@mooneyman said: @Twizz - Debt has to be repaid at some point and as it grows it becomes more and more difficult to do so. Eventually it becomes impossible and the club goes bust. If Harman loans us £2m that will be used up in 4 years at the current rate, so what then?
I believe the bottom line is that like any individual, the club should not blindly spend more than its income.
Is the Harman money a loan? In the public meeting he did not confirm either way and there was a clear sentiment not to leave the club saddled with debt.
Maybe it is working capital and with his team they will trade through, be better and increase the revenue?
My first job was at a printer’s in Leigh Court. £28.50 a week on the YTS, as long as the boss could win it on his Lucky 15 down at Arthur Prince on Desborough Road. If he wasn’t lucky, he’d fuck off home leaving me with no money for the weekend.
An absolute dump. Opened the third floor fire exit one day to find the metal steps had collapsed. Chemical soaked rags stored in tea chests. Me and three other blokes smoking all day in a room full of ink and cleaners with a Calor gas heater. In winter, the room was shrouded in a blue fog.
Happy days before the advent of the PC brigade and their obsession with health and safety. Hopefully we can get back to them before I die of an unspecified lung disease.
Hasn't Adams Park been used for residential purposes already? I may be wrong, but I remember hearing that former groundsman Jim Gardner lived in a flat at the ground at one point.
If anyone is desperate to know more, Leigh Street is discussed in section 4.113 of the report I posted yesterday.
Moral of the story is to be absolutely clear is that any owner of Adams park wanting to use the land for non football purposes would be extremely unlikely to get residential housing planning permission. He would probably eventually get permission for industrial usage - probably light industrial units. That has a value - but not as high as residential land would have sourced.
Perhaps time to pull this thread back to the ownership issue. We await details of the (up to two) bids and the mix of debt and equity. Actually owner debt versus equity is IMHO relatively unimportant. What is important for me is what the two bids intend to do about debt owing to others - eg Howard's debt. We wouldn't really wasn't a situation where a Luby controlled club still owed money to say Beeks or a Harman controlled club still owed money to say Howard
@LordMandeville said:
For the avoidance of doubt regarding the value of AP - this from the Trust web site:
'Ownership of Adams Park (professionally assessed at £7million) is held within Frank Adams Legacy Limited (“FALL”).'
I’m a tiny bit rusty on this, but if the purpose of this valuation was for the accounts then given there isn’t an active market (are there many people out there who are in the business of buying stadiums?) the value here is likely to be using a cost approach, ie the amount it would cost to rebuild the stadium.
@Username, assuming Kotecha Heights is the offices being converted to flats that @Wendoverman raised, see pages above and the planning report I linked which spells it out. In certain circumstances OFFICES in areas zoned for employment use can be converted to residential use due to an oversupply of offices. Now I suppose AP owners could put desks on the pitch and filing cabinets in the goals and claim that they were alfresco offices all along, but I don't think planners are going to be fooled.....
I believe it was to be a donkey sanctuary, children's adventure holiday centre and a well run old people's home. That's what millionaires usually provide for their communities when the council bankroll their rugby stadium isn't it?( subject to planning of course!)
@DevC said: @Username, assuming Kotecha Heights is the offices being converted to flats that @Wendoverman raised, see pages above and the planning report I linked which spells it out. In certain circumstances OFFICES in areas zoned for employment use can be converted to residential use due to an oversupply of offices. Now I suppose AP owners could put desks on the pitch and filing cabinets in the goals and claim that they were alfresco offices all along, but I don't think planners are going to be fooled.....
You can use the hospitality boxes as offices if you buy them for a whole season. There are also offices inside the reception, club shop, security tower, the bar areas and the dining area in the Woodlands.
Do you think Adams Park is closer to a commercial property such as an office, or a factory?
I imagine Mooney, given it wouldn't have been able to get residential permission due its employment land designation that it would have been developed as small industrial units.
Oxford you need to read the definition under which existing offices can be converted to residential under planning rules. AP isn't going to meet that designation.
always a risk, sadly @Wendoverman although as we have discussed (and I presume you now accept) less of a risk for us compared to other teams due to planning constraints on our stadium.
We would all I suspect prefer fan-owned status if it could sustain us in the league. Do you think it could? If so, what would you base that view on?
Here's one though....I think someone else asked before...what were you expecting Steve Hayes to do with Adams Park given that it was not zoned for residential and the then council would never, ever in a million years (pounds) have been persuaded that it was?
I think Steve Hayes was looking to make his money at the new stadium with the hotel he was planning to build there. I suspect Adams Park would have had the gates locked and left to become a wasteland
I had to smile when I read @DevC’s comment (9.22 am) suggesting that it might be time to drag this thread back to the ownership issue. I was also grimacing inside at the thought of a resumption of hostilities. This thread was intended to be about the role of Trust members with regard to their continuing financial input, if any.
