skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If they don't want to be in a position where they have to keep investing money it's probably a good idea to invest in the people who can deliver that scenario first.
I think that would be a problem Chief. No investment would mean a team based roughly on the same as we have now, this would mean relegation at some point. The further they go down the league structure the closer they and we are to the abyss.
That's no investment from SISU or AVRO as they want the club to be self sufficient rather than them having to pump millions in every year. To be fair they haven't made a secret of that. The downside for us is if they can achieve that they can hang around almost indefinitely hoping for a miracle to get their money back.
That's no investment from SISU or AVRO as they want the club to be self sufficient rather than them having to pump millions in every year. To be fair they haven't made a secret of that. The downside for us is if they can achieve that they can hang around almost indefinitely hoping for a miracle to get their money back.
Which contradicts the 'we will build a new stadium' mantra. Do you not think there is a logical flaw in there somewhere?
Depends on the finance model and the net figures, if a new stadium leaves them better off every year then it would be a justification for building it. Hence why we need to see comparative projections for a new stadium and staying at the Ricoh.
Can anybody translate / simplify?
Which contradicts the 'we will build a new stadium' mantra. Do you not think there is a logical flaw in there somewhere?
Well...no.
The problem is, any money put in is expected to make a return - that's *always* been the problem. Initially there was a certain logic in popping a spot of cash into the playing side, as the prize was a place in the top flight, and the vast increase in value of the club as a result. Problem is, that was always fraught with difficulty... what if it goes wrong?
Well... now we know.
So, having seen that to a degree that approach to making a return is rather random, even high risk speculators might write that approach off as a dead duck. If a ground can make a return in some way however, it will happen. No logical flaw there that they'd pump money into an alternative avenue. To a degree, it's merely reversing what McGinnity once pointed out to me, when I asked him why, if ownership of the ground was so important, we were spunking cash on Stern John and (attempting to on!) Malky Mackay. Then, they were different pots, just the priorities were different.
What's of more concern is the fact that everybody (owners, council... fans) seems to have bought into this way of talking about a *club*. Nobody, but *nobody* seems willing to put forward what the essence of a club, our club, actually is.
And that isn't necessarily a decimal point on the stock exchange.
So is Joy lying when she says our club must be self sufficient and they won't be putting any more money in? And 'they' includes money invested by others. Which is what the vast majority of the money lost seems to be.
So is Joy lying when she says our club must be self sufficient and they won't be putting any more money in? And 'they' includes money invested by others. Which is what the vast majority of the money lost seems to be.
I'd don't think she'd class building a stadium as putting money into the club, more putting money into a stadium. The hope would be that the stadium could make money and add value to the club should they be sold as a package.
I'd don't think she'd class building a stadium as putting money into the club, more putting money into a stadium. The hope would be that the stadium could make money and add value to the club should they be sold as a package.
Why would they even sell the stadium?
The plan seem to be to build the stadium owned by their investors. Then have the club establish a stadium management company buying a long lease (sisu investors are probably happy to provide a loan to buy the lease). Finally they can sell the club and stadium management company as a package (but keep the stadium).
Out of idle curiosity, what in your view would be the benefit to them of keeping freehold while selling, say, a 250 year lease along with the football club?
Why would they even sell the stadium?
The plan seem to be to build the stadium owned by their investors. Then have the club establish a stadium management company buying a long lease (sisu investors are probably happy to provide a loan to buy the lease). Finally they can sell the club and stadium management company as a package (but keep the stadium).
Out of idle curiosity, what in your view would be the benefit to them of keeping freehold while selling, say, a 250 year lease along with the football club?
Maybe the club won't be the only business there?
Try this:
If they build a stadium for say £18m (including ground purchase), add a couple of millions for themselves and sell a long lease for £20m to the stadium management club, then they have made a nice little £2m profit right there.
They also lend the stadium management company the £20m (used to pay themselves) at say 6% or 7% over 20 or maybe even 30 years. That's a nice profit too.
