Structadene

bog_standard said:
ha ha your at it again SDD, let me explain to you one more time because your clearly not getting it! It was 'THE CLUB' that suggested a new stadium not me. Their infrastructure increases, only increases mind, their chances of promotion, not just the stadium. We'll see where we will be playing in 10 years time because I don't think we'll be playing in the same league as reading, brighton or southampton. The new stadium would be my preferred option and that would be a 'LONG TERM INVESTMENT'. It shouldn't take a genius to work these things out. Why build the new wembley, the emerates, the new stand at anfield, saints present ground or the new white hart lane....... LONG TERM INVESTMENT.
Click to expand...


Forget what the club said - they've since said that it's not worth the investment (in so many words) so we know what they think about the situation.

I'm talking about what you say. You are the only person who says it doesn't matter if we only get 16k in the championship - it obviously does because the ground gives a poor return even if we stay up. If we go down it is a dreadful investment no matter how many times you say the return doesn't matter. Maybe if you'd have put LONG TERM INVESTMENT in capitals a couple more times the numbers would actually add up.

To completely dismiss the financial realities of the situation and practically demand a new ground whilst ignoring the consequences that relegation and 16k attendances would have for the owner is a staggering level of entitlement. The guy didn't need to invest a penny in AFCB - but he did. He owes you absolutely nothing.
 
redharry said:
Re the actual footprint of land that SD bought I believe the South Stand area and a bit of the pitch wasn't actually owned by the club in the first place. It may have been leased from the Council or Stanley Cohen may have had a charge on it - not 100% sure but there was something that precluded it from the S&L.
Click to expand...

Does it relate to the previous footprint?
 
Well it explains why we only sold a portion of the ground under the stadium, because we likely didn't own the rest of it at the time
 
Redharry explained that and yes I recall Stanley Cohen had a charge on some land but struggling to see what the new footprint has to do with the old one. Perhaps I should address it to SDD who asked the question.
 
Well I'm pretty certain that we own a lot of the new footprint, or have very long term lease on it, hence the car parks, pavilion and training pitches. I know the pitches initially had to be made available for community use but that usage has been retracted, and there was definitely a transfer of land happened when we built the pavilion, we had to take the path way that runs between the pavilion and the training pitches. For this reason I think it's safe to assume that though we didn't own any of this land when we performed the sale and leaseback we at least have some sort of claim on it now. But to be honest I'm not totally sure what you're asking and whether you mean the possible future footprint or the current footprint
 
cockbeard said:
Well I'm pretty certain that we own a lot of the new footprint, or have very long term lease on it, hence the car parks, pavilion and training pitches. I know the pitches initially had to be made available for community use but that usage has been retracted, and there was definitely a transfer of land happened when we built the pavilion, we had to take the path way that runs between the pavilion and the training pitches. For this reason I think it's safe to assume that though we didn't own any of this land when we performed the sale and leaseback we at least have some sort of claim on it now. But to be honest I'm not totally sure what you're asking and whether you mean the possible future footprint or the current footprint
Click to expand...

We took out a new 25 year lease from the council for another narrow strip of land where the training pavilion is built which runs along behind the south end for media cabling as well. If memory serves me correctly.
 
cockbeard said:
I'm not totally sure what you're asking and whether you mean the possible future footprint or the current footprint
Click to expand...

I was wondering why SD purchased a lump of land that bears little resemblance to the current ground but looks like the old footprint. It fits in nicely with a potential housing footprint.

That said when did we buy the land from Stanley Cohen / Council that the south stand sits on or did Cohen leave it to the club...he might have.
 
I have to laugh at you SDD! Did you not here what the club and eddie said, they can't afford the new stadium at the moment, they would like one because it makes is a good long term investment and yes I would preferably like the same but you say that isn't going to happen, I still think it might but I would settle for an increase in capacity. They prefer to spend it on players and their wages, wrongly from my point of view and rightly with your short term view. And you haven't answered my questions? Why build the new wembley, the emerates, the new stand at anfield, saints present ground or the new white hart lane and add to that all those sky scrapers going up in central london..... yes you guessed it long term investment!
 
I imagine after the sale and leaseback, hence us selling a plot that looks suspiciously like the old footprint

hahahaha, though knowing us, maybe we thought it'd be cheaper to buy back if we only sold half of it. I've done similar at Cash Converters in the past, oh I'll definitely buy it back so will only take half what it's worth, less inetrest see. then like a numpty never got around to collecting
 
Unfortunately as things stand, the clubs budget (as they've set it out) is limited to financing players to keep us in the premier league, it may appear short term to some but it is key to sustaining the major income stream, which in turn will hopefully assist in financing a new stadium in time.
The stadium projects that Bog Standard points to are, with the exception of Southampton, being undertaken by global brands with non football incomes and a demand for tickets that we can only dream of, hence they are a better investment for their financiers than a new Dean Court would be. I would also suggest that their respective owners are most likely significantly wealthier than Max and therefore it makes it less of a risk for them personally.
I desperately want a legacy from this as much as any of us and I think that gets lost by some like Bog Standard, who when someone puts an objective, 'real world' argument forward they're seen as not wanting it to happen, there is a difference - as indeed there is between an investment and a gamble !
UTC
 
FrankBartonsBeard said:
Unfortunately as things stand, the clubs budget (as they've set it out) is limited to financing players to keep us in the premier league, it may appear short term to some but it is key to sustaining the major income stream, which in turn will hopefully assist in financing a new stadium in time.
Click to expand...