@DevC said:
We would all I suspect prefer fan-owned status if it could sustain us in the league. Do you think it could? If so, what would you base that view on?
We became Trust owned in 2012 and at that time we owed around £2m to Sharky and some other debt.
It is a FACT that In 6 years we have totally repaid Sharky, got promotion and are currently reasonably secure in the middle of the first division table.
We still have debt, particularly to the Americans, but I would suggest that it is less than when the Trust took over. No doubt with your superior financial knowledge you will be able to clarify our current indebtedness.
If we spent less on wages we obviously wouldn't have got promotion, but I still feel we would have had every chance of remaining in the the Football League albeit at lower second division. Your prediction of certain Armageddon if we don't vote for the American deal may happen, but I think it unlikely. The American's intention is to sell on the club in a better financial condition. If they can't turn our finances around then what happens?
@arnos_grove said:
My first job was at a printer’s in Leigh Court. £28.50 a week on the YTS, as long as the boss could win it on his Lucky 15 down at Arthur Prince on Desborough Road. If he wasn’t lucky, he’d fuck off home leaving me with no money for the weekend.
An absolute dump. Opened the third floor fire exit one day to find the metal steps had collapsed. Chemical soaked rags stored in tea chests. Me and three other blokes smoking all day in a room full of ink and cleaners with a Calor gas heater. In winter, the room was shrouded in a blue fog.
Happy days before the advent of the PC brigade and their obsession with health and safety. Hopefully we can get back to them before I die of an unspecified lung disease.
Sorry for the derail!
You were lucky! When I were a lad, I used to work a 28 hour day dow' pit, lived at bottom of canal int paper bag, get up 4 hours before I went t'bed and me dad used to beat me wiya leather belt. Tell the kids of t'day and they don't believe ya!
Well Mooney, we have indeed done remarkably well since trust ownership, partly through getting lucky with a really exceptional manager.
it is also true to say we have made significant money selling off young players who came through the academy that was operational before the trust took over. Our share of the £15m Ibe sale certainly helped, (as would our share of the Phillips sale if we hadn't cocked that one up). Cup runs must have helped too.
Reality is that we are unlikely to get the same level of transfer fees going forward - may still get something from Hause (although his value seems to be plummeting) and/or Harris. After that the sell-on cupboard looks pretty bare. hard to see much from the current squad either in reality.
Our backstop from borrowing from the likes of howard seems to have dried up too.
The existing management team at least presumably don't know how to increase revenue or reduce non playing cost beyond existing levels.
So given that we lose a minimum of £500k per year excluding transfer fees every season, how much lower than the playing budget we had last season in Lg2 do you think the playing budget would have to be set if we returned to lg2?
I agree we were lucky with sell on fees in the last couple of years. However, conversely we have not had any lucrative cup runs such as Newport and Wimbledon have had this season.
My view is you cut the playing budget by signing more young players that have been discarded by Premier/Championship sides such as Luke O'Nien and signing less old timers like Saunders who are high wage earners. Playing results will probably deteriorate but at least you have a chance of unearthing a diamond. You should get effort from these younger pros when they realise they are in the last chance saloon.
Mooney, I do remember at least one good cup run that ended at White hart lane, but lets let that pass.
I notice you didn't quite answer the question I asked you. let me suggest a figure for you. If we are losing at least £500k before transfer fees and cup income and now HAVE AT ALL COSTS to break even, I would suggest that unless you can pretty quickly identify revenue growth or cost cuts, I would suggest you have to cut the playing budget by at least £500k (actually a little more to give you some buffer) If you disagree with that figure could you explain why.
I don't know the exact Lg2 playing budget that we had last year but given that 20 players on 50k per year would give a playing budget of £1m per season, I would suggest it was somewhere between £750k and £1.5m. If you disagree with that range, could you explain what you think I have missed.
If I am right with those numbers, I don't see how you could avoid cutting the playing budget by somewhere between 33% and 67% from the figure we had last year in league 2.
Personally if that is right, I think it would be incredibly difficult to survive having cut by that amount. Could you explain why you think I am wrong. I rather hope I am.
@DevC - Sorry to be pedantic, but your trait is catching. We played Spurs on 28/1/17 i.e. 16/17 season. I pointed out we had received no significant cup income for TWO YEARS i.e. 17/18 and 18/19.
As a rough estimate, I would say we need to reduce the playing budget by £250k. With average luck, I feel we should get £1m every 4 years via player sales or cup runs which would cover the £250,000 annual deficit.
