|
|
Post by richmace on Sept 16, 2021 22:26:57 GMT
They are probably called Portacabins these days:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 23:27:08 GMT
You have literally no idea of the calibre of debate I'm involved in elsewhere.In your desperation to be divisive you are making assumptions. I'm not 'anti-Wael', I want him to succeed, after he sacks Barton and apologises for the humiliation of bringing that character to my club, but other than that, why would I be 'anti' this owner? Here's what happens between people who write as you do and me. You post opinion disguised as fact, I reply in the same tone, you spit your dummy. It's a well worn path. To your initial point. In the last 5 1/2 years we've lost record sums, are now relegated, on a disastrous run of form and are I believe 90th out of 92 League clubs. I don't care whether you pretend that it's not debt, the money has been lost and there's a charge against the stadium, so you explain to me precisely how owning this ground has helped in the last 5 years? Without figures so that we can understand what the rent costs were on those training facilities and what the maintenance costs will be over a specified period for The Quarters, you don't even have coherent starting point. Get your own house in order before accusing others of not being able to construct a position to debate from. You are correct - I have no idea regarding your debating standards eleshere - (but I sure can guess  )
My point was around how much we would have spent renting since Hambrook, so its 35 years of 'dead money', thats the point, as you well know.
Its telling perhaps that you want to base a debate on only 5 1/2 years though.
Anyway enough of this nonsense, people will be getting bored. (But feel free to debate with someone else over whether they may have been better off with a house mortgage or by renting over 35 years)
Chillax and enjoy your evening
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it  There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Sept 17, 2021 0:39:39 GMT
You are correct - I have no idea regarding your debating standards eleshere - (but I sure can guess )
My point was around how much we would have spent renting since Hambrook, so its 35 years of 'dead money', thats the point, as you well know.
Its telling perhaps that you want to base a debate on only 5 1/2 years though.
Anyway enough of this nonsense, people will be getting bored. (But feel free to debate with someone else over whether they may have been better off with a house mortgage or by renting over 35 years)
Chillax and enjoy your evening
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,556 
|
Post by eppinggas on Sept 17, 2021 7:14:06 GMT
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. Like hiring Barton. |
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Sept 17, 2021 7:35:22 GMT
I vaguely recall you quoting £150000 pa for rent. And I also recall it was a supposition that one was available at that rent. Or was it all a dream. No, I never mentioned £ 150 000 pa for rent LG it must have been someone else. And it's been confirmed to me that a training ground considered better than Cribbs was available in Spring 2020 for £ 80 000 pa but Rovers turned it down. With another potential training ground, which could have been substantially better than Cribbs, also available at the same time and at a similar price but no enquiry was made. Sorry you are correct, not £150,000 but £100,000. Oct 14 2019 Currently the club is paying £100 000 pa for rented training facilities Apr 18 2021 If the project is completed we will have spent about £4 million for a training ground we could probably have leased for £100 000 pa and which would only be worth the land value of about £1 million if we (BRFC 1883 / Dwane Sports / Dwane Colony) ever wanted to sell it. |
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Sept 17, 2021 9:10:12 GMT
They are probably called Portacabins these days:
Ah right. I had an image of something quite different |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 9:22:41 GMT
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. Well precisely. I have no idea about fixed costs for running The Quarters, but if there are 2 full time members of staff it's going to sail over £100,000 PA. For the purposes of this exercise though there's no need to exaggerate figures in either direction, if you can get the cost of ownership of this facility to be the same as renting then contradiction's argument evaporates. Before the insane explosion in residential property values here of the last 30 or so years there was a strong argument for renting. If you add on the liability of maintenance to the interest charged by the mortgage lender, then factor in the difficulty of moving faced by home owners compared to those who rented, it made the German model of renting look rather attractive. And as you rightly point out, who is the buyer for The Quarters if Wael wanted to sell? Obviously you would need to look in detail at the planning permission to see what your options for the site were, but I don't think they extend to a residential development, so it's not exactly a desirable piece of estate. What contradiction maybe should have argued is the potential for improvement of performance? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 9:43:17 GMT
