Grendel
Well-Known Member
I have mentioned this in another thread and some can't see it working. However in the other thread it has all got a bit diluted and as usual you have Grendel trying to divert away from the idea. So I would mind the opinion of a few of more sensible posters
Basically if you are to believe SISU that we are building a new stadium. Even if it was part funded by debt and part by investors. I would guess the club would still get an extra 20 million debt.
We pay 1-5-2 million interest per year on 9 million debt to ARVO.
So double that you are and add the existing debt we would be paying 5-6 million a year in interest. In the Championship interest counts against your FFP. So the new revenue streams that are so important for funding the squad will need 6 million off them.
My idea is we offer Wasps half of what the new stadium would cost us in debt. In this hypothetical example 9 million. We want 49% of ACL. However we say as part of the deal wasps must clear half the loan with the money (7 million).
We then inherit 3.5 million of the remaining 7 million loan.
Wasps reduce their risks straight away they now only have a 3.5 million loan. They also have CCFC committed as a fellow anchor tenant long term to the Ricoh.
To entice wasps to take the risk we guarantee we will spend the remaining 11 million on a squad that can take league one by storm and get to 6th in the championship.
The appeal for Wasps ACL will automatically increase in value when we sign the deal.
They get an instant return on their investment.
A successful CCFC would bring in crowds comparable to Wasps and far more valuable sponsorship and advertising revenue.
The moment we hit 6th CCFC get to sell the premiership dream ( ie 100 million for last place to someone) finally getting a return on their investment.
Wasps then get a partner with genuine premiership aspirations so again more money for ACL.
For me this idea is more likely to get SISU a return on their investment than building a new stadium.
You actually don't answer any questions do you which means as usual this is just some attention seeking game
Let's go through this bit by bit.
Interest paid - they don't pay any - it is deferred so this is an irrelevance and shows total lack of understanding
The second point is also an irrelevance as it quotes Avro interest rates which would differ from any funding source. The capital cost interest would be lower.
You seem to then suggest that we borrow £9 million to purchase a minority interest in the stadium company which wasps holdings use to discharge the loan. So wasps get less in effect than they paid. You can't seem to get your head around the fact wasps holdings have no liability on the loan so why use that cash to pay it off and why would sisu want it paid off as they will have no liability either?
The minority purchase is a no go. That means no input in strategic direction and most importantly no control over dividend issues as I assume this also means a monitory in the boardroom.
To say spending £11 million on the squad to take the championship by storm is laughable as stu has already pointed out. When you say spend £11 million do you mean including wages or not and how does this fit based on FFP rules as well in league one?
To ensure a better than 50 50 chance of promotion to the premier league you would need circa £100 million.
Sell up when in the top six? So when we were once under Coleman and boothroyd did the asset value rise overnight then?
If wasps wanted this what they actually would do is seek to franchise a championship club in and boot us out.
It's nonsense and the figures don't add up.