Inspector Lestrade Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, cbirks said: Hillsborough was not owned by DC, it was owned by Sheffield Wednesday. If DC sold Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough would have gone with it, remaining in Sheffield Wednesday's possession. It is now not owned by Sheffield Wednesday, it is owned by DC - or rather, actually, a different company owned by DC. Now if DC sells Sheffield Wednesday, Hillsborough will not go with it, it will remain in the possession of DC. I've made this point many times, and normally the response is, like yours, that the sale of the stadium makes no difference. The cartoon indicates that the 'that'll never happen' attitude of many is overly trusting at best. At Wigan, the owning company created another company, loaned a fortune to it, sold Wigan to that company, and used repayments owed to itself by the new company to pump all value out of Wigan. This is the reality of limited company ownings, dealings, and behaviour. Wouldn't it be a package deal? The club along with the ground? Why would any potential buyer only want part of the 'whole'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just to make another point, the majority of football clubs don't own their ground. It hasn't been a problem before and it isn't a problem now. Get over yourselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbirks Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said: Wouldn't it be a package deal? The club along with the ground? Why would any potential buyer only want part of the 'whole'? Forgive me, long post coming. My point is that there is currently no 'whole' that comprises both the club and ground. The club is one company owned by one set od shareholders, the ground is owned by a different company with a different set of shareholders. SWFC & Hillsborough have been separated entirely in legal and real terms, the only thing connecting them at the moment is that the majority shareholder of the two separate companies involved happens to be the same man, DC. For someone to buy the whole, they'd have to buy a majority shareholding in SWFC and also buy Hillsborough off/gain majority shares in a totally different company. Not impossible, sure, but my point is - and reiterated by others with different examples in this thread - that such behaviour would be the exception of how ltd companies act, not the norm. Far more likely is the two lose even their connecting majority shareholder, DC, and the two companies are run separately for profit. Hillsborough being run separately to SWFC, for profit, does not bode well for SWFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kew Owl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 25 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said: Wouldn't it be a package deal? The club along with the ground? Why would any potential buyer only want part of the 'whole'? Is it not possible that a prospective purchaser of SWFC could view us as a more attractive investment opportunity if we entered into a ground sharing arrangement with another club ( say Huddersfield or Leeds ) and paid them a rent rather than take ion all the upkeep and maintenance costs associated with Hillsborough ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbirks Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Minton said: Just to make another point, the majority of football clubs don't own their ground. It hasn't been a problem before and it isn't a problem now. Get over yourselves. I don't think this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Kew Owl said: Is it not possible that a prospective purchaser of SWFC could view us as a more attractive investment opportunity if we entered into a ground sharing arrangement with another club ( say Huddersfield or Leeds ) and paid them a rent rather than take ion all the upkeep and maintenance costs associated with Hillsborough ? Anything is possible, but I would think it's unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, cbirks said: Forgive me, long post coming. My point is that there is currently no 'whole' that comprises both the club and ground. The club is one company owned by one set od shareholders, the ground is owned by a different company with a different set of shareholders. SWFC & Hillsborough have been separated entirely in legal and real terms, the only thing connecting them at the moment is that the majority shareholder of the two separate companies involved happens to be the same man, DC. For someone to buy the whole, they'd have to buy a majority shareholding in SWFC and also buy Hillsborough off/gain majority shares in a totally different company. Not impossible, sure, but my point is - and reiterated by others with different examples in this thread - that such behaviour would be the exception of how ltd companies act, not the norm. Far more likely is the two lose even their connecting majority shareholder, DC, and the two companies are run separately for profit. Hillsborough being run separately to SWFC, for profit, does not bode well for SWFC. But at any point before DC bought the ground (moved it to another one of his companies) a potential buyer could have come along and said I would like to buy the club but can you hold onto the stadium and I’ll buy that from you when we reach the premier league & I’ll pay you rent in the meantime. There would be nothing to stop DC accepting that arrangement in either scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mildatheart67 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) Besides which the FA would not allow it. Bucause Rotberham were made homeless they got a 2 year bye to return to thier home city us had to put up £750000 bond that would be lost if they did not If anything it's worse ,would still have to keep Hillsboro in good order. Edited July 7, 2020 by mildatheart67 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, cbirks said: Forgive me, long post coming. My point is that there is currently no 'whole' that comprises both the club and ground. The club is one company owned by one set od shareholders, the ground is owned by a different company with a different set of shareholders. SWFC & Hillsborough have been separated entirely in legal and real terms, the only thing connecting them at the moment is that the majority shareholder of the two separate companies involved happens to be the same man, DC. For someone to buy the whole, they'd have to buy a majority shareholding in SWFC and also buy Hillsborough off/gain majority shares in a totally different company. Not impossible, sure, but my point is - and reiterated by others with different examples in this thread - that such behaviour would be the exception of how ltd companies act, not the norm. Far more likely is the two lose even their connecting majority shareholder, DC, and the two companies are run separately for profit. Hillsborough being run separately to SWFC, for profit, does not bode well for SWFC. Thanks for your reply. I can't imagine that anyone would buy one without the other, surely it wouldn't be a feasible option for anyone or company to invest in such a venture. DC is being pragmatic, I would think once he can bring the two back together then he will. If DC ever decided