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. I realise what you are arguing Swiss, but I am talking in general terms here though (ie not just WAQ ownership, much more long term) And yes I get the difference between the enhancing the value of a residential property vs a training ground, and my comments may appear simplistic. However, if the club had developed a training ground 35 years ago (not necessarily Almondsbury) one would like to think that would have been gradually enhanced over the years. It would have increased the value of the football club, as football club valuations are based on revenues and assets. (There was a name given to how football clubs are valued a few years which escapes me but I'm sure you know this) The training ground would also have been a revenue generator in the same way as other clubs (you yourself quoted Fleetwood). This is why I said 'WAQ is paying for what we should have done many many years ago'. Why so many clubs have done it, but we have been stuck on 'Pause' for 35 years (much longer in fact). At some point the club has to try and move forward long term and stop doing the same things it has been doing for years. WAQ should be supported for this, its not his fault we have been stagnating for decades. And one other minor point, I think you may have conveniently inflated the running & maintenance costs as I'm pretty sure we have paid for staff/groundsmen at our rented places over the years, although not at every site. Its not just at the Quarters, so you may not be comparing like v like |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 17, 2021 9:56:28 GMT
The value of the house, in this country, will have increased. Can you say the same for the value of Rovers over the last 5 years? The value did increase at one point, they used to own a stadium with a tiny mortgage and no charge against it There's a subtle irony to you insulting me on the basis of understanding of finances whilst you can't even recognise that Rovers have received the benefit of having access to training facilities in exchange for the rent they've paid. To take your argument to its logical conclusion, as you are stating that there's no benefit for money paid to allow access to previous facilities, The Quarters is also 'dead money'. It doesn't exactly have a huge re-sale value in its present format, does it? So with the up-front cost of this being circa £3,000,000 plus maybe £75~100,000 PA in running costs, based on a figure mentioned earlier of Rovers paying £150k PA to rent training facilities, that's only a net saving of £1000 per week, whilst taking £3m out of working capital. £3,000,000 invested, for a return of just over 1.5% PA. Are you absolutely certain that's the very best use of available funds when the stadium is a dump and we've just been relegated? What now, are you going to move away from finances and start arguing about the benefit it terms of upgraded facilities? Luckily for me I don't come up against many people like this on other debating platforms, I can't spend this much time correcting confused thinking on multiple forums. I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. What was the training ground that was available for 80k pa? Was it Coombe Dingle where we trained temporarily under Garner? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 10:08:00 GMT
I think contradiction is confusing residential property with commercial property of this type. A house doesn’t just provide a place to live but, historically at least, it has provided capital appreciation as well. So if you have the money, can afford insurance and maintenance costs and have no better alternative use for your cash then it usually makes sense to buy. But in this case there is no capital appreciation and in the way contradiction looks at it the £3 million or £4 million is completely “dead money”. In fact if we say the buildings and other constructions will have to be replaced after 30 years we are looking at a depreciation figure of £ 100 000 pa. And I think you are being conservative in your estimate of running costs for the training ground. As far as I know there are two full time employees there plus costs for security, insurance, energy, machinery maintenance, fertilizer & herbicides, cleaning etc which will bring the costs to well in excess of £ 100 000 pa. So if we take the emotion out of it we have paid between £3 million and £ 4 million to “own” something which will effectively cost us over £200 000 pa to run and have no resale value whereas we could have paid £80 000 pa for a training ground and then used the £3 million to £4 million far more wisely to really move the club forward. We could have used it to develop a proper footballing structure to go with the 2020 “new vision”, to source the professional guidance needed if we are ever to get a new or regenerated stadium and to figure out a more creative and sustainable long term plan for utilizing the land at Almondsbury. But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Edit. Before anyone fires back at this post I’d better say it is intended to be a continuation of the discussion over whether Wael really has Championship and new stadium aspirations and