BREAKING - Club Statement

[Harrysgame]

Just now, rickygoo said:

Leeds fans found the stadium sale wasn’t ultimately that benign. And we were under an embargo. You make my point for me. 

Last I heard we could sign players while under arbitration? Not read all pages so can we or not?

 

[Animis]

1 minute ago, StudentOwl said:

If you had said when MM was our owner that the bloke he would eventually sell the club to would sell Hillsborough, there would have been universal outrage and condemnation that MM would sell us to such an irresponsible owner after saving us from the brink.

 

It is truly extraordinary to me that any Sheffield Wednesday fan shrugs their shoulders at this.

 

Whilst the ground 'sale' isn't clearly the preferred option and outcome, it's not a catastrophic position. When or if DC comes to sell the club he may include the ground or he may not. It's irrelevant as the value will flex accordingly. This includes any rent on any lease he may wish to set up to keep the asset separate.

 

 

[Essix Blue]

3 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Whilst the ground 'sale' isn't clearly the preferred option and outcome, it's not a catastrophic position. When or if DC comes to sell the club he may include the ground or he may not. It's irrelevant as the value will flex accordingly. This includes any rent on any lease he may wish to set up to keep the asset separate.

 

 

Exactly. Neither the ground nor the club are of much use to anyone without the other. 

[Dick_Turpin]

8 minutes ago, Harrysgame said:

Last I heard we could sign players while under arbitration? Not read all pages so can we or not?

 

I said we were under an embargo. Not that we are. 

[Belfast Owl 2]

13 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

No mate, the rules have changed. 

 

Who gives them at authority as had no idea rules had changed.

 

Just our luck they changed

[StudentOwl]

9 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Whilst the ground 'sale' isn't clearly the preferred option and outcome, it's not a catastrophic position. When or if DC comes to sell the club he may include the ground or he may not. It's irrelevant as the value will flex accordingly. This includes any rent on any lease he may wish to set up to keep the asset separate.

 

 

I understand that the "value" of any future sale of the club will adjust to account as to whether the stadium is included or not... but my natural riposte to this is to ask the question: would Coventry fans have rationalised losing their stadium with the same process? Did they always not own their stadium or did they lose it? (Genuinely don't know).

 

Does our situation mirror for example Coventry? Or are we quite different. Again, on this I'm definitely ignorant.

 

What I can't help but wonder is what happens if DC decides to keep owning Hillsborough and pick up rent long after he's gone, and what happens when he can charge pretty much what he damned well likes in this sort of scenario until we raise enough capital to build a new home...

[Sonny]

2 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

I understand that the "value" of any future sale of the club will adjust to account as to whether the stadium is included or not... but my natural riposte to this is to ask the question: would Coventry fans have rationalised losing their stadium with the same process? Did they always not own their stadium or did they lose it? (Genuinely don't know).

 

Does our situation mirror for example Coventry? Or are we quite different. Again, on this I'm definitely ignorant.

 

What I can't help but wonder is what happens if DC decides to keep owning Hillsborough and pick up rent long after he's gone, and what happens when he can charge pretty much what he damned well likes in this sort of scenario until we raise enough capital to build a new home...

 

...or decides to sell it to someone else, for example.

[Essix Blue]

2 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

I understand that the "value" of any future sale of the club will adjust to account as to whether the stadium is included or not... but my natural riposte to this is to ask the question: would Coventry fans have rationalised losing their stadium with the same process? Did they always not own their stadium or did they lose it? (Genuinely don't know).

 

Does our situation mirror for example Coventry? Or are we quite different. Again, on this I'm definitely ignorant.

 

What I can't help but wonder is what happens if DC decides to keep owning Hillsborough and pick up rent long after he's gone, and what happens when he can charge pretty much what he damned well likes in this sort of scenario until we raise enough capital to build a new home...

I don’t think Coventry ever owned their new stadium. Could be wrong. 
 

