Have we sold our ground

[mogbad]

37 minutes ago, Drewswfc said:

Who's going to buy the club without buying the ground? 

 

Somebody who believes that to be commercially viable in modern day football we need to move to a modern stadium somewhere else in the city.  He then wouldn't have to dispose of Hillsborough, just keep paying the rent until such time as we moved.

[TheEnchanter]

4 minutes ago, casbahowl said:

This must seriously be a parody account!

No one can be this consistently boring/stupid/irrelevant without trying!

Whoever you really are at least have the common decency to post under your real persona whilst making your slanderous and libellous attacks on the Chairman!

How the mods have let you get away with it for so long under the guise of stupidity is literally beyond belief!

 

 

[TheEnchanter]

7 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said:

No, it doesn’t force clubs to do anything. If they want to be successful though it pretty much puts paid to that & keeps you in your place. The reality of modern football is you either invest or stagnate. To get from where we were to where we are to where we want to be takes money. Our owner has that money but is not allowed to invest because an owner once levied their debt against their club as a loan & then demanded that money back. Instead of making a rule to close that loophole they invented a rule to effectively protect the status quo. And yes, our business model has been seriously flawed but the bills are being paid, everyone’s getting their wages & the tax mans getting his cut - so what exactly have we done wrong? If the investment is a gift & not a loan then no harm done surely?

 

I agree, the way the EFL would see it though is that they've already moved the goalposts of £0 permitted losses to become £39M permitted losses. If they were to allow clubs to make even more losses than that we'd probably see more and more clubs going into administration and at risk of going out of business as was the case before they put the rules in place. I don't know how they'd do it but I agree it's frustrating that we aren't allowed to spent the money that we have, I don't know how they'd create a model that would enable us to do that unless they treat each club differently on a case by case basis which would cause uproar. 

[swfcGibbo]

 

https://www.propertyweek.com/news-analysis/who-owns-premier-league-stadiums/5090883.article

[Hawkinsfootballboots]

Said this a few times now but P&S should be scrapped and a salary cap of 80-90% of turnover should be introduced. It’s players wages, 30k per week for a bang average player,  that are killing the game. 

[Hitcat]

It's an asset, like the players. No reason why the EFL can grumble. I think we should really go to town. Have Chansiri sponsor everything from the pavement outside to the pies. 

[Guest mkowl]

50 minutes ago, Sticky belly said:

 

Not sure but there are certainly quite a few pRÌCS 

Wins bet thanks 

[helmut_rooster]

5 hours ago, wilyfox said:

I bought it with money borrowed from the Middle East 

[OwlinOldham]

6 minutes ago, Hawkinsfootballboots said:

Said this a few times now but P&S should be scrapped and a salary cap of 80-90% of turnover should be introduced. It’s players wages, 30k per week for a bang average player,  that are killing the game. 

 

Its this and also the ever increasing cost of buying even just bang average players at prem level and below. In many cases, its not just the quality of the player that drives the price, its also the cost of the replacement.

Would we be able to get another Fessi for less than the 14 million we apparently want? nope. As soon as clubs know you have money they drive up the price and these days its even more so than it used to be.

 

[helmut_rooster]

Will be a joke setup by a pig so we stop taking the píss out of em

[Musn't Grumble]

Could start a worrying new trend where clubs start buying each other's grounds instead of buying players.

[casbahowl]

This hasn’t happened overnight, it must have been months in the planning!
It’s the reason we managed to secure the services of SB.
If Villa lose the playoffs they will do exactly the same!
Hats off to the Chairman, let’s go to town on this before the disgraced EFL close the loophole!
This is going to have massive implications on FFP and hopefully lead to long overdue changes!

[ChinaOwl]

6 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

Could start a worrying new trend where clubs start buying each other's grounds instead of buying players.

 

Aye, some club might be able to get Bramall Lane in exchange for a few crates of rocket launchers and semi automatic rifles. 

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, beano said:

I prefer the D Taxis Stadium.

 

Me too mate 

[SiJ]

Assuming he's pretty much sold it to himself? 

 

Not an ideal scenario, but it appears this is a not so creative way of getting around p and s.

 

Derby have done the same a few months back.

 

Not sure about these comparisons to Coventry. They never owned the Ricoh. It was owned by the council and then sold to London Wasps. 

 

Cant see such a situation occurring with us.

 

Think most us have known this was probably on the cards for a while. 

 

The whole p and s thing needs to be properly looked at. No doubt they'll stop teams from doing this or say in future it cant go towards p and s. Really, they need to be increasing the annual losses over a three year period or just scrapping the whole thing. 

[Bluesteel]

43 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said:

 

I agree, the way the EFL would see it though is that they've already moved the goalposts of £0 permitted losses to become £39M permitted losses. If they were to allow clubs to make even more losses than that we'd probably see more and more clubs going into administration and at risk of going out of business as was the case before they put the rules in place. I don't know how they'd do it but I agree it's frustrating that we aren't allowed to spent the money that we have, I don't know how they'd create a model that would enable us to do that unless they treat each club differently on a case by case basis which would cause uproar. 

 

The way I see it, spend what you like, but don’t place the additional debt beyond permitted levels against the club. Write it off or convert to equity. 

[BARMYARMY2010]

2 hours ago, room0035 said:

I understand what you are saying but comparing like with like.

 

The season 2 years ago when the teams in the championship got promoted there was an article about how much each got for their shirt sponsorship the lowest Huddersfield received £1.5m a season, our chairman in comparison pays into the club the same season £1.2m.

 

But he has his name on most of the advertising boards, the seats, the shirts and the side of the football ground. Huddersfield get £1.5m for the shirts we get £1.2m for the shirts, the stadium, the stadium seats and the stadium advertising hording. So simple is DC putting in the most he can or is he putting in the most he wants to.

 

Within the filed accounts from May 2017 on page 29' Income of £1,200,000 was received from D Chansiri the owner and director of the company, in respect of a sponsorship agreement relating to the club shirt and certain areas of the stadium'

 

In comparison Stoke city where paid £9.6m this season from Bet365 a company owned by the wife of the guy who run Stoke City for the sponsorship of the ground and the shirts. Yes a deal signed when they were in the premier league but give you an idea of what we could be getting was the chairman to up his sponsorship we could easily argue in the 4th most popular league in the world the going rate for sponsoring of shirts and stadium should be nearer the £5m mark..

Do you mean the "OPE SPORTS" Sponsorship deal room ?

[WC1Owl]

2 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Assuming he's pretty much sold it to himself? 

 

Not an ideal scenario, but it appears this is a not so creative way of getting around p and s.

 

Derby have done the same a few months back.

 

Not sure about these comparisons to Coventry. They never owned the Ricoh. It was owned by the council and then sold to London Wasps. 

 

Cant see such a situation occurring with us.

 

Think most us have known this was probably on the cards for a while. 

 

The whole p and s thing needs to be properly looked at. No doubt they'll stop teams from doing this or say in future it cant go towards p and s. Really, they need to be increasing the annual losses over a three year period or just scrapping the whole thing. 

 

The slight worry for me is that for it to count as a genuine transaction I assume that the EFL requires some assurance that the leaseback relationship will be on a commercial arms length basis. And of course, we can only do it once.

 

It's doubling down on spending to get promoted with all of those risks - but the very real question is, what's the alternative?

[Stoop]

Let the spendageddon commence 

[wednesdaywizard]

So this is how we can afford Charlie Austin!

 

Kerching.