whether starting the training ground project is a sign that he does. I think in many respects his heart is in the right place but the training ground shows he dives into things on impulse without a proper thought process and this is why mistakes keep happening. The training ground is started now so we can’t turn back the clock but what we can do is to persuade him to change the way he makes decisions. And this is particularly relevant if, as I fear, he may be thinking of inviting someone else in and restructuring the club. I realise what you are arguing Swiss, but I am talking in general terms here though (ie not just WAQ ownership, much more long term) And yes I get the difference between the enhancing the value of a residential property vs a training ground, and my comments may appear simplistic. However, if the club had developed a training ground 35 years ago (not necessarily Almondsbury) one would like to think that would have been gradually enhanced over the years. It would have increased the value of the football club, as football club valuations are based on revenues and assets. (There was a name given to how football clubs are valued a few years which escapes me but I'm sure you know this) The training ground would also have been a revenue generator in the same way as other clubs (you yourself quoted Fleetwood). This is why I said 'WAQ is paying for what we should have done many many years ago'. Why so many clubs have done it, but we have been stuck on 'Pause' for 35 years (much longer in fact). At some point the club has to try and move forward long term and stop doing the same things it has been doing for years. WAQ should be supported for this, its not his fault we have been stagnating for decades. And one other minor point, I think you may have conveniently inflated the running & maintenance costs as I'm pretty sure we have paid for staff/groundsmen at our rented places over the years, although not at every site. Its not just at the Quarters, so you may not be comparing like v like I guess we'll see what the commercial potential of The Quarters is, but the buildings around the pitches look barely adequate for a professional football club, so how Rovers are going to use the facilities whilst they generate income I'm not quite sure? I don't know what the planning permission aspects of that are either, 3rd party use I mean, weren't there some issues with restrictions of use due to access and proximity to existing residential dwellings? |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 17, 2021 10:22:14 GMT
But as it stands we have paid close to £4 million for something we could have got for £ 80 000 pa while a decent football team and a decent stadium are still as far away as ever. Swiss Not disputing your argument for the moment but are you saying that that the terms of the renting of pitches and facilities would be at nil additional costs above rent to Rovers? That there was no contribution from Rovers at all to the maintenance of the pitches and a no cost lease as opposed to fully repairing lease? Forgive ignorance but I don't know the details of the contracts for use of the facilities over the last 35 years as have not been a director. Also whilst I have done some tax based lending on club infrastructure I haven't had a football club as a day by day client. Further are you saying that the cost is total dead money and that the Quarters could not be mortgaged at a later date to raise cash for a stadium or when South Gloucestershire requires to meet HMG targets on housing and the planning environment changes [soon!] that the land could not later be sold for houses at a premium? Are you also saying that if we had bought a training ground 35 years ago there would have been nil value or advantage to the club? I have seen non-football companies go under on the basis that when they had a downturn they had nil assets to refinance, a failure to pay rent meant they lost premises and machinery was retained because no historic landlord's waiver was in place to enable them to retrieve assets, they could not obtain rental premises elsewhere because of their track record and the companies collapsed. Finally on your assumption, and I may have missed a comment, but I presume Stevenage are even more foolish than us as they have purchased even more land than the Gas Regards |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 10:22:45 GMT
I realise what you are arguing Swiss, but I am talking in general terms here though (ie not just WAQ ownership, much more long term) And yes I get the difference between the enhancing the value of a residential property vs a training ground, and my comments may appear simplistic. However, if the club had developed a training ground 35 years ago (not necessarily Almondsbury) one would like to think that would have been gradually enhanced over the years. It would have increased the value of the football club, as football club valuations are based on revenues and assets. (There was a name given to how football clubs are valued a few years which escapes me but I'm sure you know this) The training ground would also have been a revenue generator in the same way as other clubs (you yourself quoted Fleetwood). This is why I said 'WAQ is paying for what we should have done many many