Jon the Hat Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Fair enough, the obvious one is knocking the groundshare issue on the head once and for all. And how does that improve our financial position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Fair enough, the obvious one is knocking the groundshare issue on the head once and for all. I would have thought halving our outgoings on the ground would improve our financial situation. I understand the many City fans would hate the ides of sharing, but to be honest any soulful attatchment I had with our home ended when we moved to Filbert Way - really it's just like any other new footie ground in the country, and if it could be used as a way of either increasing our income ( conference play-off, Ghana/Jamaica international ), or reducing our costs by sharing, then personally, I'm all for it. It doesn't seem to have done Reading or Watford any harm, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 And how does that improve our financial position? In the longterm not groundsharing allows us to own our ground and keep 100% of the income from it, rather than the proposal of owning 50% of the ground and taking 50% of the income. Keeping the ground ourselves increases our assets (ie. club value and access to extra finance) and our earnings. Why does letting the moggies have half our ground for a quarter of it's cost make any sense? If they want to play at the Walkers they can rent it for match days just like most other rugby clubs do when using a footy stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 I would have thought halving our outgoings on the ground would improve our financial situation. I understand the many City fans would hate the ides of sharing, but to be honest any soulful attatchment I had with our home ended when we moved to Filbert Way - really it's just like any other new footie ground in the country, and if it could be used as a way of either increasing our income ( conference play-off, Ghana/Jamaica international ), or reducing our costs by sharing, then personally, I'm all for it. It doesn't seem to have done Reading or Watford any harm, for instance. Different situation those clubs own the ground and rent it out, they don's share it, I'd be happy for city to do that but no to giving tigers a cheap stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Different situation those clubs own the ground and rent it out, they don's share it, I'd be happy for city to do that but no to giving tigers a cheap stadium. Aye to that. But the status quo cannot continue if we start going back down the road of signing old timers with no potential sell-on value and if we continue playing unattractive football which fails to make the best of our crowd potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 In the longterm not groundsharing allows us to own our ground and keep 100% of the income from it, rather than the proposal of owning 50% of the ground and taking 50% of the income. Keeping the ground ourselves increases our assets (ie. club value and access to extra finance) and our earnings. Why does letting the moggies have half our ground for a quarter of it's cost make any sense? If they want to play at the Walkers they can rent it for match days just like most other rugby clubs do when using a footy stadium. My reading is that we would keep 100% of LCFC income ( I stand to be corrected on this ) and share the conference income for an upfront payment of £8 million, and the Tigers would keep their matchday and related income. The attraction for me is that we'd be halving our outgoings on the stadium, including the hire purchase payments on the stadium ( which as at May 2005 the liabilty stood at circa £16 million ). At the moment we do not have access to further finance from the stadium, as the hire purchase covers most of the value of the stadium. Also, there's no point in raising further borrowings if we don't have an increased income stream ( or reduction in expenditure) to to cover the extra finance payments. Another point is that if The Tigers were to redevelop their stadium, they would be in direct competition with us for conference income. It's just a guess on my part, but if we had a sole owner, like Madjeski or the Glazers this would go through tomorrow. I do realise that this is a subject that basically splits the supporters 50/50, but as I've said in an earlir post, any soulful attatchment I have to our home ended when we left Filbo. I just view Filbert Way as a concrete bowl that we need to squeeze for all it's worth in terms of income or reducing expenditure. If it means flogging half of it to the Tigers, so be it - we need to be generating more income or reducing our expenditure so we can spend more on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 My reading is that we would keep 100% of LCFC income ( I stand to be corrected on this ) and share the conference income for an upfront payment of £8 million, and the Tigers would keep their matchday and related income. The attraction for me is that we'd be halving our outgoings on the stadium, including the hire purchase payments on the stadium ( which as at May 2005 the liabilty stood at circa £16 million ). At the moment we do not have access to further finance from the stadium, as the hire purchase covers most of the value of the stadium. Also, there's no point in raising further borrowings if we don't have an increased income stream ( or reduction in expenditure) to to cover the extra finance payments. Another point is that if The Tigers were to redevelop their stadium, they would be in direct competition with us for conference income. It's just a guess on my part, but if we had a sole owner, like Madjeski or the Glazers this would go through tomorrow. I do realise that this is a subject that basically splits the supporters 50/50, but as I've said in an earlir post, any soulful attatchment I have to our home ended when we left Filbo. I just view Filbert Way as a concrete bowl that we need to squeeze for all it's worth in terms of income or reducing expenditure. If it means flogging half of it to the Tigers, so be it - we need to be generating more income or reducing our expenditure so we can spend more on the team. We don't need to flog it to tigers, let them rent! You are thinking short term just like the BoD and Trust, we can manager our way to owning the whole ground, if we have a will to. If we sell out now we will have to live with lost earnings forever, will a BoD in 25years time be happy that the club took this short term gain for a longterm loss? The Tigers do not compete as a venue as their rooms are smaller, they take the lower end of the market whilst the Walkers takes the upper end, they won't try to compete with their redevelopment as they know there is a finite market and this wil dilute both of our earnings. I have no problem with renting out the ground or selling a 50% stake at a good price (we will eventually pay around £32 million for the stadium so a reasonable price for 50% is £16m). