No actually as usual nothing like you said. The Loan wasn’t paid off until after the purchase of both Higgs and the council share was it? In May?
Are you suggesting that there was collusion and this was part of an initial agreement? That explains the low purchase price but contradicts council statements at the time of purchase.
Are you saying the council collided with wasps behind taxpayers and lied to them?
You say you are in the know so it must be true.
Who is the source for this?
£24m was for F&B courtesy of Mr Gidney....
Keep up
Are you really asking if £24m is a fair price for matchday revenues?
The desperation is quite funny though.
Tim Fisher said that figure. I have no idea if it's correct or not.
I have no idea if £24M is a fair price as I don't know how long it's for and what it includes.
I would sooner reserve judgement rather than take his word for it like yourself. That is desperate but not unexpected.
Eventually a deal will be made (Post Sisu) and that will include revenues and certainly CCFC will need to buy into them if they want a reasonable income.
The irony is you come on here repeating propaganda word for word constantly.
We keep hearing what is eventually going to happen, that is where people have been in your ear feeding you shite constantly.
It's pretty easy to work out £24m for our matchday revenue is a bit excessive.
No the loan was ACL's and hence the responsibility of Wasps.
They then released the bonds and used that to buy out the loan from CCC.
Your a fool saying it was a low purchase price after continually saying it was worthless.
You need to make your mind up.
Your getting confused and need to read up the details.
Er no the loan was the councils at the time of purchase and the loan was a cost to the ACL business. The shareholder value of purchase was £5.4 m
That was the agreement at the time of purchase. Your prior post implies you have a source in wasps heirarchy and they told you that there was an agreement in place they would take the loan after purchase
This contradicts the councils stated position at the time
So for clarity can you confirm is this what you were told?
I'm quoting info available and showing it. (Above)
If its easy to work out, whats the details ?
You hear a figure on here and run with it forever.
I think that it would be close to 4 times what was paid for the whole thing just for our matchday revenues shows it isn't really the best deal. (Bare in mind we were paying over a million a year in rent too at the time).
I can understand demanding a chunk of money if CCFC wanted access to 365 stuff like concerts they would need to buy in.
It was a agreed formula price I guess about £8M at the time.
Obviously the £25M? includes the outstanding loan that ACL had and Sisu didn't want, but Wasps took on.
Stand to be corrected but the difference also comes from how the 2 stadiums were developed.
Wasn't Swansea's financed by developing land next to the stadium and not taking on a large loan?
Ours was hampered by not having the proper finance in place to start with and the council taking on large loan to complete the project. Rental was then based on meeting loan repayments rather than what was a fair rent for what was on offer.
Stand to be corrected but the difference also comes from how the 2 stadiums were developed.
Wasn't Swansea's financed by developing land next to the stadium and not taking on a large loan?
Ours was hampered by not having the proper finance in place to start with and the council taking on large loan to complete the project. Rental was then based on meeting loan repayments rather than what was a fair rent for what was on offer.
I hope you've got this saved somewhere so you can just cut and paste it every time people conveniently 'forget' some of the details.Not going to get greatly involved in this thread and go through the same old same old yet again
I reckon it just about stacks up ,assume the Jaguar hall came in around £18MThe apparent £113m build cost for the Ricoh is way out of kilter. Appreciate the clean up of the gasworks and excavation for the casino + the exhibition hall were additional features and cost but the numbers do not stack up when compared with similar facilities.
The apparent £113m build cost for the Ricoh is way out of kilter. Appreciate the clean up of the gasworks and excavation for the casino + the exhibition hall were additional features and cost but the numbers do not stack up when compared with similar facilities.
Did any of the Casino infrastructure and the floor beneath that come under the construction cost. I think the bowl on it's own was only a couple of mill more than the Kingpower.
Yes Liberty stadium was funded from the adjacent retail park.
Ours was also but there was a shortfall.
The Ricoh cost a lot more. £118M. Liberty Stadium £27M.
Both Councils still retain the freehold.
Don't think the Council own the freehold to the Tesco part. Was sold to Tesco for 42m + paying the decontamination costs 17m.
Ricoh cost close to 60m. Relative build costs in terms of capacity & facilities aren't so far apart.
Swansea council had owned the land the Liberty was built on already.
Also their Chairman has said it could cost up to 50m to increase their capacity to around 30k.
Pointing the finger at nobody in particular, do we have to do this *again*?
Anyway, the Swansea deal on the surface looks OK, but I have a few questions. Once upon a time I'd have found out the answers, but now I'll just ask them...
Is the headline figure of £300k pa absolutely fixed, or is it linked to inflation / can it be renegotiated?
Is there a break clause in the contract?
Ospreys have the right to play there, but they now appear to be very much tenants on a purely play here and nowt else basis. In multi-use stadia there are winners and losers and it seems Ospreys are the losers here. The ground was built as much for them as Swansea and, just because Swansea have risen recently, it seems a bit harsh to squeeze the rugby team with nowt but a promise that they'll carry on playing there.
37 years is not that much all things considered. It won't be *that* many years before there's a limited time on the lease and as we know, that causes uncertainty. If Swansea fall down the divisions (entirely possible) does it put *them* under threat from property developing carpetbaggers later on, or a revitalised Ospreys who then squeeze Swansea?
agree there is clearly more to this deal that the highlights don't show. Are they in danger of falling down a similar trap to us in terms of relegation and are there any clauses which a renegotiated rate is required?
I think 37 years is fairly short term agreed but I would question the responsibility of upkeep and remodelling of the stadia. Take the Ricoh, its looking very tired and worn after less than half of this term so again does the public pick up this or does the club in line with their commitments?
I work in Swansea a lot and know a few ST holder and they are very positive about their relationship with Ospreys but have similar discussions about pitch and equally branding of stadium.
Does sole control mean they're responsible for repairs / expansion etc?
Swansea have to complete two 3G pitches every five years for how long? What consitutes 'access' for the public?
I wouldn't automatically say it's a fabulous deal.
Didn't ccc only put £10 million in? The rest came from Tesco and grants etc? Who received the Ricoh naming rights money?
ok then people have to keep the 59m out of the 113m price assumptions.Yes I meant just the stadiums. Tesco own their land.
The majority of the money here comes from the land purchase.
CCFC could not afford to purchase it (£20M) and let the option to buy lapse.
The dutch contamination company (HBG) who were owed money by CCFC found out the option had not been taken when they tried to get their money.
They agreed a contract with Brit Gas to buy it and then said to the council you need to buy it or we will build retail and the stadium is gone.
CCC paid £20M and sold half of it to Tescos for £60M that weekend. (How the hell we messed this up is the big question)
Shows what you get when you're willing to sign a long term lease.
Quite a whack in rates I'd guess?What does the tax payer get in return for Wasps signing a long term lease?
Nah, they were before Sisu challenged them!Quite a whack in rates I'd guess?
ok then people have to keep the 59m out of the 113m price assumptions.
So people should focus on the 54m cost. How a situation arose (even after subsidies & selling further parts to Capri etc) that nearly 40% of that cost was funded by loans?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?