years ago'. Why so many clubs have done it, but we have been stuck on 'Pause' for 35 years (much longer in fact). At some point the club has to try and move forward long term and stop doing the same things it has been doing for years. WAQ should be supported for this, its not his fault we have been stagnating for decades. And one other minor point, I think you may have conveniently inflated the running & maintenance costs as I'm pretty sure we have paid for staff/groundsmen at our rented places over the years, although not at every site. Its not just at the Quarters, so you may not be comparing like v like  I guess we'll see what the commercial potential of The Quarters is, but the buildings around the pitches look barely adequate for a professional football club, so how Rovers are going to use the facilities whilst they generate income I'm not quite sure? I don't know what the planning permission aspects of that are either, 3rd party use I mean, weren't there some issues with restrictions of use due to access and proximity to existing residential dwellings? Agreed, but remember it is a long term project. But I do know the plan is for the Quarters to pay its way in some way (or more likely contribute) One final thing on this that is perhaps relevant to the discussion: When we were renting the Mem from the Rugby club we were paying about 100k rent per season I believe. When GD did the deal for the Memo Co to take it over, he needed to raise £2.3m, which he did through a mortgage and preference shares. I recall him saying the annual repayments for this lending were 'about the same' as the rental payments. It was that decision that allowed us to eventually own the Mem 100% and have an asset going forward. One wonders where we would have ended up if we were still renting and never had that asset. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 14:31:54 GMT
I guess we'll see what the commercial potential of The Quarters is, but the buildings around the pitches look barely adequate for a professional football club, so how Rovers are going to use the facilities whilst they generate income I'm not quite sure? I don't know what the planning permission aspects of that are either, 3rd party use I mean, weren't there some issues with restrictions of use due to access and proximity to existing residential dwellings? Agreed, but remember it is a long term project. But I do know the plan is for the Quarters to pay its way in some way (or more likely contribute) One final thing on this that is perhaps relevant to the discussion: When we were renting the Mem from the Rugby club we were paying about 100k rent per season I believe. When GD did the deal for the Memo Co to take it over, he needed to raise £2.3m, which he did through a mortgage and preference shares. I recall him saying the annual repayments for this lending were 'about the same' as the rental payments. It was that decision that allowed us to eventually own the Mem 100% and have an asset going forward. One wonders where we would have ended up if we were still renting and never had that asset. An asset in a densely populated residential area, which will always be desirable for a variety of developments. At what point were Rovers renting from the rugby club? I thought that Stage 1 was purchasing half of the ground, swiftly followed by Stage 2, which was enforcing the clause inserted by Rovers' mortgage lender relating to the preferential status of the remaining solvent co-owner should the other become insolvent? Anyway, as my understanding is that The Quarters is owned by an autonomous trading entity it should be fairly straightforward to assess it's financial performance. But in that situation, do you think that the football club will be allowed to use the facilities free of charge, in fact, would it even be legal to allow that to happen? Could there be FFP/SCMP implications if an independent company were subsidising the FC in that way? |
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Sept 17, 2021 15:10:22 GMT
Thanks for the info Womble, have you visited the Quarters recently?, any update or new photos you can share?, very interested to know how the project is coming along. Not been for a few weeks TG - can't see any major changes happening until South Glos process the outstanding planning applications for the clubhouse extension and overall site. They're already overdue, so next year seems to be the likeliest time for a 3G pitch, enlarged clubhouse etc. The only recent changes are ball stop netting behind the goals and the tarmacking of the car park. Posts for the netting (the nets have since been installed).  The car park now has a tarmac surface. As discussed earlier, you can see the higher levels of the pitches to the right of the driveway.  Did I see right that we dug up the pitches at The Quarters and re-laid them again over the summer break? Seemed strange to do that when we'd only spent a short amount of time there using them. We seem to re-lay the pitch every year now (or is it every 2 years?) at The Mem, and I think I read before that it costs £100K a time. Previously I'm sure we'd only carried this out once in our time there. I must admit that the pitches at both sites look immaculate, and at The Mem never so good before. But I can't help thinking it's costing a lot of money, and do wonder whether it is necessary to start again each year. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 15:16:45 GMT