to bail out then it would be in his best interests to sell them as one entity. I'm no businessman, so I bow to your superior knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 hours ago, pazowl55 said: Thing regarding the ownership of the ground will remain the same until Chansiri decides it's time to sell us. Then he will just include it in the price of the ground. if they have to be separate then that's what he will do price for each. I dont see what he has to gain from keeping hold of it. We arent Manchester United. It's not going to make him massive amounts of money. I gave Rotherham as an example, a very local one Mr Booth sold Rotherham United for £1, but kept hold of Milmoor which he leased back to Rotherham United for silly money and conditions attached (Rotherham pay for maintenance and upgrades, Booth gets share of the receipts, free tickets, free advertising for his business, Rotherham's FA Cup Final ticket allocation etc). There's absolutely no guarantee that Hillsborough would return to Wednesday if Mr Chansiri decides to sell up. In fact Hillsborough might be his only way of recouping any money at all. If Booth charged Rotherham £200k a year 12 years for a few thousand fans, what would the rent on 25k fans at Hillsborough in the Championship be today? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, cbirks said: I don't think this is true. In the Premier League alone, Arsenal, Bournemouth, Brighton, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City, Newcastle, Spurs the Grunters and West Ham don't wholly own their grounds. Just from a quick look, neither do Huddersfield, Stoke, Fulham, Swansea or West Brom. Edited July 7, 2020 by Minton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbirks Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, Inspector Lestrade said: Thanks for your reply. I can't imagine that anyone would buy one without the other, surely it wouldn't be a feasible option for anyone or company to invest in such a venture. DC is being pragmatic, I would think once he can bring the two back together then he will. If DC ever decided to bail out then it would be in his best interests to sell them as one entity. I'm no businessman, so I bow to your superior knowledge. Believe me, I hope I'm wrong in all of this, and that despite the precedents it all works out swimmingly. ...but I am 'worried' (did I mention that I was worried?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, cbirks said: Believe me, I hope I'm wrong in all of this, and that despite the precedents it all works out swimmingly. ...but I am 'worried' (did I mention that I was worried?). You might have mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just a quick 5 mins on google shows the following stadiums aren’t owned by the football clubs that play in them Arsenal Brighton Man City Hull MiddlesborougH Sheffield United they're the 1st six I checked, I’m sure there are plenty more. Some are owned by stadium management companies linked to the football club or the same parent company that owns the club, some are owned by the local council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Manwë said: I gave Rotherham as an example, a very local one Mr Booth sold Rotherham United for £1, but kept hold of Milmoor which he leased back to Rotherham United for silly money and conditions attached (Rotherham pay for maintenance and upgrades, Booth gets share of the receipts, free tickets, free advertising for his business, Rotherham's FA Cup Final ticket allocation etc). There's absolutely no guarantee that Hillsborough would return to Wednesday if Mr Chansiri decides to sell up. In fact Hillsborough might be his only way of recouping any money at all. If Booth charged Rotherham £200k a year 12 years for a few thousand fans, what would the rent on 25k fans at Hillsborough in the Championship be today? That was probably because the people buying the club didn’t have a pot to ******** in and that was a way he could get some of his investment back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, kirksandallowl said: Just a quick 5 mins on google shows the following stadiums aren’t owned by the football clubs that play in them Arsenal Brighton Man City Hull MiddlesborougH Sheffield United they're the 1st six I checked, I’m sure there are plenty more. Some are owned by stadium management companies linked to the football club or the same parent company that owns the club, some are owned by the local council. United owned by HW Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, kirksandallowl said: That was probably because the people buying the club didn’t have a pot to ******** in and that was a way he could get some of his investment back. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbirks Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Minton said: In the Premier League alone, Arsenal, Bournemouth, Brighton, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City, Newcastle, Spurs the Grunters and West Ham don't wholly own their grounds. Just from a quick look, neither do Huddersfield, Stoke, Fulham, Swansea or West Brom. I maintain that this is not 'the majority' of clubs, but you're right these do seem to have successful arrangements in which they don't wholly own grounds. However, my concerns remain that we were one of the ones that did. And now we don't. Not even through same parent companies as at least 5 of the above are. I'm not envious of any of the examples you've offered. We had a concrete asset, and now we don't, and we have no idea what arrangement will take eventual control of ours. Will we be able to afford our eventual arrangement? Or will it break us? I'd rather not have to ask the question. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevthelodgemoorowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 52 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said: Wouldn't it be a package deal? The club along with the ground? Why would any potential buyer only want part of the 'whole'? Exactly no worries what so ever. Just imagine Wednesday v Spurs in FA Cup 5th round In Concorde Park; No Sag and an attendance of 41,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 15 minutes ago, Manwë said: I gave Rotherham as an example, a very local one Mr Booth sold Rotherham United for £1, but kept hold of Milmoor which he leased back to Rotherham United for silly money and conditions attached (Rotherham pay for maintenance and upgrades, Booth gets share of the receipts, free tickets, free advertising for his business, Rotherham's FA Cup Final ticket allocation etc). There's absolutely no guarantee that Hillsborough would return to Wednesday if Mr Chansiri decides to sell up. In fact Hillsborough might be his only way of recouping any money at all. If Booth charged Rotherham £200k a year 12 years for a few thousand fans, what would the rent on 25k fans at Hillsborough in the Championship be today? If Chansiri ever sells us for a quid. It would make him the worst businessman in the entire world if he didnt hold on to the ground and do exactly that. However he is not going to sell the club for a £1 is he. So I fully expect that when he goes, he will sell Hillsborough with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now