Why 48% of us are likely very wrong

[Minton]

48 minutes ago, Rogers said:

I can’t believe the concept of which holding company owns the ground is so hard to understand. 
 

As I see it, SWFC owned by DC used to own the ground. So when SWFC gets sold, the ground comes in the package, now it doesn’t. 
 

So who’s going to buy a club with no home? It gives DC the right to loan the ground back to us; which has caused a load of issues with other clubs mentioned in this thread. 
 

Its a big worry for the following reasons:

 

a) attracting a buyer Is made harder

b) making any sale more complicated

c) provides the Chansiri family with a stick to hit us with for years to come until we move grounds. 

 

It doesn't seem to have been a problem for Newcastle. 

 

As I (and others have said) there are a *lot* of clubs that don't own their ground. 

[DJMortimer]

57 minutes ago, 33 said:

I'm never wrong

 

Well this quote is wrong for a start.

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 hour ago, Rogers said:

I can’t believe the concept of which holding company owns the ground is so hard to understand. 
 

As I see it, SWFC owned by DC used to own the ground. So when SWFC gets sold, the ground comes in the package, now it doesn’t. 
 

So who’s going to buy a club with no home? It gives DC the right to loan the ground back to us; which has caused a load of issues with other clubs mentioned in this thread. 
 

Its a big worry for the following reasons:

 

a) attracting a buyer Is made harder

b) making any sale more complicated

c) provides the Chansiri family with a stick to hit us with for years to come until we move grounds. 

I can’t see why it would make attracting a buyer more difficult because Chansiri owns both holding companies. Surely any buyer would insist on the ground being included in any sale. If they didn’t then it would cause a whole host of problems but I think the probability someone buys us and allows Chansiri to keep hold of the ground is small.

 

Biggest issue for me is that DC looks to be running out of cash because we’ve barely spent anything on new players for a few years and the ground sale there was no cash injection just an IOU effectively. FFP is a bit of a smokescreen I think because if he was going to go for it again, assuming the stadium sale was signed off then that time is now when it reset the losses. But we’re not getting those signals. Think he’s spent up to his limit 

[Rogers]

1 hour ago, Minton said:

 

It doesn't seem to have been a problem for Newcastle. 

 

As I (and others have said) there are a *lot* of clubs that don't own their ground. 

 

Who's recently taken over at Newcastle, I missed that.  I lose track of the yearly takeover rumours at that club that come to nothing. 

[briggowl]

7 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

7 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

I can’t see why it would make attracting a buyer more difficult because Chansiri owns both holding companies. Surely any buyer would insist on the ground being included in any sale. If they didn’t then it would cause a whole host of problems but I think the probability someone buys us and allows Chansiri to keep hold of the ground is small.

 

Biggest issue for me is that DC looks to be running out of cash because we’ve barely spent anything on new players for a few years and the ground sale there was no cash injection just an IOU effectively. FFP is a bit of a smokescreen I think because if he was going to go for it again, assuming the stadium sale was signed off then that time is now when it reset the losses. But we’re not getting those signals. Think he’s spent up to his limit 

 

 

Running out of cash and interest!

 

Yeah SWFC sale would either be with Hillsborough or without but at £80m less. A buyer would pressumably want it all or agree sensible lease terms with Chansiri, who I imagine wouldn't be interested in owning just Hillsborough. 

[Buddy Repperton]

I'm more worried about my freedom and human rights being slowly removed tbh!

[briggowl]

18 hours ago, cbirks said:

We should all be worried. We should be really, really worried. 

 

Haven't we all got enough real things to worry about as opposed to making up possible things to worry about that we can't even imagine we could control?

[Minton]

7 hours ago, Rogers said:

 

Who's recently taken over at Newcastle, I missed that.  I lose track of the yearly takeover rumours at that club that come to nothing. 

 

They're in the final fit and proper persons test for a £350m takeover that would make them 10 times richer than Man City. There were a number of bids as well. 

[Weshallovercome]

14 hours ago, Utah Owl said:

He could sell the club on the cheap and have us as tenants paying him rent every year or then sell the ground for development to recoup some of his losses.

 

Never a good thing for club and ground to be parted and goodness knows we've mocked others for this very thing frequently in the past (Piggies and Leeds for starters).

 

I don't disagree, Leon.....I do know the implications of the ground sale, I was one of the 52% that was not happy with it, my reasoning though was due to the why not the wherefore, the fact we'd gotten into a situation where it was necessary, which was purely down to bad management, that is my main worry. 

But I've seen a gradual improvement in that with the hiring of Bruce and our recent transfer dealings, I feel DC is learning, admittedly more by necessity than design, but failing is the best way to learn what not to do imho, hopefully because of this he'll be a fecking brilliant chairman down the line

 

I do feel DC has morals, I'm fairly confident he wont sell us down the river, I'm old enough never to be too confident, but I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

Anyways, anyone with the cash to buy SWFC will have enough sense either, to not buy us in the first place or not buy us without the ground.

[Lynx Owl]

On 07/07/2020 at 15:44, 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. 

Same thing that happened across the city, 'luckily' for them an arbitrator decided it'd cost them 50 million quid to buy it back, it could've cost more. It's not a comfortable situation to be in.