Jump to content

Asset of Community Value - Petition


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SWFC Trust said:

AGM on 14th July will sort that out. 

Good stuff. 12 ‘board’ members sounds a bit excessive, for 605 members. Have you got a big enough table?

 

BP employ 70,000 and they’ve got a board of 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SWFC Trust said:

Our view is that if Sheffield 3 was sold to a new owner, and the stadium was transferred as part of the sale, the new owner would need to register the title deed as new owner. That would require a conveyancing process. Under the terms of the Localism Act, the Conveyancer would be required to ensure that the moratorium on sale provisions of the Act had been completed. In our view this means that the ACV provisions would apply as if the stadium had been sold.

 

My view is that the ownership of the stadium isn't changing. The owners of the stadium are Sheffield 3 Limited.

The shareholding of Sheffield 3 Limited can change a zillion times but it doesn't mean that the ownership of the stadium changes.

So - as already suggested - an ACV is mostly meaningless.

  • Like 1

"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vulva said:

Good stuff. 12 ‘board’ members sounds a bit excessive, for 605 members. Have you got a big enough table?

 

BP employ 70,000 and they’ve got a board of 10. 

 


Why not put yourself forward, get elected, and then suggest a smaller board?

 

Put ya money where ya mouth is n all that

I'd vote for you if your policies were good


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

My view is that the ownership of the stadium isn't changing. The owners of the stadium are Sheffield 3 Limited.

The shareholding of Sheffield 3 Limited can change a zillion times but it doesn't mean that the ownership of the stadium changes.

So - as already suggested - an ACV is mostly meaningless.

Key is that Sheffield 3 limited is a separate legal entity to it's owner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hornsby said:

RICS Red Book, due to material uncertainty that ACV would trigger.

 

Also, Covid and one of my usually profitable  clients lost money last year, following property revaluation.

 

Further, S3 rents from club must also be uncertain so should already have revalued.

 

Significantly, S3 ltd accounts also late.

Talking rubbish mate honestly total codswallop re the impact of the ACV.

 

Also complete rubbish the impact on Sheffield 3 limited the only thing that matters to Sheffield 3 limited is whether the shareholder can afford to fund the annual payments to swfc limited, but given the good relationship between the owners of both companies not going to ever be an issue is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

My view is that the ownership of the stadium isn't changing. The owners of the stadium are Sheffield 3 Limited.

The shareholding of Sheffield 3 Limited can change a zillion times but it doesn't mean that the ownership of the stadium changes.

So - as already suggested - an ACV is mostly meaningless.

I think saying it’s meaningless is very harsh. We don’t know how things are going to go, and if nothing else it gives six months breathing space if things go completely titties up. Without the money to buy the ground it is a pointless exercise, but little acorns and baby steps. 

Better than black balloons and Ken Bates if you ask me.

The trust are the only organisation that are currently fighting for the fans. 

The more that back it, rather than sniping at it the better it will be. 

And yes you can find posts with me sniping, but I’ve now joined, having been impressed by their response to my criticism and the fact they are trying to do something.

I joined wednesdayite back in the day for the same reason, but I always got the impression they were too busy fighting each other to fight for the fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SWFC Trust said:

780 now, but I agree that the more members we gain the better. I'd encourage as many Owls fans as possible to join. It's a tenner, and you get a nice badge 🙂

 

www.swfctrust.co.uk

Great it has increased. I looked at the report last night and it did not make much reference to the number of members. It should. I worked out the membership numbers from the Balance Sheet but glad it has increased since then

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Plonk said:

I think saying it’s meaningless is very harsh. We don’t know how things are going to go, and if nothing else it gives six months breathing space if things go completely titties up. Without the money to buy the ground it is a pointless exercise, but little acorns and baby steps. 

Better than black balloons and Ken Bates if you ask me.

The trust are the only organisation that are currently fighting for the fans. 

The more that back it, rather than sniping at it the better it will be. 

And yes you can find posts with me sniping, but I’ve now joined, having been impressed by their response to my criticism and the fact they are trying to do something.

I joined wednesdayite back in the day for the same reason, but I always got the impression they were too busy fighting each other to fight for the fans. 

