davieG Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 According to the Times: Rugby Leicester go homing in on football groundshare By Mark Souster THE Walkers Stadium has been registered by Leicester as their home ground for next season in the expectation that their proposed joint venture with Leicester City will be waved through by the relevant football and rugby authorities. If they are not, Leicester will remain at Welford Road until such time as the initiative with the football club is settled. If they are allowed to move, Welford Road will be their back-up ground in the event of a fixture clash. The groundsharing venture has been subject to two as yet unresolved caveats. The first is the purchase of a controlling interest in the 32,000-capacity stadium from the Teachers’ Pension Fund of America. Negotiations are ongoing. The second is the prickly issue of primacy of tenure, which is proving a bigger stumbling block than initially envisaged.
Fox in a Box Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 Primacy of tenure, what an interesting development. Ground share? dont that mean 50-50 David G..... good post thou.. Do you think they will create one company then anyone checked companies house for pre registration? We are called new fox aint we?
Guest Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 According to the Tigers site, if nothing's resolved by the end of March, it ain't happening next season.
Jonbluefox9 Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 Well the stewards or some of them have been told they'll be doing Tigers games aswell next season. Also there's a reason they didn't re-turf the areas around Christmas time but it will be re-seeded in the summer even if the Tigers don't move in.
Katy Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 Have a go at me if you like but I really dont want this to happen!
davieG Posted 31 March 2005 Author Posted 31 March 2005 Have a go at me if you like but I really dont want this to happen! 85651[/snapback] Oh Katy, Katy, Katy , take the blinkers off how stupid can you be girl. This is the best idea to come from LCFC in all the years I've been supporting them and if you're too far up your own arse to see that then I seriously fear for the future of professional football in this City of ours. How's that or should I have been a bit stronger. PS I don't want it to happen either.
Simon Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 The groundsharing venture has been subject to two as yet unresolved caveats. The first is the purchase of a controlling interest in the 32,000-capacity stadium from the Teachers’ Pension Fund of America. Negotiations are ongoing. The second is the prickly issue of primacy of tenure, which is proving a bigger stumbling block than initially envisaged. 85550[/snapback] I wpuld like to know what primacy of tenure means- surely that simply goes to the company founded between the two clubs to run the stadium? If it doesnt and primacy of tenure doesnt go to the Foxes then this would be enough to turn my tentative support for the measure into opposition...
Ash Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 I'm not really bothered whether it happens or not ... But it seems like it is going to help out LCFC with funding ,which isn't a bad thing at all.At the end of the day if we aren't playing on there on that Saturday what's the harm in letting the Tigers play there ?
Steven Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 I'm not really bothered whether it happens or not ... But it seems like it is going to help out LCFC with funding ,which isn't a bad thing at all.At the end of the day if we aren't playing on there on that Saturday what's the harm in letting the Tigers play there ? 85749[/snapback] The harm to me is that the cost of exiting this deal is very high. We are going to be stuck at the Walkers with the Tigers for a long time.
Chimp Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 My concern is that none of us have seen any real financial evidence/forecast that this is going to be good for City in the long run. All we've heard is spin. If the idea is really that good for City then why don't they publish some solid figures?
davieG Posted 31 March 2005 Author Posted 31 March 2005 I wpuld like to know what primacy of tenure means- surely that simply goes to the company founded between the two clubs to run the stadium? If it doesnt and primacy of tenure doesnt go to the Foxes then this would be enough to turn my tentative support for the measure into opposition... Simon - This just means who gets to use the ground if both teams are due to play on a certain day. Both codes, football & rugby have rules that state quite clearly that their own code must have first choice as in primacy and would appear not to be prepared to give way on this. The 'holding comany' would have no involvement. My concern is that none of us have seen any real financial evidence/forecast that this is going to be good for City in the long run. All we've heard is spin. Chimp - I understand your concern but if they are in negotiation to purchase the ground they do not want to be seen to be shouting too loud how good the deal is and the benefits as that would weaken their bargaining position.
Chandler Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 It's the RFU who demand 'Primacy of Tenure.' But most commentators acknowledge that this will have to change if only because the Tigers are the most important club in European rugby. Chimp, if you are homo sapiens and you decide to get married one day (as opposed to buggering about in the trees) and own your own slum try the following: (1) Pay the mortgage jointly one month (2) Pay the mortgage by yourself one month When you do (2) see if you feel better off. PS Tigers fans call the Walkers 'The Pooh Camp' which I find a little amusing. I know that this will upset Lisa. But I just lurv her when she's angry!
