no, we pay rent on the land that Structaden bought from us.Because it increases the overall value of the stadium. We pay rent on the whole stadium, not stand by stand.
no, we pay rent on the land that Structaden bought from us.Because it increases the overall value of the stadium. We pay rent on the whole stadium, not stand by stand.
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.
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.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".
And so far the owner has shown that his judgement when it comes to risk and investment seem to be about spot on.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.
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?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'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.And so far the owner has shown that his judgement when it comes to risk and investment seem to be about spot on.
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.
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?
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".
"We pay rent on the whole stadium, not stand by stand"i never said we do.....
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.
"We pay rent on the whole stadium, not stand by stand"
Your words, not mine...
Who are we renting that shed from if we own the land it is built on?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.
I thought my statement was pretty clear. You were making ONLY negative assumptions about infrastructure and ONLY positive ones about players.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.
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.
Who are we renting that shed from if we own the land it is built on?
Who are we renting that shed from if we own the land it is built on?
Google it, i'm sure its common knowledge