing is buying a company that has a black hole to fill every year. DE paid 4 mill to IL, and my consortium offered 2 mill, but even that was done thru gritted teeth, as there was no asset; just a loss-making company. So it is very much in the fans' interests to make the club a safer rich man's toy in the lower leagues. Come the Championship, things are a bit different. There, the average value of clubs is circa 18 million. With our huge and growing catchment area and glamorous brand name, we could be worth even more. At that level, it would be farcical for the fans to beggar themselves to make any owner fabulous amounts of money. If any owner wanted to develop OUFC from being worth 2 or 3 million to 20 million, he would have to under-write the necessary investment so to do, as he would be the one benefitting financially from it in terms of the value of the club. Otherwise, one could imagine a scenario where an unscrupulous owner persuaded the fans to invest in buying and upgrading the stadium, only to be flogging the club on the side. Monetising to potential owners the value of those owners being given a top stadium to play in for minimal rent. That would be a straight transfer of value from the pockets of fans to owner of club. That is why I say that at some point the club need to become a partner in the new entity, or else - if it prefers - make its contribution thru increased rent, guaranteed over a number of years to enable financing of stadium build. As I state once again for the record, my strong view is that once a responsible new entity sees the financial reality of upgrading Grenoble Road compared to selling it for development and using that money to move to a new site, it will go down the latter route. In my view, the numbers are inescapable (and that is before we even get onto where the county's stadium should be, geographically). Argument for another day. But in the here and now, this (buying the ground) is not being done to grant the club a windfall or to enable us to be a 20 mill sustainable Championship club. It is being done to minimise our riskiness as a run-of-the-mill lower league club. Which is an admirable aim for a supporters trust. We cannot keep relying on the next person who can chuck in 1 million a year for a few years. At 500k a year price tag it becomes a lot more affordable. Wouldn't it be likely that part of the heads of terms would include a clause that the stadium can't be sold off for future development, with us moving elsewhere ? After all isn't that the reason Kassam supposedly won't sell to an individual ?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Feb 6, 2017 13:01:45 GMT
This is a very complex issue, on a number of fronts. Securing the ground from an unsatisfactory landlord is one thing. It makes us more sustainable and investible as a club, because the natural structural loss should in time reduce from the current 1 million a year (which has been more or less constant over the last ten years) to more like 500k a year, and that is including a competitive League 1 budget and a proper Academy. In the lower leagues, clubs are mostly fundamentally worthless, as all you are doing is buying a company that has a black hole to fill every year. DE paid 4 mill to IL, and my consortium offered 2 mill, but even that was done thru gritted teeth, as there was no asset; just a loss-making company. So it is very much in the fans' interests to make the club a safer rich man's toy in the lower leagues. Come the Championship, things are a bit different. There, the average value of clubs is circa 18 million. With our huge and growing catchment area and glamorous brand name, we could be worth even more. At that level, it would be farcical for the fans to beggar themselves to make any owner fabulous amounts of money. If any owner wanted to develop OUFC from being worth 2 or 3 million to 20 million, he would have to under-write the necessary investment so to do, as he would be the one benefitting financially from it in terms of the value of the club. Otherwise, one could imagine a scenario where an unscrupulous owner persuaded the fans to invest in buying and upgrading the stadium, only to be flogging the club on the side. Monetising to potential owners the value of those owners being given a top stadium to play in for minimal rent. That would be a straight transfer of value from the pockets of fans to owner of club. That is why I say that at some point the club need to become a partner in the new entity, or else - if it prefers - make its contribution thru increased rent, guaranteed over a number of years to enable financing of stadium build. As I state once again for the record, my strong view is that once a responsible new entity sees the financial reality of upgrading Grenoble Road compared to selling it for development and using that money to move to a new site, it will go down the latter route. In my view, the numbers are inescapable (and that is before we even get onto where the county's stadium should be, geographically). Argument for another day. But in the here and now, this (buying the ground) is not being done to grant the club a windfall or to enable us to be a 20 mill sustainable Championship club. It is being done to minimise our riskiness as a run-of-the-mill lower league club. Which is an admirable aim for a supporters trust. We cannot keep relying on the next person who can chuck in 1 million a year for a few years. At 500k a year price tag it becomes a lot more affordable. Wouldn't it be likely that part of the heads of terms would include a clause that the stadium can't be sold off for future development, with us moving elsewhere ? After all isn't that the reason Kassam supposedly won't sell to an individual ? Well - theoretically, the reason that Kassam wouldn't sell to an individual is that that person might do the same as he did. Separate stadium from club for aggressive development. If a Trust owned the stadium and decided that it was in the club's best interest to build elsewhere, paid for by selling the current site then a) that is in the interests of the club, not the individual and b) is not business of the previous owner, who got upside out of his deal with the Trust. I certainly do not see that it would be in any way fair/ relevant for Kassam to retain ultimate control off the stadium site even after he's cashed in his chips..