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 That's too sensible. Watch the board take the blinkered, short term approach and the Foxes Trust will just pretend that was what they wanted all along, to avoid embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 We don't need to flog it to tigers, let them rent! You are thinking short term just like the BoD and Trust, we can manager our way to owning the whole ground, if we have a will to. If we sell out now we will have to live with lost earnings forever, will a BoD in 25years time be happy that the club took this short term gain for a longterm loss? The Tigers do not compete as a venue as their rooms are smaller, they take the lower end of the market whilst the Walkers takes the upper end, they won't try to compete with their redevelopment as they know there is a finite market and this wil dilute both of our earnings. I have no problem with renting out the ground or selling a 50% stake at a good price (we will eventually pay around £32 million for the stadium so a reasonable price for 50% is £16m). Take your point, but would make the point that they will be paying the hire purchase with us, so nobody in their right mind is going to pay £16m upfront and then a futher £16m in hire purchase for half of a stadium worth £32m. With regard to the Tigers proposed redevelopment, who is to say they won't build bigger rooms into their stadium and try to compete with us. With the sort of designs there are these days, those rooms can be sub-divided at a drop af a hat with moveable walls and partitions. This one could run and run, but at the end of the day I don't think a concensus will happen on this subject. I think the mood of the supporters is about 50/50 on this one, so I wouldn't like to be the one in the firing line having to make a decision on this one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 And how does that improve our financial position? Think long term, and not the measly pennies we'll get in the short term.This is old hat, and discussions can be found elsewhere. I only mentioned it because Surreal Madrid thought I had jumped onto the 'club's going nowhere' bandwagon, and wasn't expecting any response as I had made no claim to knowing how the club could be more proactive, just expressed a desire for it. He probably thought it was an easy argument, and obviously doesn't know me well enough yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Take your point, but would make the point that they will be paying the hire purchase with us, so nobody in their right mind is going to pay £16m upfront and then a futher £16m in hire purchase for half of a stadium worth £32m. With regard to the Tigers proposed redevelopment, who is to say they won't build bigger rooms into their stadium and try to compete with us. With the sort of designs there are these days, those rooms can be sub-divided at a drop af a hat with moveable walls and partitions. This one could run and run, but at the end of the day I don't think a concensus will happen on this subject. I think the mood of the supporters is about 50/50 on this one, so I wouldn't like to be the one in the firing line having to make a decision on this one way or another. The plans have already been submitted, from my understanding, along with pretty little models. To be honest, if I was them I'd stick to what I knew best, and continue to serve a market that is not going to be threatened by the WS. See, that's calculating risks for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Take your point, but would make the point that they will be paying the hire purchase with us, so nobody in their right mind is going to pay £16m upfront and then a futher £16m in hire purchase for half of a stadium worth £32m. With regard to the Tigers proposed redevelopment, who is to say they won't build bigger rooms into their stadium and try to compete with us. With the sort of designs there are these days, those rooms can be sub-divided at a drop af a hat with moveable walls and partitions. This one could run and run, but at the end of the day I don't think a concensus will happen on this subject. I think the mood of the supporters is about 50/50 on this one, so I wouldn't like to be the one in the firing line having to make a decision on this one way or another. The tigers offer was £8m and we'd pay off the whole HP between us (City borrowing £8m somewhere to pay their share of the £16m outstanding) so they only put in £8m in total, get your facts straight. With the way we have used the parachute payments (£7m last year) to no great effect do you really think that the £8m paid in by tigers would go far? We'd still be paying back a loan of £8m to gain only 50% of the freehold. Tigers have filed their plans for expansion, maybe you should take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 The plans have already been submitted, from my understanding, along with pretty little models. To be honest, if I was them I'd stick to what I knew best, and continue to serve a market that is not going to be threatened by the WS. See, that's calculating risks for you. 0r it could be doing nothing! I'll get me coat, I can see I'm getting nowhere with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 All financial decisions have to be based on a Net Present Value of the project. This takes into account the time value / cost of finance. Ie £8m now is worth a lot more that £8 in 10 years. Owning 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Still I think you are right and the best plan would be a lease arrangement if we were to share. But I would imagine that isn't accetable to the Tigers or it would have gone through by now. End of discussion, it won't happen this season anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Sod the groundshare I think we should swap grounds with the Tigers. The way we're going, attendances will be down to around 16,000 before too long and it'd be nice to have a ground with a bit of atmosphere again. Fish fish fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Sod the groundshare I think we should swap grounds with the Tigers. The way we're going, attendances will be down to around 16,000 before too long and it'd be nice to have a ground with a bit of atmosphere again.Fish fish fish. And proper terracing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 The tigers offer was £8m and we'd pay off the whole HP between us (City