Stadium Expansion *APPROVED* Sept ‘22 - Details / Images Released on Planning Site

[Paninistickers]

31 minutes ago, Babylon said:

There was something in one of the last two accounts that basically said the loans with the banks were short term, until a longer term facility was in place with KPI. Of course it depends what they themselves are comfortable with and we had a pandemic to deal with. 
 

But I think it’ll all shift over eventually. Makes sense for them for it to, so long as they have the cash at hand to facilitate it. 

The interesting thing (for me) is that KPI has the cash reserves to the tune of 100m to release to the club. 

 

Very few big companies carry that sort of back up in cash. Companies are almost always about assets, right? Which, obvs, the club's debt to KPI is now an asset of KPI. But the original (rhetorical) question; is it unusual for KPI to have 100m sloshing around? 

 

I remain convinced that the source of the cash is far more layered (aka murky) than simple KP stockpiled profits 

 

 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

I don't know.  But I did read that certain installments from player sales are now due to go directly to Macquarie Bank to pay existing debt.

Thanks, 

I was just wondering how much of that was transfer factoring.

[Tommy G]

They would also be subject to a going concern assessment each year, which the directors would need to provide reasons to why the company is a going concern and substantiate this (a massive piece of work) - with likely cash flows going out for the next 3-5 years. This is expected cash in and cash out, it helps that the parent co is where we have some chunky loans, and there would have to have done a decent chunk of work reviewing the going concern of the top co level too.
 

Does anyone realise the kind of work that goes into making these assessments and the subsequent sign off procedures by the directors and the RI auditor. 

[splinterdream]

10 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

Really? Doesn't it seem more stupid to turn down a sale in the hope that you might make the same sale just before the ticket becomes worthless?

Yes, but you are trying to sell the experience for the long term. 

 

What if young lads can't afford a season ticket, just to go now and again, that's how they get hooked and become lifelong leicester fans, or families who turn an occasional visit to long term, this is how you expand numbers. You shut people out and they'll never come down 

[splinterdream]

I think I'm right in saying the biggest attendance to filbert St was 47000 in the late 20's, what was the populationin leicester then, probably half what it is now, I don't see why they couldn't have gone 45,000, I'm sure the numbers would have grown to 42.000 regular attendance 

[Babylon]

44 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

The interesting thing (for me) is that KPI has the cash reserves to the tune of 100m to release to the club. 

 

Very few big companies carry that sort of back up in cash. Companies are almost always about assets, right? Which, obvs, the club's debt to KPI is now an asset of KPI. But the original (rhetorical) question; is it unusual for KPI to have 100m sloshing around? 

 

I remain convinced that the source of the cash is far more layered (aka murky) than simple KP stockpiled profits 

 

 

I would hazard a guess that it’s for that very reason that it tends to take time sort sort out the longer term KPI deals, as they need to do stuff their end to get the money. Murky or not murky.
 

I mean they had enough money to buy a £70m jet, splurge money on race horses and helicopters, and property. So I wouldn’t suggest it’s not possible to get their hands on cash.

[HighPeakFox]

3 hours ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

These extra 8000 seats. Anyone know how many people are on the season ticket waiting list? If there are that amount surely it makes sense to the club to get the season ticket money than rely on the day sales?

I think that might be regarded as short term thinking.

[Tommy G]

4 hours ago, KingsX said:

 

These are valid points.  I knew LCFC took out a nine-figure bank loan to build Seagrave, but went back to see how much we owe (and to whom) now. 

 

Bottom line, club debt is £217M (35 or 40% commercial, the rest to KPI): more than an average year’s revenues, before we lay a brick for the KP rebuild.  The KP expansion will be a nine-figure project on top of that.  From various sources:

 

Net debt at the year-end had risen to £217.1 million from £161.6 million. The club revealed that it had entered into a five-year loan facility for a total of £42.5 million with King Power International to finance working capital requirements for the next twelve months. It had also replaced its £52.5 million facility with Macquarie Bank with an £80 million four-year facility.

 

 

In fact, the club consolidated two previous loans. They now have a five-year loan from KPI of up to £42.5 million and an £80-million, four-year facility with Australian bank Macquarie, secured against future transfer instalments. It is the longest such loan any club has got from an external bank, which shows that Leicester’s credit is considered to be good.

 

 

KPI has also provided an emergency overdraft of £35 million. The parent company’s backing has now reached £180 million, including a £30-million personal loan from chairman Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha.

