Structadene

afcb_rednblack said:
Do we? How do you know that?

I would be very surprised if the rent we pay is for anything other than the part we don't own.
Click to expand...

The stadium is 3 sided, the south end is a temporary structure. if we were to build on it, we are demonstrating our commitment to stay there as well as increasing the overall value of the stadium. Both of which allows them to increase the rent and ask for more money if we want to buy it back if they so wish.
 
I guess I never thought about it, but what was the deal? They bought the land and stadium, just the stadium, just the land? Yes I know probably a stupid question
 
Herbs said:
As much as I want a new stadium, I want a legacy from this period more.

People need to be more aware of the game scenario we are in and who we are.

We came from nothing, owning no assets except a few players in contract. Through over achievement in a very short period we hit the big time and then we faced a crossroads.

Do we take the money and run a la Blackpool, Burnley, Reading, Newcastle etc and accept relegation?

If we do, do we then sit on the money a la Blackpool, Burnley, Charlton, Wigan and hope we can get back up again in our lifetime but at least the club (or owner has money in the bank) and be similar to a multitude of clubs in the 3 divisions below us that have both not and have spent vast sums of money?

Or we can spend the money on infrastructure and become like Darlington, MK Dons and ply the lower divisions with a 75% empty stadium and a large commitment/noose around our neck?

The other option is do what we have done, invest money in players to keep us in the Premier League and further cash rewards for staying there. Not only that, but we have spent money on players that are young, with promise and a good resale value if we were to ever go down we can cash them in and still be financially stable - best of both worlds.

Not only that, we are investing in land and training facilities are assets.

Having said all of that, we are now here for a 4th season and well on our way for a 5th, we have players worth £40m+ and it is now time to seriously look at upgrading the stadium.

The sums involved are huge and the returns are small (financially) so apart from fan happiness and selling the club to the next generation of fans (and possibly keeping Eddie) the need for a new stadium is not as urgent as improving the team.

We all know that buying back Dean Court and developing is the most sensible but until Structradene play ball, it is a game of brinkmanship and a lot of work is going on behind the scenes for both scenarios. The board is not stupid or naive, so a bit of trust and patience is needed.

Remember the saying "be careful what you wish for, it may just come true".
Click to expand...
So much wrong with your 'theories. You assume negative consequences if we invest in infrastructure, but guaranteed Premier League survival if we spend it on players. There are a myriad of alternative scenarios.

Essentially it boils down to the risk the board are prepared to accept.
 
RobTrent said:
So much wrong with your 'theories. You assume negative consequences if we invest in infrastructure, but guaranteed Premier League survival if we spend it on players. There are a myriad of alternative scenarios.

Essentially it boils down to the risk the board are prepared to accept.
Click to expand...
And so far the owner has shown that his judgement when it comes to risk and investment seem to be about spot on.
 
Herbs said:
The stadium is 3 sided, the south end is a temporary structure. if we were to build on it, we are demonstrating our commitment to stay there as well as increasing the overall value of the stadium. Both of which allows them to increase the rent and ask for more money if we want to buy it back if they so wish.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with that, but what has that got to do with your assertion that we pay rent on the South End?
 
USCherry said:
And so far the owner has shown that his judgement when it comes to risk and investment seem to be about spot on.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I read somewhere (one of those lengthy financial reports) that the Board haven't made any further loans since AFCB entered the Premier League. Thats probably good on the one hand because it suggests AFCB as a business is paying its way, including repayment of original loans.

Maybe that changed with the signing of Lerma and Rico? Maybe the board have redirected funds.

If true, then the Board are playing a steady game.
 
RobTrent said:
So much wrong with your 'theories. You assume negative consequences if we invest in infrastructure, but guaranteed Premier League survival if we spend it on players. There are a myriad of alternative scenarios.

Essentially it boils down to the risk the board are prepared to accept.
Click to expand...

Please elaborate on what is wrong.

Do you or do you not agree that bringing in better players increase your chances of staying in the Premier League?

Do you think if we didn't spend £30m on Begovic and Ake, that we would have stayed up last season, what about the season before?

I don't assume anything, but any sane businessman will know what scenarios will increase or decrease the chances of success.

A stadium ahead of players does not increase our chances, simple as.
 
Herbs said:
As much as I want a new stadium, I want a legacy from this period more.

People need to be more aware of the game scenario we are in and who we are.

We came from nothing, owning no assets except a few players in contract. Through over achievement in a very short period we hit the big time and then we faced a crossroads.

Do we take the money and run a la Blackpool, Burnley, Reading, Newcastle etc and accept relegation?