Except the squad excuse is a slippery slope into a bad season where all saved money gets thrown into a winter transfer kitty that blows the saving and throws the books when we have a bad season.

We already have people throwing their toys out of the pram at the suggestion of selling a player.

Spening more and more on playing staff in the hope that somehow money will fall from the sky to build a stadium with is not the answer.

It's like putting off fixing a burst pipe because the water bill is too expensive.

FrankBartonsBeard said:
The stadium projects that Bog Standard points to are, with the exception of Southampton, being undertaken by global brands with non football incomes and a demand for tickets that we can only dream of
Click to expand...

Brighton, Reading, Derby, Wigan, Brentford, Wimbledon, etc

All those top globals brands....
 
Last edited:
bog_standard said:
... you haven't answered my questions? Why build the new wembley, the emerates, the new stand at anfield, saints present ground or the new white hart lane and add to that all those sky scrapers going up in central london..... yes you guessed it long term investment!
Click to expand...

Actually none of those stadia are much about long term investment which is in any way relevant to our situation:

Wembley was a vanity project driven by Ken Bates (remember him?) using other people's money including a big contribution of public funds;

The economics of the Emirates with its high percentage of prawn sandwich seats was for an era before mega TV income and club ownership by oligarchs/sovereign wealth funds.

The Anfield stand was cheaper than relocating and again is dominated by posh seats. Development of the Anfield Road end is on hold, essentially because there is less scope for posh seats.

The new White Hart Lane is underpinned by the prospect of its housing an NFL franchise, which has to be in London because of the way the NFL sponsorship rules work (sponsorship income is pooled in the NFL except for sponsors located within 75 miles of the franchise. Hence any NFL franchise based in London could generate a huge sponsorship income).

And Saints bankrupted themselves remember. They just got lucky that Marcus Liebherr fancied owning a football club.
 
Last edited:
SlowDownDerek said:
There you go again. I'm sure the owner would love you to explain your workings out to his investment partners.

I'd like you to explain how the size of the ground influences the chances of promotion - the evidence of recent years doesn't suggest that it's relevant.
Click to expand...
What evidence of recent years? Apart from ourselves ( fantastic manager ) I don't recall any club getting promotion with a smaller capacity of 20,000 in recent times. If that was the case the premier league would be full of Burton's and Rotherham's. As has been said on this board before Max wouldn't be financing this with anything other than loans. Surely a new and bigger stadium makes his club a better investment in the future if and when another investor shows interest in the club.
 
bog_standard said:
I have to laugh at you SDD! Did you not here what the club and eddie said, they can't afford the new stadium at the moment, they would like one because it makes is a good long term investment and yes I would preferably like the same but you say that isn't going to happen, I still think it might but I would settle for an increase in capacity. They prefer to spend it on players and their wages, wrongly from my point of view and rightly with your short term view. And you haven't answered my questions? Why build the new wembley, the emerates, the new stand at anfield, saints present ground or the new white hart lane and add to that all those sky scrapers going up in central london..... yes you guessed it long term investment!
Click to expand...

I've heard all the club statements and I stopped believing them a long time ago because they were b*llocks. Last time I heard you say anything on the topic you said the same so make your mind up.

I've answered your questions dozens of times. Over and over again yet it's never remotely sunk in. All infrastructure projects need to be funded one way or another. Usually it's by generating sufficient return on investment. If it doesn't do that then someone is going to have to pay for it and accept that they won't get their money back. Literally every example you come up with fits into one of these categories.

Liverpool's main stand cost £120m and generates an extra £20m per season - an excellent level of return which dwarfs anything we could get and they don't have to worry about relegation and only getting 16k attendances with next to no corporate box income (oh sorry I keep forgetting - it doesn't matter does it?)

Occasionally it can start off as a good investment but go over budget - like Tottenham's ground and arguably Wembley. Spurs now face the prospect of years of belt tightening and possibly losing their manager. These examples don't exactly help make your point though do they?

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ettino?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Sky scrapers in London? It's exactly the same mate. Same as it was last time when you mentioned student accommodation in Bournemouth. Same as every other property investment you can come up with - the numbers add up.
 
Valencian said:
I approached Stuctadene and the club about 10 years ago and offered £3.35m to purchase the ground so that we would have a friendly landlord who would be much easier to deal with. As per all my efforts the club and Structadene refused to talk. I’m sure the current owners were never made aware of this and who knows where the value sits now!
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this Valencian; there was a proviso in place under the S&L, to allow a supporter-group to buy the stadium from Structadene, within a certain time-frame. 10-years ago, that time-frame was still open. So you would almost certainly been successful, had you been representing a supporter-group.

For the answers to all the other questions posed in this thread, please see the myriad posts on this topic, by using the search facility.
 
Kudos said:
Brighton, Reading, Derby, Wigan, Brentford, Wimbledon, etc

All those top globals brands....
Click to expand...

No, but they obviously had/have a means of finance that made it possible - cant speak for them all but corporate investment (AmEx), individual benefactor (Madjeski), housing development offset (Brentford)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;