Whilst it's great to have them, the wages for Bayo, Tyson, CMS and El Abd must eat into a lot of the budget, and as I said in my earlier post, we wouldn't have gone up without them. However they have no resale value. I would love to own a Ferrari but I can only afford a Ford. As Mr Micawber said, spending more than you earn ends in misery!
I agree that it would be difficult to survive with the reduced budget, but not impossible. I still can't really get my head round your view that the American's are the panacea to our current financial plight. How are they going to bridge the year on year deficit without getting us in further debt?
Comments
Is the Harman money a loan? In the public meeting he did not confirm either way and there was a clear sentiment not to leave the club saddled with debt.
Maybe it is working capital and with his team they will trade through, be better and increase the revenue?
My first job was at a printer’s in Leigh Court. £28.50 a week on the YTS, as long as the boss could win it on his Lucky 15 down at Arthur Prince on Desborough Road. If he wasn’t lucky, he’d fuck off home leaving me with no money for the weekend.
An absolute dump. Opened the third floor fire exit one day to find the metal steps had collapsed. Chemical soaked rags stored in tea chests. Me and three other blokes smoking all day in a room full of ink and cleaners with a Calor gas heater. In winter, the room was shrouded in a blue fog.
Happy days before the advent of the PC brigade and their obsession with health and safety. Hopefully we can get back to them before I die of an unspecified lung disease.
Sorry for the derail!
Hasn't Adams Park been used for residential purposes already? I may be wrong, but I remember hearing that former groundsman Jim Gardner lived in a flat at the ground at one point.
If anyone is desperate to know more, Leigh Street is discussed in section 4.113 of the report I posted yesterday.
Moral of the story is to be absolutely clear is that any owner of Adams park wanting to use the land for non football purposes would be extremely unlikely to get residential housing planning permission. He would probably eventually get permission for industrial usage - probably light industrial units. That has a value - but not as high as residential land would have sourced.
Perhaps time to pull this thread back to the ownership issue. We await details of the (up to two) bids and the mix of debt and equity. Actually owner debt versus equity is IMHO relatively unimportant. What is important for me is what the two bids intend to do about debt owing to others - eg Howard's debt. We wouldn't really wasn't a situation where a Luby controlled club still owed money to say Beeks or a Harman controlled club still owed money to say Howard
What about the flats at Kotecha Heights then Dev?
The Leigh Street conversion was only brought up as an example of a factory conversion.
I’m a tiny bit rusty on this, but if the purpose of this valuation was for the accounts then given there isn’t an active market (are there many people out there who are in the business of buying stadiums?) the value here is likely to be using a cost approach, ie the amount it would cost to rebuild the stadium.
@Username, assuming Kotecha Heights is the offices being converted to flats that @Wendoverman raised, see pages above and the planning report I linked which spells it out. In certain circumstances OFFICES in areas zoned for employment use can be converted to residential use due to an oversupply of offices. Now I suppose AP owners could put desks on the pitch and filing cabinets in the goals and claim that they were alfresco offices all along, but I don't think planners are going to be fooled.....
Assuming Sharky had managed to get his magnificent stadium built, then what would have happened to Adams Park Dev? I assume left to rot.
I believe it was to be a donkey sanctuary, children's adventure holiday centre and a well run old people's home. That's what millionaires usually provide for their communities when the council bankroll their rugby stadium isn't it?( subject to planning of course!)
You can use the hospitality boxes as offices if you buy them for a whole season. There are also offices inside the reception, club shop, security tower, the bar areas and the dining area in the Woodlands.
Do you think Adams Park is closer to a commercial property such as an office, or a factory?
I imagine Mooney, given it wouldn't have been able to get residential permission due its employment land designation that it would have been developed as small industrial units.
Oxford you need to read the definition under which existing offices can be converted to residential under planning rules. AP isn't going to meet that designation.
There's also two flats currently at the ground already...
@DevC there's a bloke on the Torquay game thread warning against dodgy owners evicting teams and redeveloping grounds...you need to learn him.
always a risk, sadly @Wendoverman although as we have discussed (and I presume you now accept) less of a risk for us compared to other teams due to planning constraints on our stadium.
We would all I suspect prefer fan-owned status if it could sustain us in the league. Do you think it could? If so, what would you base that view on?
I'm a social media play the man sort of guy so your questions are wasted on me.
Here's one though....I think someone else asked before...what were you expecting Steve Hayes to do with Adams Park given that it was not zoned for residential and the then council would never, ever in a million years (pounds) have been persuaded that it was?
I think Steve Hayes was looking to make his money at the new stadium with the hotel he was planning to build there. I suspect Adams Park would have had the gates locked and left to become a wasteland
Aha! Thanks Eric. The machinations of the rich, eh?