 

 

As of the year-end, the group’s net debt had increased from £161.6 million to £217.1 million. Around £90 million, is due to the new Seagrave training ground. However, the club believes the debt is manageable and not unusual. It has been factored into the plans for development and, in real terms, is actually just £80 million as the debt to KPI is seen as good as equity. Leicester may be reliant on their owners, but most clubs are.

 

 

AFAIK, regarding such debts to ownership,

- The club pay them back out of operating revenues, with or without interest, or …

- they are forgiven and converted to equity.  (KP did this once while we were still in the Championship: £103 million to clear the club’s debt), i.e. …

- they are paid by the buyers upon sale of the club.

 

The banks, of course, will get their money back (PL and transfer revenues are already earmarked to go to Macquarie).  KP could have the club pay just the cost of capital, and never insist on principal repayments.  That is best case, and at 5% would drain maybe £10M a year.  But it’s still a sword hanging over the club.  If the family ever felt the need to access that money, they might be forced to sell up.

 

You do realise the banks will have some kind of covenant structure around the lending? Be it leverage, interest cover, minimum liquidity etc. Of which they’ll have to satisfy to the lenders each quarter then have these compliance certificates audited? 
 

It’s not a case of here’s £40m from

hsbc and here’s your repayment schedule, cheers. 
 

It’s likely the overdraft, namely an overdraft for the public is in fact a letter or credit should they need it, and the commercial banks probably insisted on it when drafting the SFA.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

I think I'm right in saying the biggest attendance to filbert St was 47000 in the late 20's, what was the populationin leicester then, probably half what it is now, I don't see why they couldn't have gone 45,000, I'm sure the numbers would have grown to 42.000 regular attendance 

How much were the tickets then? What were the alternative forms of entertainment available at the time? 

Edited 18 May 2022 by Webbo

[splinterdream]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How much were the tickets then? What were the alternative forms of entertainment available at the time? 

We have similar/larger population numbers than Newcastle and Liverpool, if you counted Leicestershire we massively out number those cities, so why couldn't we look to 42,000 - 45,000 regularly attending?

[PAPA LAZAROU]

3 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think that might be regarded as short term thinking.

I don't get that? If you sell all those season tickets then that is guaranteed gate money every game despite how your season pans out. Knowing football fans they vote with their collective feet and if we ever got relegated those pay on the day tickets would not be eagerly sought after. But I am interested in your take on Highpeak. 

[HighPeakFox]

7 hours ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

I don't get that? If you sell all those season tickets then that is guaranteed gate money every game despite how your season pans out. Knowing football fans they vote with their collective feet and if we ever got relegated those pay on the day tickets would not be eagerly sought after. But I am interested in your take on Highpeak. 

Whilst there's truth in what you said, I think your method would ultimately shrink the fanbase. Of course there's risk attached to expansion, but I think the thinking is that higher capacity will drive up demand rather than the other way around, and not expanding in case we might one day be relegated could be seen as being a bit defeatist. I'd never have thought we could regularly get 32,000 in the old days, but here we are - who knows how many 1,000s more are quietly waiting to come in and fold their arms in passive aggressive irritation at everything  

[PAPA LAZAROU]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Whilst there's truth in what you said, I think your method would ultimately shrink the fanbase. Of course there's risk attached to expansion, but I think the thinking is that higher capacity will drive up demand rather than the other way around, and not expanding in case we might one day be relegated could be seen as being a bit defeatist. I'd never have thought we could regularly get 32,000 in the old days, but here we are - who knows how many 1,000s more are quietly waiting to come in and fold their arms in passive aggressive irritation at everything  

Yes I see what you mean. But given the waiting list for season tickets I would have thought they would have gone for a much higher expansion such as a 45 thousand capacity with and extra 8 thousand season tickets and 5 thousand for sale on the day. A 45 thousand seater stadium would put us firmly in the higher bracket of clubs and open up future use for European cup games and possible future world cup venue. Maybe it's a suck it and see situation as far as the owners are concerned. If they regularly fill the new capacity then long term they may well be thinking of adding more seats in another extension. As you quite rightly said I too never thought I'd see the day when we get 32 thousand every week. So here's hoping for a bright future. 

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

Yes I see what you mean. But given the waiting list for season tickets I would have thought they would have gone for a much higher expansion such as a 45 thousand capacity with and extra 8 thousand season tickets and 5 thousand for sale on the day. A 45 thousand seater stadium would put us firmly in the higher bracket of clubs and open up future use for European cup games and possible future world cup venue. Maybe it's a suck it and see situation as far as the owners are concerned. If they regularly fill the new capacity then long term they may well be thinking of adding more seats in another extension. As you quite rightly said I too never thought I'd see the day when we get 32 thousand every week. So here's hoping for a bright future. 