If we do, do we then sit on the money a la Blackpool, Burnley, Charlton, Wigan and hope we can get back up again in our lifetime but at least the club (or owner has money in the bank) and be similar to a multitude of clubs in the 3 divisions below us that have both not and have spent vast sums of money?

Or we can spend the money on infrastructure and become like Darlington, MK Dons and ply the lower divisions with a 75% empty stadium and a large commitment/noose around our neck?

The other option is do what we have done, invest money in players to keep us in the Premier League and further cash rewards for staying there. Not only that, but we have spent money on players that are young, with promise and a good resale value if we were to ever go down we can cash them in and still be financially stable - best of both worlds.

Not only that, we are investing in land and training facilities are assets.

Having said all of that, we are now here for a 4th season and well on our way for a 5th, we have players worth £40m+ and it is now time to seriously look at upgrading the stadium.

The sums involved are huge and the returns are small (financially) so apart from fan happiness and selling the club to the next generation of fans (and possibly keeping Eddie) the need for a new stadium is not as urgent as improving the team.

We all know that buying back Dean Court and developing is the most sensible but until Structradene play ball, it is a game of brinkmanship and a lot of work is going on behind the scenes for both scenarios. The board is not stupid or naive, so a bit of trust and patience is needed.

Remember the saying "be careful what you wish for, it may just come true".
Click to expand...

We are like a sweet shop then, keep buying gob stoppers and hope the school outside doesn't close down.
 
Herbs said:
The stadium is 3 sided, the south end is a temporary structure. if we were to build on it, we are demonstrating our commitment to stay there as well as increasing the overall value of the stadium. Both of which allows them to increase the rent and ask for more money if we want to buy it back if they so wish.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking as someone who has seen the lease or are you just having a reckon? They can't charge for tenant's improvements at lease renewal unless they are contracted out of Section 34 of the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act, which would be a very weird decision for both parties to agree to in the original deal. Rent reviews will be governed by whatever clause is in the lease and again are extremely unlikely to allow the landlord to charge for tenant's improvements.

I've not seen the lease but it has been suggested on here before that rent reviews are index linked, which means the landlord can't increase other than by the prescribed amount. Obviously you can't increase rent due to improvements on property not included in the demise, such as the south end.

The BBC article is badly worded and makes little sense - not to mention it having been superseded by a number of subsequent statements that have turned out not to be true. His analogy about extending a house you pay rent on is poor - it's not a house it's a commercial property subject to completely different legal framework. I suspect they meant purchase price rather than rent too.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/56/section/34
 
Last edited:
afcb_rednblack said:
"We pay rent on the whole stadium, not stand by stand"

Your words, not mine...
Click to expand...

For the last time, the stadium is 3 sided....... the whole stadium has 3 sides. We pay rent on this.

In addition we own land that currently has a temporary shed on it. We are also paying to rent that shed.
 
Herbs said:
For the last time, the stadium is 3 sided....... the whole stadium has 3 sides. We pay rent on this.

In addition we own land that currently has a temporary shed on it. We are also paying to rent that shed.
Click to expand...
Who are we renting that shed from if we own the land it is built on?
 
Herbs said:
Please elaborate on what is wrong.

Do you or do you not agree that bringing in better players increase your chances of staying in the Premier League?

Do you think if we didn't spend £30m on Begovic and Ake, that we would have stayed up last season, what about the season before?

I don't assume anything, but any sane businessman will know what scenarios will increase or decrease the chances of success.

A stadium ahead of players does not increase our chances, simple as.
Click to expand...
I thought my statement was pretty clear. You were making ONLY negative assumptions about infrastructure and ONLY positive ones about players.

Spurs are building a stadium but aren't looking like being relegated any time soon. Fulham spent £100m on players in the summer but are.

Neither of those examples 'prove' anything. I am not making bold claims that one option results in a certain outcome. You seem to be.

I get we're not having a new stadium any time soon, and we'll live with it. But I don't think the scenarios are as black and white as you paint.
 
RobTrent said:
I thought my statement was pretty clear. You were making ONLY negative assumptions about infrastructure and ONLY positive ones about players.

Spurs are building a stadium but aren't looking like being relegated any time soon. Fulham spent £100m on players in the summer but are.

Neither of those examples 'prove' anything. I am not making bold claims that one option results in a certain outcome. You seem to be.

I get we're not having a new stadium any time soon, and we'll live with it. But I don't think the scenarios are as black and white as you paint.
Click to expand...

Of course they are not BUT, where would Fulham and Spurs be if they were doing the opposite?
 
absolutely nothing. We were discussing why we are not building a perm stand at the south end.

This is going way off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;