Agreed, but remember it is a long term project. But I do know the plan is for the Quarters to pay its way in some way (or more likely contribute) One final thing on this that is perhaps relevant to the discussion: When we were renting the Mem from the Rugby club we were paying about 100k rent per season I believe. When GD did the deal for the Memo Co to take it over, he needed to raise £2.3m, which he did through a mortgage and preference shares. I recall him saying the annual repayments for this lending were 'about the same' as the rental payments. It was that decision that allowed us to eventually own the Mem 100% and have an asset going forward. One wonders where we would have ended up if we were still renting and never had that asset. An asset in a densely populated residential area, which will always be desirable for a variety of developments. At what point were Rovers renting from the rugby club? I thought that Stage 1 was purchasing half of the ground, swiftly followed by Stage 2, which was enforcing the clause inserted by Rovers' mortgage lender relating to the preferential status of the remaining solvent co-owner should the other become insolvent?Anyway, as my understanding is that The Quarters is owned by an autonomous trading entity it should be fairly straightforward to assess it's financial performance. But in that situation, do you think that the football club will be allowed to use the facilities free of charge, in fact, would it even be legal to allow that to happen? Could there be FFP/SCMP implications if an independent company were subsidising the FC in that way? Nope, we initially moved to the Mem purely as tenants, at a cost of about 100k pa rent. It was 100% owned by the rugby club who were in the process of building the West Stand - our first season was played at a 2 sides open then 3 sides of the ground only and the grass was too long. The cost of that stand tipped the rugby club over the financial edge, and we became co owners of the Mem when GD raised the £2.3 million for 50% ownership, under the proviso if either party went bust the other party would become full owners at a cost of a further £10k. Not a bad deal to say the least. A negotiation masterstroke in fact. Perhaps the bank did have some input? - but I am sure GD saw the Rugby clubs books in advance |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 16:22:52 GMT
An asset in a densely populated residential area, which will always be desirable for a variety of developments. At what point were Rovers renting from the rugby club? I thought that Stage 1 was purchasing half of the ground, swiftly followed by Stage 2, which was enforcing the clause inserted by Rovers' mortgage lender relating to the preferential status of the remaining solvent co-owner should the other become insolvent?Anyway, as my understanding is that The Quarters is owned by an autonomous trading entity it should be fairly straightforward to assess it's financial performance. But in that situation, do you think that the football club will be allowed to use the facilities free of charge, in fact, would it even be legal to allow that to happen? Could there be FFP/SCMP implications if an independent company were subsidising the FC in that way? Nope, we initially moved to the Mem purely as tenants, at a cost of about 100k pa rent. It was 100% owned by the rugby club who were in the process of building the West Stand - our first season was played at a 2 sides open then 3 sides of the ground only and the grass was too long. The cost of that stand tipped the rugby club over the financial edge, and we became co owners of the Mem when GD raised the £2.3 million for 50% ownership, under the proviso if either party went bust the other party would become full owners at a cost of a further £10k. Not a bad deal to say the least. A negotiation masterstroke in fact. Perhaps the bank did have some input? - but I am sure GD saw the Rugby clubs books in advance Of course the lender needed to protect the position of the borrower. Anyway, are we agreed that it seems most likely that the FC will be paying a 3rd party for use of their training facilities? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 17:41:48 GMT
Nope, we initially moved to the Mem purely as tenants, at a cost of about 100k pa rent. It was 100% owned by the rugby club who were in the process of building the West Stand - our first season was played at a 2 sides open then 3 sides of the ground only and the grass was too long. The cost of that stand tipped the rugby club over the financial edge, and we became co owners of the Mem when GD raised the £2.3 million for 50% ownership, under the proviso if either party went bust the other party would become full owners at a cost of a further £10k. Not a bad deal to say the least. A negotiation masterstroke in fact. Perhaps the bank did have some input? - but I am sure GD saw the Rugby clubs books in advance Of course the lender needed to protect the position of the borrower. Anyway, are we agreed that it seems most likely that the FC will be paying a 3rd party for use of their training facilities?