I suspect they've taken advice, both from a capacity and further capacity point of view, and also what will work best from an engineering/design point of view. One factor might be the ability to keep the stadium running as usual whilst the expansion is ongoing.

[wattolcfc]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

I suspect they've taken advice, both from a capacity and further capacity point of view, and also what will work best from an engineering/design point of view. One factor might be the ability to keep the stadium running as usual whilst the expansion is ongoing.

This is a good point, it would mitigate the loss of a reduced capacity in the short term, while potentially offering other expansion opportunities to other sides of the stadium in the future. 

Knowing our owners, long long term they probably would like to upgrade all stands to make them more modern and attractive (if demand was there) which could potentially add another 8k on the East Stand along with another 4k on both the North and South Stands, taking the capacity to a nice 56k.  

[PAPA LAZAROU]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I suspect they've taken advice, both from a capacity and further capacity point of view, and also what will work best from an engineering/design point of view. One factor might be the ability to keep the stadium running as usual whilst the expansion is ongoing.

Yes you are right of course. We speculate but they are hardnosed successful  business men who obviously know what they are doing. So yes it's not guess work from them. As long as they own the club I doubt we have little to fear and the long term future may even surprise us all with their ambition for the club.

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, PAPA LAZAROU said:

Yes you are right of course. We speculate but they are hardnosed successful  business men who obviously know what they are doing. So yes it's not guess work from them. As long as they own the club I doubt we have little to fear and the long term future may even surprise us all with their ambition for the club.

Let's hope so.

[jammie82uk]

Target decision date has just been updated to 31/07/2022

 

https://planning.leicester.gov.uk/Planning/Display/20212673

[urban.spaceman]

Target decision date moved again... Now the end of July.

[Spudulike]

Target decision date put back to 31 July '22.

Edited 20 May 2022 by Spudulike

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

On 19/05/2022 at 08:35, HighPeakFox said:

I suspect they've taken advice, both from a capacity and further capacity point of view, and also what will work best from an engineering/design point of view. One factor might be the ability to keep the stadium running as usual whilst the expansion is ongoing.

 

On 19/05/2022 at 08:39, wattolcfc said:

This is a good point, it would mitigate the loss of a reduced capacity in the short term, while potentially offering other expansion opportunities to other sides of the stadium in the future. 

Knowing our owners, long long term they probably would like to upgrade all stands to make them more modern and attractive (if demand was there) which could potentially add another 8k on the East Stand along with another 4k on both the North and South Stands, taking the capacity to a nice 56k.  

I am certainly in the "build it and they will come" camp: My own experience as a dad of school-aged children going to games is that other parents are surprised I could get tickets (before we got ST's). There is a huge market of people who think that tickets are generally unavailable for games since 2016. That market is there, and also forms the next generation's fan base. 

 

I was disappointed with the 40,000 announcement, thinking it would be at least 42,000. But yeah, the club is probably smart in doing it the way they are doing it. If they decided to do both the East and West at the same time, not only is that a huge capital investment, but they probably would have had to lower ticket prices to get those seats filled quickly. Getting a steady 40k for league matches let's you then announce the next expansion with "new demand" for tickets.

 

Also, the capital improvements -- mostly due to traffic -- would have been a harder sell to the council. If the extra 8,000 go smoothly enough, it will be easier to sell the next 8,000. 

[StanSP]

Is it usual for these kinds of dates to be moved?

[coolhandfox]

34 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Target decision date moved again... Now the end of July.

It's a big project so not really surprised.

[purpleronnie]

On 18/05/2022 at 19:26, splinterdream said:

I think I'm right in saying the biggest attendance to filbert St was 47000 in the late 20's, what was the populationin leicester then, probably half what it is now, I don't see why they couldn't have gone 45,000, I'm sure the numbers would have grown to 42.000 regular attendance 

Yeah but there was pretty much nothing else to do...well i assume that anyway.

[Spudulike]

41 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Is it usual for these kinds of dates to be moved?

Thing is, it's not a usual development which is probably the biggest that LCC planners have ever had to decide. 

 

However, I think that given the fanfare of the announcement it would be good club PR if they gave us an update if only to reassure us that it's still going ahead as planned.