I had to smile when I read @DevC’s comment (9.22 am) suggesting that it might be time to drag this thread back to the ownership issue. I was also grimacing inside at the thought of a resumption of hostilities. This thread was intended to be about the role of Trust members with regard to their continuing financial input, if any.
Indeed Micra.
I tried again at 12.31.
I think it might be time for Wendover to put his shovel down.....
We became Trust owned in 2012 and at that time we owed around £2m to Sharky and some other debt.
It is a FACT that In 6 years we have totally repaid Sharky, got promotion and are currently reasonably secure in the middle of the first division table.
We still have debt, particularly to the Americans, but I would suggest that it is less than when the Trust took over. No doubt with your superior financial knowledge you will be able to clarify our current indebtedness.
If we spent less on wages we obviously wouldn't have got promotion, but I still feel we would have had every chance of remaining in the the Football League albeit at lower second division. Your prediction of certain Armageddon if we don't vote for the American deal may happen, but I think it unlikely. The American's intention is to sell on the club in a better financial condition. If they can't turn our finances around then what happens?
You were lucky! When I were a lad, I used to work a 28 hour day dow' pit, lived at bottom of canal int paper bag, get up 4 hours before I went t'bed and me dad used to beat me wiya leather belt. Tell the kids of t'day and they don't believe ya!
Well Mooney, we have indeed done remarkably well since trust ownership, partly through getting lucky with a really exceptional manager.
it is also true to say we have made significant money selling off young players who came through the academy that was operational before the trust took over. Our share of the £15m Ibe sale certainly helped, (as would our share of the Phillips sale if we hadn't cocked that one up). Cup runs must have helped too.
Reality is that we are unlikely to get the same level of transfer fees going forward - may still get something from Hause (although his value seems to be plummeting) and/or Harris. After that the sell-on cupboard looks pretty bare. hard to see much from the current squad either in reality.
Our backstop from borrowing from the likes of howard seems to have dried up too.
The existing management team at least presumably don't know how to increase revenue or reduce non playing cost beyond existing levels.
So given that we lose a minimum of £500k per year excluding transfer fees every season, how much lower than the playing budget we had last season in Lg2 do you think the playing budget would have to be set if we returned to lg2?
You don't contribute a penny.
It's none of your business
I agree we were lucky with sell on fees in the last couple of years. However, conversely we have not had any lucrative cup runs such as Newport and Wimbledon have had this season.
My view is you cut the playing budget by signing more young players that have been discarded by Premier/Championship sides such as Luke O'Nien and signing less old timers like Saunders who are high wage earners. Playing results will probably deteriorate but at least you have a chance of unearthing a diamond. You should get effort from these younger pros when they realise they are in the last chance saloon.
As long as Adams Park is safe from development I'm happy.
Mooney, I do remember at least one good cup run that ended at White hart lane, but lets let that pass.
I notice you didn't quite answer the question I asked you. let me suggest a figure for you. If we are losing at least £500k before transfer fees and cup income and now HAVE AT ALL COSTS to break even, I would suggest that unless you can pretty quickly identify revenue growth or cost cuts, I would suggest you have to cut the playing budget by at least £500k (actually a little more to give you some buffer) If you disagree with that figure could you explain why.
I don't know the exact Lg2 playing budget that we had last year but given that 20 players on 50k per year would give a playing budget of £1m per season, I would suggest it was somewhere between £750k and £1.5m. If you disagree with that range, could you explain what you think I have missed.
If I am right with those numbers, I don't see how you could avoid cutting the playing budget by somewhere between 33% and 67% from the figure we had last year in league 2.
Personally if that is right, I think it would be incredibly difficult to survive having cut by that amount. Could you explain why you think I am wrong. I rather hope I am.
How many Luke O’Niens are out there? There are no doubt more Anthony Jeffreys.
@DevC - Sorry to be pedantic, but your trait is catching. We played Spurs on 28/1/17 i.e. 16/17 season. I pointed out we had received no significant cup income for TWO YEARS i.e. 17/18 and 18/19.
As a rough estimate, I would say we need to reduce the playing budget by £250k. With average luck, I feel we should get £1m every 4 years via player sales or cup runs which would cover the £250,000 annual deficit.
Whilst it's great to have them, the wages for Bayo, Tyson, CMS and El Abd must eat into a lot of the budget, and as I said in my earlier post, we wouldn't have gone up without them. However they have no resale value. I would love to own a Ferrari but I can only afford a Ford. As Mr Micawber said, spending more than you earn ends in misery!
I agree that it would be difficult to survive with the reduced budget, but not impossible. I still can't really get my head round your view that the American's are the panacea to our current financial plight. How are they going to bridge the year on year deficit without getting us in further debt?
"The crowd are giving a standing ovation"