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Feb 6, 2017 13:05:40 GMT
This is a very complex issue, on a number of fronts. Securing the ground from an unsatisfactory landlord is one thing. It makes us more sustainable and investible as a club, because the natural structural loss should in time reduce from the current 1 million a year (which has been more or less constant over the last ten years) to more like 500k a year, and that is including a competitive League 1 budget and a proper Academy. In the lower leagues, clubs are mostly fundamentally worthless, as all you are doing is buying a company that has a black hole to fill every year. DE paid 4 mill to IL, and my consortium offered 2 mill, but even that was done thru gritted teeth, as there was no asset; just a loss-making company. So it is very much in the fans' interests to make the club a safer rich man's toy in the lower leagues. Come the Championship, things are a bit different. There, the average value of clubs is circa 18 million. With our huge and growing catchment area and glamorous brand name, we could be worth even more. At that level, it would be farcical for the fans to beggar themselves to make any owner fabulous amounts of money. If any owner wanted to develop OUFC from being worth 2 or 3 million to 20 million, he would have to under-write the necessary investment so to do, as he would be the one benefitting financially from it in terms of the value of the club. Otherwise, one could imagine a scenario where an unscrupulous owner persuaded the fans to invest in buying and upgrading the stadium, only to be flogging the club on the side. Monetising to potential owners the value of those owners being given a top stadium to play in for minimal rent. That would be a straight transfer of value from the pockets of fans to owner of club. That is why I say that at some point the club need to become a partner in the new entity, or else - if it prefers - make its contribution thru increased rent, guaranteed over a number of years to enable financing of stadium build. As I state once again for the record, my strong view is that once a responsible new entity sees the financial reality of upgrading Grenoble Road compared to selling it for development and using that money to move to a new site, it will go down the latter route. In my view, the numbers are inescapable (and that is before we even get onto where the county's stadium should be, geographically). Argument for another day. But in the here and now, this (buying the ground) is not being done to grant the club a windfall or to enable us to be a 20 mill sustainable Championship club. It is being done to minimise our riskiness as a run-of-the-mill lower league club. Which is an admirable aim for a supporters trust. We cannot keep relying on the next person who can chuck in 1 million a year for a few years. At 500k a year price tag it becomes a lot more affordable. Wouldn't it be likely that part of the heads of terms would include a clause that the stadium can't be sold off for future development, with us moving elsewhere ? After all isn't that the reason Kassam supposedly won't sell to an individual ? I suspect it has more to do with the separation of club from stadium. A trust (I hope) would still retain control of a new stadium and any deal done would have to ensure it could not be torn from the club again. I am pretty sure that it would be a prerequisite of any deal of that nature being done. Hopefully that option will be easier to fully investigate with the ground in the hands of people who's primary concern is the club and the people of Oxford.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Feb 6, 2017 14:36:54 GMT
Wouldn't it be likely that part of the heads of terms would include a clause that the stadium can't be sold off for future development, with us moving elsewhere ? After all isn't that the reason Kassam supposedly won't sell to an individual ? Well - theoretically, the reason that Kassam wouldn't sell to an individual is that that person might do the same as he did. Separate stadium from club for aggressive development. If a Trust owned the stadium and decided that it was in the club's best interest to build elsewhere, paid for by selling the current site then a) that is in the interests of the club, not the individual and b) is not business of the previous owner, who got upside out of his deal with the Trust. I certainly do not see that it would be in any way fair/ relevant for Kassam to retain ultimate control off the stadium site even after he's cashed in his chips.. I always just assumed, like with the rumours that he would want it to remain called the Kassam, that if he was agreeing to sell it to a community as some sort of legacy that he would then want it to remain. Obviously if the club/stadium trust are going to seriously consider moving to a new site, you would want to confirm that fairly rapidly wouldn't you, no point in wasting money adding a new stand to something that could then be raised to the ground a few years later. Repairs and minor improvements maybe as it would still be 3/5 years of playing there
|
|
|
Post by frankie on Feb 9, 2017 18:46:07 GMT
I have no doubt that season ticket holders will be very keen to help to finance the stadium purchase. However there will bound to be some inertia to simply transfer funds when the time comes. It's like giving money to charity. I will never make a donation no matter how much I THINK I should until someone bangs on my front door or I am reduced to tears (and shame) through some television appeal.
With that in mind could OxVox come to an arrangement with the club to send a request for funds (optional of course) with season tickets renewals. We are all motivated to renew season tickets so at the same time there should be no inertia involved in adding an amount towards the stadium purchase fund. Suggest some optional amounts anything from £100, £500 etc to "the skys the limit". This would maximise the amount of money that can be collected in a very short space of time, from the average season ticket holder. A similar request to buy a season ticket and donate funds to every ticket purchaser (those that do no have a season ticket) on the clubs database. With all the bon ami that will be around the season ticket sales could rise dramatically thus also helping OUFC directly.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Feb 9, 2017 20:40:37 GMT
I have no doubt that season ticket holders will be very keen to help to finance the stadium purchase. However there will bound to be some inertia to simply transfer funds when the time comes. It's like giving money to charity. I will never make a donation no matter how much I THINK I should until someone bangs on my front door or I am reduced to tears (and shame) through some television appeal. With that in mind could OxVox come to an arrangement with the club to send a request for funds (optional of course) with season tickets renewals. We are all motivated to renew season tickets so at the same time there should be no inertia involved in adding an amount towards the stadium purchase fund. Suggest some optional amounts anything from £100, £500 etc to "the skys the limit". This would maximise the amount of money that can be collected in a very short space of time, from the average season ticket holder. A similar request to buy a season ticket and donate funds to every ticket purchaser (those that do no have a season ticket) on the clubs database. With all the bon ami that will be around the season ticket sales could rise dramatically thus also helping OUFC directly. I think we should wait until the heads of terms are completed first, THEN we might have an idea who might be involved in helping finance any trust bid, I can't see anything to make me believe at the moment the club will be involved in helping the trust move forward financially, so there seems at the moment there's no reason to forward any extra money to the club no matter how good the idea seems.
|
|