 

I'm sorry you see it is sniping

 

I'm a member of the Trust as well.

  • Like 1

"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hornsby
1 hour ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Talking rubbish mate honestly total codswallop re the impact of the ACV.

 

Also complete rubbish the impact on Sheffield 3 limited the only thing that matters to Sheffield 3 limited is whether the shareholder can afford to fund the annual payments to swfc limited, but given the good relationship between the owners of both companies not going to ever be an issue is it.

That's if you ignore company law.

 

Club must pay £3 million rent.

 

As it can't pay staff, rental stream very doubtful.

 

That alone justifies new stadium valuation that will crash S3:ltd.

 

Last independent value was £22.5 million, by LSH. Bout right still. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

That's if you ignore company law.

 

Club must pay £3 million rent.

 

As it can't pay staff, rental stream very doubtful.

 

That alone justifies new stadium valuation that will crash S3:ltd.

 

Last independent value was £22.5 million, by LSH. Bout right still. 

What has any of that got to do with the ACV? Nothing!

 

Even if stadium was valued at £10m it wouldn't "crash" anything. Would just be a revaluation reserve in the accounts.

 

Again only important factor is if the owner can fun the net payment to swfc each year.

 

Facts not fiction is always best. 

 

Edited by wellbeaten-the-owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, vulva said:

Good stuff. 12 ‘board’ members sounds a bit excessive, for 605 members. Have you got a big enough table?

 

BP employ 70,000 and they’ve got a board of 10. 

Its a maximum of 12 (if a rule change passes at the AgM, currently max 10). It's not that many at the minute but there's space to grow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grandad said:

 

I'm sorry you see it is sniping

 

I'm a member of the Trust as well.

I don't see it as sniping. Our reading of it (with our volunteer legal guidance and experience of the FSA to support us) is different to yours. Perfectly valid questions to ask. 

 

Even if you are correct, I don't think the ACV would be meaningless. The symbolic value is worth something even ignoring all else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

That's if you ignore company law.

 

Club must pay £3 million rent.

 

As it can't pay staff, rental stream very doubtful.

 

That alone justifies new stadium valuation that will crash S3:ltd.

 

Last independent value was £22.5 million, by LSH. Bout right still. 

 

Is there an end game to continually spamming Owlstalk with incorrect information? Genuine question.

I don't get it? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SWFC Trust said:

I don't see it as sniping. Our reading of it (with our volunteer legal guidance and experience of the FSA to support us) is different to yours. Perfectly valid questions to ask. 

 

Even if you are correct, I don't think the ACV would be meaningless. The symbolic value is worth something even ignoring all else. 

Had another question that might also make the Sheffield 3 question redundant.

 

For these regulations who is the "owner"?

 

Had a read of the regulations and it read to me like it's either the freeholder (Sheffield 3 limited) or in case that the leaseholders lease was at least 25 years then the owner would be deemed the leaseholder (swfc ltd) (assuming the swfc lease was 25 years?).

 

My head hurts with the legal stuff, prefer the numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hornsby said:

 

 

Last independent value was £22.5 million, by LSH. Bout right still. 

I presume by that statement you are a qualified member of RICS ?

Pleased you are not doing valuations of houses

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Had another question that might also make the Sheffield 3 question redundant.

 

For these regulations who is the "owner"?

 

Had a read of the regulations and it read to me like it's either the freeholder (Sheffield 3 limited) or in case that the leaseholders lease was at least 25 years then the owner would be deemed the leaseholder (swfc ltd) (assuming the swfc lease was 25 years?).

 

My head hurts with the legal stuff, prefer the numbers

Read the 2019 accounts at lease term was 30 years so swfc ltd may be the deemed owner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Read the 2019 accounts at lease term was 30 years so swfc ltd may be the deemed owner

Relevent bit....

 

The owner

of the land, for the purposes of the Assets Scheme, is defined in section 107 of

the Act to mean the freeholder where there is no qualifying leaseholder, or the

leaseholder most distant (in terms of intervening legal estates) from the

freeholder, holding a lease granted for at least 25 years. This means that there

will only ever be one qualifying tier of ownership for the Assets Scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...