No we are not. its the same group, and, as Peter Parker and others have explained, inter company transactions, and not relevent.
Its about as un relevant as Bristol City not "owning" Ashton Gate or their new Training Ground (Ashron Gate ltd, Ashton Gate Holdings ltd, blah blah blah or whatever companies Lansdown has set up nowadays within the group.
Fenway own the various Liverpool assets, god knows what the comany structure is around the likes of Chelsea or Man City.
Leave it alone, you are going down a blind ally
|
|
gasprom
Joined: January 2016
Posts: 335
|
Post by gasprom on Sept 17, 2021 18:04:47 GMT
Of course the lender needed to protect the position of the borrower. Anyway, are we agreed that it seems most likely that the FC will be paying a 3rd party for use of their training facilities?
No we are not. its the same group, and, as Peter Parker and others have explained, inter company transactions, and not relevent.
Its about as un relevant as Bristol City not "owning" Ashton Gate or their new Training Ground (Ashron Gate ltd, Ashton Gate Holdings ltd, blah blah blah or whatever companies Lansdown has set up nowadays within the group.
Fenway own the various Liverpool assets, god knows what the comany structure is around the likes of Chelsea or Man City.
Leave it alone, you are going down a blind ally
I think most clubs are set up this way and it only becomes an issue if a buyer turns up like one at Crystal Palace I think a few years ago. I may be wrong but I think he bought the name of the club and that was about it. The seller kept the stadium and training ground and rented it back to them. Again I don’t remember all the details but I think they were close to going to the wall until Simon Jordan rescued them |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2021 18:26:35 GMT
Of course the lender needed to protect the position of the borrower. Anyway, are we agreed that it seems most likely that the FC will be paying a 3rd party for use of their training facilities?
No we are not. its the same group, and, as Peter Parker and others have explained, inter company transactions, and not relevent.
Its about as un relevant as Bristol City not "owning" Ashton Gate or their new Training Ground (Ashron Gate ltd, Ashton Gate Holdings ltd, blah blah blah or whatever companies Lansdown has set up nowadays within the group.
Fenway own the various Liverpool assets, god knows what the comany structure is around the likes of Chelsea or Man City.
Leave it alone, you are going down a blind ally
We have a couple of accountants on here, maybe someone qualified could comment on one person owning a company and being a majority shareholder in another and whether you can supply services between those companies FOC? I still think that the value of that service would need to be factored in to SCMP calculations though. |
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 17, 2021 18:57:45 GMT
No we are not. its the same group, and, as Peter Parker and others have explained, inter company transactions, and not relevent.
Its about as un relevant as Bristol City not "owning" Ashton Gate or their new Training Ground (Ashron Gate ltd, Ashton Gate Holdings ltd, blah blah blah or whatever companies Lansdown has set up nowadays within the group.
Fenway own the various Liverpool assets, god knows what the comany structure is around the likes of Chelsea or Man City.
Leave it alone, you are going down a blind ally
We have a couple of accountants on here, maybe someone qualified could comment on one person owning a company and being a majority shareholder in another and whether you can supply services between those companies FOC? I still think that the value of that service would need to be factored in to SCMP calculations though. You can charge either company what you want regardless of ownership, they are limited companies in their own right all owned under a holding company. For example I own a company which owns my business premises and I charge my other company rent for use of the building. Technically it’s robbing Peter to pay paul but there are certain securities and tax benefits for setting it up this way. I can either set the rental terms at a peppercorn rent or jack it to above the market rate whichever is beneficial. The quarters could charge rent to the FC it it wants too. |
|
)