As for the second scenario, what you’re suggesting is if DC sold the club and kept the ground. In such case the new owner would nail him down to a long term rental deal for the ground - so DC can’t pretty much charge what he wants. 

[Sonny]

2 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

I don’t think Coventry ever owned their new stadium. Could be wrong. 
 

As for the second scenario, what you’re suggesting is if DC sold the club and kept the ground. In such case the new owner would nail him down to a long term rental deal for the ground - so DC can’t pretty much charge what he wants. 

 

But in the example of Coventry, the owners tried to charge what they wanted and an agreement wasn’t reached. Now they play elsewhere. 

 

It’s likely that it would be fine. It’s possible that it wouldn’t.

 

Also doesn’t matter if Coventry never owned their ground. They don’t now and neither do we.

[Dick_Turpin]

25 minutes ago, Animis said:

Whilst the ground 'sale' isn't clearly the preferred option and outcome

Nope neither were the ticket prices, or the battle with the EFL, or the battle with Radio Sheffield, or the battle with box owners, or the battle with SAG, or the lack of true third party sponsorships, or the 1867 club, or the soft embargo, or the battle with Leicester, or the fact I couldn’t get a steak pie the other day etc. Lots of non ideal options. 

[Essix Blue]

1 minute ago, 2roland2 said:

The Coventry mess ( this is covered quite a bit in other football, topics somewhere I think) was eventually due to them defaulting at some point which allowed the owners to fizz them off. 

if I am right it was sold by Coventry and then resold again. 
 

Well as in any financial agreement such as that, if you default on payments then you’re gonna get into a mess. 
 

IF that’s what happened at Coventry - I’ve no idea. 

[Miffed]

DC owns the club including the stadium. He owned the stadium before and has effectively sold sold the stadium to himself, so still owns it.

 

He could do what he wanted with the stadium before and he can do what he likes with it now. As far as I’m concerned nothing has changed in that regard.

[Essix Blue]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

Nope neither were the ticket prices, or the battle with the EFL, or the battle with Radio Sheffield, or the battle with box owners, or the battle with SAG, or the lack of true third party sponsorships, or the 1867 club, or the soft embargo, or the battle with Leicester, or the fact I couldn’t get a steak pie the other day etc. Lots of non ideal options. 

Don’t even get me started. 30 minutes gone and none left on kop at the top counter

[Belfast Owl 2]

3 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Nope neither were the ticket prices, or the battle with the EFL, or the battle with Radio Sheffield, or the battle with box owners, or the battle with SAG, or the lack of true third party sponsorships, or the 1867 club, or the soft embargo, or the battle with Leicester, or the fact I couldn’t get a steak pie the other day etc. Lots of non ideal options. 

 

You backing the SAG over ground issues and Leicester over Hirst?

 

 

[Miffed]

Just now, 2roland2 said:

well there is a bit of a difference for what it’s worth. When the stadium was in the clubs name, fans could try and hold him accountable table and maybe even the wider football fan community and press, now it’s under the ownership of Chansiri ( not Sheff wed he can do pretty much what he wants with it including burning it to the ground and no amount of jumping up and down and screaming g will matter. 

Sure, fans could ‘try’ but if Chansiri decided that we were going to play elsewhere and Hillsborough be sold to an housing development company there would still be naff all anyone could do about it.

[Animis]

4 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

I don’t think Coventry ever owned their new stadium. Could be wrong. 
 

As for the second scenario, what you’re suggesting is if DC sold the club and kept the ground. In such case the new owner would nail him down to a long term rental deal for the ground - so DC can’t pretty much charge what he wants. 

 

Absolutely - in all this, the 'market' will determine the value and price someone else is prepared to offer. 

 

If we are promoted, DC's new ground valuation (cost of re-building Hillsborough less depreciation) is now set at £60m - an increase of £36m from 2014. This means any new owner will look at Hillsborough and think, with SAG ground/crowd restrictions and condition, the time of making a decision on major re-furbishment/re-build or move investment will need to be made within 3-5 years of getting into the PL. This will be netted off the club sale in some form. In the end, we aren't worth DC last December's valuation of £150m in our current position, so he, like the Co-op, will have to take a haircut.