How much did Wasps pay for a long lease on a 32000 stadium with conference facilities etc? I thought TF mentioned 30m for a stadium at one stage. Sorry mate, but your figures are just plucked out of thin air. I could say what if they bought a stadium for 30m which was too small and had too few facilities and which became a white elephant? They then sell it as scrap for 50000 and 1000000 for the land. Also vaguely possible.
How much did Wasps pay for a long lease on a 32000 stadium with conference facilities etc? I thought TF mentioned 30m for a stadium at one stage. Sorry mate, but your figures are just plucked out of thin air. I could say what if they bought a stadium for 30m which was too small and had too few facilities and which became a white elephant? They then sell it as scrap for 50000 and 1000000 for the land. Also vaguely possible.
Try this:
If they build a stadium for say £18m (including ground purchase), add a couple of millions for themselves and sell a long lease for £20m to the stadium management club, then they have made a nice little £2m profit right there.
They also lend the stadium management company the £20m (used to pay themselves) at say 6% or 7% over 20 or maybe even 30 years. That's a nice profit too.
What you've basically said there then is CCFC will be in debt to Sisu for the next 30 years?
Sorry if I don't give my backing to that one.
What you've basically said there then is CCFC will be in debt to Sisu for the next 30 years?
Sorry if I don't give my backing to that one.
Did I say that?
I would expect a new owner to buy out that loan when they take over.
Just like I would have expected Wasps to buy out the council loan to the council. That didn't happen and indicate Wasps owners don't really have too much financial backing power.
Anyway, would you prefer the club owed money to a bank instead? Even ACL discovered how that could bring them in trouble.
Again it depends on the figures. Paying SISU, or anyone else for that matter, say £1m a year but getting access to £5m in revenue is better than paying Wasps £100K a year and getting £1m in revenue.
Try this:
If they build a stadium for say £18m (including ground purchase), add a couple of millions for themselves and sell a long lease for £20m to the stadium management club, then they have made a nice little £2m profit right there.
So what happens to CCFC and its associated stadium management company if/when it can't make the repayments owed to Sisu?
Why keep bringing up Wasps? It's not like they are our new best friends, is it?
We can't buy ACL now, so that ship has sailed. We need a new home (and hopefully one where we can actually win a game or two).
Even if the final price is £25m for a perfectly suitable 16.000 seater the principle will be the same. It will just cost the club a few thousand more per months.
building it for 18 mill over a couple of years and selling it for 2m profit is only 5% a year profit they almost certainly can't get the money this cheaply and so it would be a loss really (ignoring the fact there is no way the stadium would be that cheap to build) investors don't take on such risks for such small profits. Have you seen the website funding circle? you can lend to businesses at up to 15% interest (and even at this rate they are much much less risky projects than this one would be), you can split your money between hundreds of companys to lower risk to very low levels and get an easy 6.5%+ return after bad debts, even more sensible you invest in a ftse all share tracker, in a all developed world tracker, an emerging markets tracker and a few others to spice things up, then throw in some funding circle money and you've got a diverse portfolio that will hopefully provide say 7% a year over the long term at miniscule risk compared to lending to sisu to build a stadium.
If your investing in something so risky you want to make a fortune if it comes off otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to take the risk and this upside just doesn't exist.
There is a woodford ipo tomorrow for a fund from the uks most successful fund manager that is going to invest in early stage companies with disruptive technologys and patents, its easy to see how this is risky, if it invests in say 100 companies and they all fail you lose your money, but if they succeed there is massive upside and you could make your money back many times over, how is lending to sisu to build a stadium more appealing that investing in this? it's simply not, the upside isn't there and the downside is much more likely. Woodford will also only take his fee if the fund is over 10% a year up.
Where do you get the figure of 5m from? Are Wasps making 5m a year from the Ricoh? ( as an example )
If sisu can't pay sisu?
If sisu can't pay sisu?
Wasps are tenants with a long lease and of a stadium in Coventry. Whether we are friends or not, we can look at their experience to get an idea of what a stadium in Coventry can generate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?