Chimp Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 (1) Pay the mortgage jointly one month(2) Pay the mortgage by yourself one month When you do (2) see if you feel better off. 85813[/snapback] That's the thing though, despite what some people would like us to believe it's a lot more complex than that. 1) Bringing the Tigers into the Stadium will involve more administration, staff, internal resources, general day to day running costs etc. Will LCFC be expected to pay half of these additional costs? 2) The stadium is used on a more regular basis, be it a Tigers game or a concert, again this incurs additional costs (staff, policing etc). Will LCFC be expected to cover half of these additional costs? 3) We need to come up with a sizeable amount of money, approx 6 million from what I've heard, to buy into our share of the new 'parent' company. Where is this money going to come from? As it's reported the club has no money, the only source of these funds would surely be an outside investor? 4) If we borrow money from an investor to buy our share of the parent company what will that investor take as security against the loan? Our share of the parent company? 5) Even though we may save on having 'to pay half the mortgage' we will still need to find regular loan repayments, hence, any savings on the 'mortgage' are nullified? 6) If we enter into this partnership then LCFC will still not own the Stadium. The ownership of the stadium will handed to the parent company. Just because we might own 50% of the shares of the parent company doesn't mean we own the stadium. We'll still be right where we are right now. 7) I was under the impression that the deal we had with Teachers was that we'd pay rent to use the stadium but would always have an option to purchase the stadium if the funds were available. Would this still be the case? 8) If we get into financial difficulties again, or god forbid go into administration again, what tangible assets do we have to fall back on? Any outside investor would probably look to take a percentage of our shares of the parent company as security against a loan, where the hell does that leave us if things go tits up? These are my main concerns, none of which I've seen addressed adequately. Maybe I've misconstrued some of the facts, maybe I've misunderstood how some aspects of the partnership will operate - if so, where's the official documentation, press release or announcement to put me straight? I'm not against the ground share per se, it's just the amount of spin and off-hand commentary I've seen thrown about, couple with a decided lack of any solid financial evidence that this will be good for LCFC in the long run, have made me view the whole thing with a healthy dose of scepticism. All I hear is opinion, I want facts. No, actually, more than that. The fans of both City and the Tigers deserve the facts.
Chimp Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 My concern is that none of us have seen any real financial evidence/forecast that this is going to be good for City in the long run. All we've heard is spin. Chimp - I understand your concern but if they are in negotiation to purchase the ground they do not want to be seen to be shouting too loud how good the deal is and the benefits as that would weaken their bargaining position. 85771[/snapback] Any company entering into a partnership like this will know full well what benefits the other partner will be gaining - if they don't, they shouldn't be in business. If handled correctly, I really don't think they'll be losing any bargaining chips by releasing some more solid figures and/or financial forecasts to the fans.
Foxes_Trust Posted 31 March 2005 Posted 31 March 2005 - Here's what we know so far That's the thing though, despite what some people would like us to believe it's a lot more complex than that. 1) Bringing the Tigers into the Stadium will involve more administration, staff, internal resources, general day to day running costs etc. Will LCFC be expected to pay half of these additional costs? - If together overall it will deliver savings, the savings in light/heat/power/rent far outweigh any other costy area. 2) The stadium is used on a more regular basis, be it a Tigers game or a concert, again this incurs additional costs (staff, policing etc). Will LCFC be expected to cover half of these additional costs? - Matchday costs & revenue go to the club whose fixture it is, other events like concerts would be shared, concerts were happening anyway, so its potentially only 1/2 the costs now (but half revenue also) 3) We need to come up with a sizeable amount of money, approx 6 million from what I've heard, to buy into our share of the new 'parent' company. Where is this money going to come from? As it's reported the club has no money, the only source of these funds would surely be an outside investor? - New mortgage like we would all do when buying property, that could be with teachers or another finance company 4) If we borrow money from an investor to buy our share of the parent company what will that investor take as security against the loan? Our share of the parent company? - Be same as a mortgage 5) Even though we may save on having 'to pay half the mortgage' we will still need to find regular loan repayments, hence, any savings on the 'mortgage' are nullified? - The loan would be half what it previously was, so payments would be less - so an overall saving is delivered, this is a sizeable saving if we are in the Prem, as the existing deal results in much higher payments when that occurs 6) If we enter into this partnership then LCFC will still not own the Stadium. The ownership of the stadium will handed to the parent company. Just because we might own 50% of the shares of the parent company doesn't mean we own the stadium. We'll still be right where we are right now. - No we won't, we own nothing at present, we will own a company that owns the ground 100% of which LCFC will own 50% of the parent 7) I was under the impression that the deal we had with Teachers was that we'd pay rent to use the stadium but would always have an option to purchase the stadium if the funds were available. Would this still be the case? - If we stay in the Championship we would never own the stadium, interest exceeds repayments on an annual basis, only a consistent stay in the Prem or at least the majority of years there would have delivered ownership. The venue co would own it once the mortgages had been paid off in the same way 8) If we get into financial difficulties again, or god forbid go into administration again, what tangible assets do we have to fall back on? Any outside investor would probably look to take a percentage of our shares of the parent company as security against a loan, where the hell does that leave us if things go tits up? - The club that hasn't gone into admin would be offered first refusal on taking on entire ownership These are my main concerns, none of which I've seen addressed adequately. Maybe I've misconstrued some of the facts, maybe I've misunderstood how some aspects of the partnership will operate - if so, where's the official documentation, press release or announcement to put me straight? - As nothing is signed yet how could it be, we expect the deal to either go ahead, delay one year or be scrapped by mid-April - can be any of those 3 options I'm not against the ground share per se, it's just the amount of spin and off-hand commentary I've seen thrown about, couple with a decided lack of any solid financial evidence that this will be good for LCFC in the long run, have made me view the whole thing with a healthy dose of scepticism. All I hear is opinion, I want facts. No, actually, more than that. The fans of both City and the Tigers deserve the facts. 85896[/snapback] We are trying to keep fans informed as much as we are able, but many elements of the deal are confidential, but we are attempting to keep up to speed with things. Our overall view -financially its a no-brainer, its the heart strings which boost any opposition
jordo11 Posted 1 April 2005 Posted 1 April 2005 get out tigers get your own ground or extend we dont want are pitch to be a rubbish surface if you come you shud have to pay for new turf every 5 games get out tigers
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.