 

He won't do this, so he's got to get us into the PL to re-coup any sort of money he's already invested. Would DC sell up for a few £5/10 million after all the hassle he's gone through - I'm not sure, and think he'd want to see us in the PL for a few seasons at least. He could feasibly be the owner for 5-10 years to come.

[Sonny]

. 

5 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Absolutely - in all this, the 'market' will determine the value and price someone else is prepared to offer. 

 

If we are promoted, DC's new ground valuation (cost of re-building Hillsborough less depreciation) is now set at £60m - an increase of £36m from 2014. This means any new owner will look at Hillsborough and think, with SAG ground/crowd restrictions and condition, the time of making a decision on major re-furbishment/re-build or move investment will need to be made within 3-5 years of getting into the PL. This will be netted off the club sale in some form. In the end, we aren't worth DC last December's valuation of £150m in our current position, so he, like the Co-op, will have to take a haircut.

 

He won't do this, so he's got to get us into the PL to re-coup any sort of money he's already invested. Would DC sell up for a few £5/10 million after all the hassle he's gone through - I'm not sure, and think he'd want to see us in the PL for a few seasons at least. He could feasibly be the owner for 5-10 years to come.

 

He’s got to try and get us into the PL to re-coup any sort of money. Not doing so presents a whole different range of scenarios and recent history suggests it may not happen. In fact there’s a whole lot of ‘best case’ thinking throughout this thread. We haven’t had any best case for decades.

[Essix Blue]

3 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

like I said there would be more sway to prevent this if the club still owned it because of pressure from fans, other clubs fans and press. It wouldn’t guarantee anything but would make it a hell of a lot harder to do. As it stands right now fizz fuckity fizz all we can do, we are in the hands of our owner, let’s hope he is the man people keep stating. I’m just dubious about anyone involved in football at ownership levels in general. 

 

Don’t agree with that. Whether SwFc owns the ground or some Chansiri company, I don’t think it would alter any attempt DC made to move us to a new ground. That particular event has been debated many many times and I hope it doesn’t start again in this thread, but fans objections to it would have the same effect whoever owned the ground. 

[Essix Blue]

1 minute ago, Sonny said:

. 

 

He’s got to try and get us into the PL to re-coup any sort of money. Not doing so presents a whole different range of scenarios and recent history suggests it may not happen. In fact there’s a whole lot of ‘best case’ thinking throughout this thread. We haven’t had any best case for decades.

It all boils down to one thing that no one knows - Chansiri’s plans when he bought the club. 
 

Yes of course, promotion. IMO like a lot of foreign owners, he wants the prestige of being the chairman of a club in the best football league in the world. But what if that didn’t happen? Surely DC must have had, in the back of his mind, the idea that no matter what he spent it wouldn’t guarantee promotion. So he must have been willing to either be here until we do go up, could be another 10 years or more, or see it as a shorter term plan and be willing to sell at a loss. 
 

Make no mistake - once the efl thing is done - there’d be people knocking on his door if he was gonna sell. We are still a good option for someone with the cash and the right ideas. Problem is of course, would DC be willing to take a loss??

[Animis]

11 minutes ago, Sonny said:

. 

 

He’s got to try and get us into the PL to re-coup any sort of money. Not doing so presents a whole different range of scenarios and recent history suggests it may not happen. In fact there’s a whole lot of ‘best case’ thinking throughout this thread. We haven’t had any best case for decades.

 

That's a good point - clearly by his own admission, DC didn't know much about football when he bought us. He seemed to have thought investment on the field would equal early success. Obviously this hasn't happened but he will have learnt a lot over the last 5-yrs. He will have a loner-term plan, which may or may not include selling us. 

 

I never had any problem in one individual owning the club - the critical factors are good decision making on players, managers and commercial dealings for ultimate success - DC must know this.