Have we sold our ground

[Guest mkowl]

Just now, Bluesteel said:

Alan Biggs is getting at something I mentioned earlier in the thread. If people accept this as financial semantics to ease a problem it will work well in the short term and likely heal some of the fan and chairman tensions over the last 18 months. He will have put his money up to solve an issue that was a threat and he will want to see that recognised.

 

If he does it and gets a backlash for potential future implications then it solves FFP but could make him wonder why he bothered and then we would be in the sale scenario feared where the stadium and club are separated.

 

I think all concerns are valid but just need to be raised in the right manner to seek assurances for the future rather than jumping to conclusions/expecting the worst of the owner in the future. As a fan base it’s one to be diplomatic with. 

 

Fair assessment - not sure on the "put his money up" bit to solve this

 

He is owed huge amounts already from funding the losses, the very simple solution will be to use that money owed to him to pay for the stadium, no new cash

[Bluesteel]

10 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Fair assessment - not sure on the "put his money up" bit to solve this

 

He is owed huge amounts already from funding the losses, the very simple solution will be to use that money owed to him to pay for the stadium, no new cash

 

I didn’t realise that, although I’m sure someone else posted that there are wider implications moving forward that could cost money to whoever formally owns the stadium. Also, writing off the debt in the process must be a good thing to some degree.

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Bluesteel said:

 

I didn’t realise that, although I’m sure someone else posted that there are wider implications moving forward that could cost money to whoever formally owns the stadium. Also, writing off the debt in the process must be a good thing to some degree.

 

It is as long as folk accept that the sale would not raise revenue to sign more players. The amount "raised" from the sale will reduce losses and show as an operating profit on the accounts for the financial year but it is just a paper exercise. Unless the sale is for a ridiculous amount that I would not see as feasible when assessed by the EFL, this will not result in additional revenue to strengthen the playing squad.

[matthefish2002]

30 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

It is as long as folk accept that the sale would not raise revenue to sign more players. The amount "raised" from the sale will reduce losses and show as an operating profit on the accounts for the financial year but it is just a paper exercise. Unless the sale is for a ridiculous amount that I would not see as feasible when assessed by the EFL, this will not result in additional revenue to strengthen the playing squad.

 

So basically the sale of the ground would be to plug the black hole already in the finances that is largely down to getting carried away signing dud players 2 years ago?

[ChinaOwl]

4 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

So basically the sale of the ground would be to plug the black hole already in the finances that is largely down to getting carried away signing dud players 2 years ago?

 

If you want to put it that bluntly, then yes. But it would not be wholly fair on Mr Chansiri. It was his own money that ultimately got wasted. I am sure he didn't do it deliberately and he is certainly not alone in the football world. Let's just hope that the past mistakes are not repeated and we can now start operating on a more financially savvy basis!

[Guest mkowl]

50 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

 

I didn’t realise that, although I’m sure someone else posted that there are wider implications moving forward that could cost money to whoever formally owns the stadium. Also, writing off the debt in the process must be a good thing to some degree.

 

To put into numbers as at 31st May 2017 the loan from the shareholder per the accounts was £37.6m

 

That will have certainly gone up - so lets call that at least £50m

 

Stadium sold for erm £50m - that loan is paid back presumably ?

 

But yep a prospective buyer of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited shares would not own a stadium within that entity but equally would not have to factor in repayment of that loan 

[matthefish2002]

6 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

If you want to put it that bluntly, then yes. But it would not be wholly fair on Mr Chansiri. It was his own money that ultimately got wasted. I am sure he didn't do it deliberately and he is certainly not alone in the football world. Let's just hope that the past mistakes are not repeated and we can now start operating on a more financially savvy basis!

 

I don't doubt Chansiri motives but think his business abilities and football knowledge are very questionable.
Yes he has wasted his own money but he has also wasted the fans to money when he asked us all to accept eye watering ticket prices.
If the sale of the ground is also added to his mistakes then we really are in trouble.

[Bluesteel]

1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

It is as long as folk accept that the sale would not raise revenue to sign more players. The amount "raised" from the sale will reduce losses and show as an operating profit on the accounts for the financial year but it is just a paper exercise. Unless the sale is for a ridiculous amount that I would not see as feasible when assessed by the EFL, this will not result in additional revenue to strengthen the playing squad.

 

But presumably, reducing loans and losses gives wriggle room to spend and lose again if DC is minded to do so.

[matthefish2002]

Just now, Bluesteel said:

 

But presumably, reducing loans and losses gives wriggle room to spend and lose again if DC is minded to do so.

 

I think wiggle room yes, mass spending spree of 2-3 years ago no.

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Bluesteel said:

 

But presumably, reducing loans and losses gives wriggle room to spend and lose again if DC is minded to do so.

 

Yes, that is possible. I just see so many fans that think, if the ground is sold for £40 million (as an example), that money will be available to spend on players. I am not aiming the reply at you specifically but in general terms. What would be unwise would be to go on another spending spree with the loosened P & S restrictions otherwise we will be pretty soon back in the same financial mess and the option to sell the ground won't be available next time.

[ChinaOwl]

1 hour ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I don't doubt Chansiri motives but think his business abilities and football knowledge are very questionable.
Yes he has wasted his own money but he has also wasted the fans to money when he asked us all to accept eye watering ticket prices.
If the sale of the ground is also added to his mistakes then we really are in trouble.