borrowing £8m somewhere to pay their share of the £16m outstanding) so they only put in £8m in total, get your facts straight. Sorry if I didn't express myself correctly, as this all came up so long ago, but my reading was that £8m would come in and then the holding company owning the stadium would borrow £16m to clear the Teacher's debt, as the rate of interest being charged would be noticebly lower than by our American friends. There would still be £16m of debt to pay off the stadium by, in effect, both parties. However, any new deal would more likely be different anyway. End of subject anyway, as I get the feeling the rugby club are rather lukewarm on the idea these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Sorry if I didn't express myself correctly, as this all came up so long ago, but my reading was that £8m would come in and then the holding company owning the stadium would borrow £16m to clear the Teacher's debt, as the rate of interest being charged would be noticebly lower than by our American friends. There would still be £16m of debt to pay off the stadium by, in effect, both parties. However, any new deal would more likely be different anyway. End of subject anyway, as I get the feeling the rugby club are rather lukewarm on the idea these days. That's not the way it was put forward, both city and tigers were going to put £8m into a holding company which would be used to pay off the debt, city would have to borrow the £8m at a poor interest rate due to having a bad credit rating, the only plus for city being the saving made on not paying the HP - the interest and repayments on the £8m loan. I'm glad that tigers have a new plan really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 QUOTE(Fox4ever @ May 17 2006, 04:30 PM) Does this fans consultative committee publish minutes? Some of the minutes have been published in the community section of the OS. All minutes are supposed to be published Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 In the longterm not groundsharing allows us to own our ground and keep 100% of the income from it, rather than the proposal of owning 50% of the ground and taking 50% of the income. Keeping the ground ourselves increases our assets (ie. club value and access to extra finance) and our earnings. Why does letting the moggies have half our ground for a quarter of it's cost make any sense? If they want to play at the Walkers they can rent it for match days just like most other rugby clubs do when using a footy stadium. How long is long term? - While we stay in the Championship we will never own the ground, based on the current financial agreements, they only way that can happen is an extended run in the Premiership. Is it our asset or Teachers? The full financial details of the groundsharing were not made public, so the basis of your comments may be wrong. Tigers would not agree to a rental solution, also that doesn't provide the financial benefits to LCFC that joint ownership offered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 you confirmed what I thought then. We need to be in the premiership to get out of the net holding us back. Some good questions raised which the FT should provide answers to. Why was TD allowed to hire an expensive assistant when we are cutting costs? Has martin goerge ever offered to invest if he became chairman? What are the clubs plans for when our income continues to drop which it will do if they dont go for promotion properly? I think forest is a good example for one investor rather then bad. Their chairman consistently puts personal money into the club and isnt expected to be paid back, he rejected numerous bids for andy reid before he was sold allowing them to both keep him longer and sell him for more since the bids obviously rose in price as they ddint look desperate. He paid of their outstanding council tax bill out his own pocket, and also funds player transfers. Other obvious clubs that benefited from single investors are blackburn, fulham, reading, wigan, chelsea, portsmouth, leeds, cardiff. But yes if we remain static less tickets are sold, we can get relegated, less sponsorship, less tv income, debts increase because we have no investment and income to reduce them. After all this if we allow tigers to get half the ground for cut price and 8m is cut price, we then sacrifice long term income for a short term gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 How long is long term? - While we stay in the Championship we will never own the ground, based on the current financial agreements, they only way that can happen is an extended run in the Premiership. Is it our asset or Teachers? The full financial details of the groundsharing were not made public, so the basis of your comments may be wrong. Tigers would not agree to a rental solution, also that doesn't provide the financial benefits to LCFC that joint ownership offered Maybe wrong you mean you don't know if it's wrong, shocking. I didn't say I new the full financial details but I did attend all of the public discussions about this and have stated the situation as it was presented by Toms and TD during an open meeting, are you saying they were lying to us, surely not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 All minutes are supposed to be published Well they haven't been. Have you not checked this? You have a member on the committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 Maybe wrong you mean you don't know if it's wrong, shocking. OK, we do know it's wrong but can't reveal the details. Let's just say it was a better deal for LCFC than publicised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivarti Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 As the one writing the article at norfox.net I am glad that so many people paid so much attention to the editorial. I have been a City fan since 1972 and have seen the up's and down's of this football club. I travel two times a year to Leicester from Norway, and even flew out to Bodo in the summer to follow City. That's almost the same distance as going from Oslo to Leicester. To see City in the stake they are in now, hurts. The fact that Rob Kelly has nothing to invest in the summer, also hurts. I would love to see City back, but I cannot imagine how that can be done without money. Reading, Leeds and newly promoted Sheffield United has been helped by money to get up were they are. If a person is a russian, a finn or whatever, doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters is that City has a good football team and can get back into the Premiership. This forum is also a great one. Fans with different opinions is what can bring the club forward, keep on posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.