 

I am sure if you read enough of my posts, it would be perfectly clear that I am not an advocate of Mr Chansiri's methods or business acumen. I do, however, have some sympathy for his plight mainly because football is a business that follows none of the normal rules financially and every owner is going to suffer substantial losses at some point. There are clear areas that we could and should do better at. Let's hope that Mr Chansiri can go some way to making things better in future.

[room0035]

27 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

I think wiggle room yes, mass spending spree of 2-3 years ago no.

But if DC uses the sale of the ground to cover all the money that has been lost over the last few years to sign more players presumable he won't have leant anything.

 

We don't need to make loads of signing we need to tweak the squad but also get rid of players we don't need. We need 4 strikers not 7, we need 2 keepers not 3 (loan one out), we need to get rid or loan out players we don't need or want.

 

 

[room0035]

18 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

I am sure if you read enough of my posts, it would be perfectly clear that I am not an advocate of Mr Chansiri's methods or business acumen. I do, however, have some sympathy for his plight mainly because football is a business that follows none of the normal rules financially and every owner is going to suffer substantial losses at some point. There are clear areas that we could and should do better at. Let's hope that Mr Chansiri can go some way to making things better in future.

I have been very critical of the way DC runs the club and continues to run the club.

 

Everyone keeps saying he is a businessman but I cannot find anything to suggest he is, I have read he has money from property but the farce of the shirts and the contract that was signed and broken told me, that too was probably not true as anyone in property will know you have a lawyer on retainer that sorts everything for you.

 

I understand he had no experience of football but he aligned himself with agents, when things started to do South, he aligned himself with someone who was hated by her previous club brought in as a CEO ended up being fans satisfaction officer. 

 

If DC continue to use the excuses then do what every other club does get someone in who knows what they are doing.

[Bluesteel]

We do need room to spend so that we are not constantly on the cusp of breaching rules. But with Bruce guiding him on this matter then with a different transfer policy it can be done more sustainably using frees, loans, younger players from u23 and targeted spending on key players when required. The key is selling players at the right time even if the fan base doesn’t like it.

 

I do feel for DC as I think in Fletcher we signed the taller centre forward needed, Reach was an investment. Abdi and Rhodes both had great reputations but those two with a combined cost of about 12m in fees didn’t deliver. The peripheral signings of jones and others who added nothing new all stacked up. 

 

The real cost is wages and if we sign players on the way up they will at least have lesser demands for now. 

[fred mciver]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

 

To put into numbers as at 31st May 2017 the loan from the shareholder per the accounts was £37.6m

 

That will have certainly gone up - so lets call that at least £50m

 

Stadium sold for erm £50m - that loan is paid back presumably ?

 

But yep a prospective buyer of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited shares would not own a stadium within that entity but equally would not have to factor in repayment of that loan 

Excellent post but this would require a Chartered Surveyor to value stadium at double its current value £ 25 million in accounts.

 

Company sales require such  valuations by law and would also probably fail FFP otherwise.

 

As stated, the stadium's zoned for only sports under planning and in a flood zone in an area of relatively low land values. 

 

For me , Abdi's worth more (bit maybe not to a taxi firm or high energy drinks firm).

Edited May 23, 2019 by fred mciver

[billyblack]

51 minutes ago, room0035 said:

But if DC uses the sale of the ground to cover all the money that has been lost over the last few years to sign more players presumable he won't have leant anything.

 

We don't need to make loads of signing we need to tweak the squad but also get rid of players we don't need. We need 4 strikers not 7, we need 2 keepers not 3 (loan one out), we need to get rid or loan out players we don't need or want.

 

 

Just to add to that, we cant afford to turn down good offers for players. Period. All this non selling club is just a pipe dream and nonsense

[Guest mkowl]

1 hour ago, Bluesteel said:

 

But presumably, reducing loans and losses gives wriggle room to spend and lose again if DC is minded to do so.

 

I just go on the basis the "profit" on sale of the stadium will be around the figure that brings our losses within the 39m allowed

 

I appreciate the 3 year rolling assessment may make a difference BUT the actual losses where you are reviewed are much lower and lets be honest our previous means that will be the case 

 

I go on the basis this digs us out of a historical hole and no more than that 

[Guest mkowl]

46 minutes ago, fred mciver said:

Excellent post but this would require a Chartered Surveyor to value stadium at double its current value £ 25 million in accounts.

 

Company sales require such  valuations by law and would also probably fail FFP otherwise.

 

As stated, the stadium's zoned for only sports under planning and in a flood zone in an area of relatively low land values. 

 

For me , Abdi's worth more (bit maybe not to a taxi firm or high energy drinks firm).

 

Yes it would need a RICS valuation 

 

How the hell you value it in use - that is the key "in use" as a football stadium - a RICS member would be able to tell us

 

As a plot of land for building I would say £5m to £10m but that is totally irrelevant for this purpose

 

 

[room0035]

17 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Yes it would need a RICS valuation 

 

How the hell you value it in use - that is the key "in use" as a football stadium - a RICS member would be able to tell us

 

As a plot of land for building I would say £5m to £10m but that is totally irrelevant for this purpose

 

 

I think the EFL are going to have a say in what the club can value the land for.

[cockneyvillageowl]

30 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Just to add to that, we cant afford to turn down good offers for players. Period. All this non selling club is just a pipe dream and nonsense

 

Very true - even if the £14m figure was inflated by the media, selling FF for £10m would have kept us on the right side of FFP. Whilst he’s a quality player, we wouldn’t have missed him much over the past season... hindsight is a wonderful thing mind.