It was an example for Ron who said he wouldn't back a stadium that put us in debt, purely to show that it doesn't mean any plan should be disregarded. There are no figures available hence the need for proper business plans and forecasts.
The point I was making was that having a debt, whoever it is to, is not necessarily a bad thing if that money is invested in something that generates money, preferably over the amount needed to service the debt.
Sisu aren't the club apparently, and will be gone once a new stadium is built we are told.
I think you compare apples with bananas. The stadium is a property, and current mortgage rates are well under 4%. It has nothing to do with stocks or business loans or IPO's - it's a property investment.
And on this I would trust a Greek finance minister over any Sisu employee.
Every time they attempt to generate money via CCFC it goes wrong and we end up worse than we started. Throwing millions at a stadium envisaged by them will be the killer blow for CCFC imo.
I don't compare apples with bannanas, in fact its you doing that by comparing building a stadium to an already built residential house worth more than the mortgage ammount, it doesn't matter what you are investing in, all that matters is risk and return. my family lends to a property developer at 20% interest and thats secured on his house (admittedly as second charge after the bank, which is fine unless his house ends up worth alot less than its valued at) why doesn't he get a mortgage instead at well under 4% interest? because he can't and sisu couldn't either. Once the stadium is built you can borrow against it at a much much lower rate (though considering how cheaply the ricoh was sold for and that this stadium is likely to be significantly worse good luck borrowing 20mill against it.)
I think you compare apples with bananas. The stadium is a property, and current mortgage rates are well under 4%. It has nothing to do with stocks or business loans or IPO's - it's a property investment.
While they are here they own the club - if they can't pay the mortgage to themselves it's their problem.
When they sell I expect the new owners buy out that mortgage.
Didn't I say that clearly? (I think I even added that I was amazed Wasps didn't buy out the council mortgage).
While they are here they own the club - if they can't pay the mortgage to themselves it's their problem.
When they sell I expect the new owners buy out that mortgage.
Didn't I say that clearly? (I think I even added that I was amazed Wasps didn't buy out the council mortgage).
No, the killer blow will be if they leave us without a home we own.
It wouldn't make sense for Wasps to buy out the council mortgage, the rate it is currently at is less than anything a bank would offer.
What you've basically said there then is CCFC will be in debt to Sisu for the next 30 years?
Sorry if I don't give my backing to that one.
Isn't that unlawful state aid?
We'll now always be in debt to someone. Hardly breaking news.
So aren't we better taking the safe option?
Taking a gamble got us into this mess, I'm surprised anyone thinks taking a gamble is the way out of it.
Why?
The best thing for CCFC to do is buy into income streams at the Ricoh and sign up to a long term rental contract. Its only the income streams that matter.
Ownership of a ground is of no use to the running CCFC.
Yes, but in the prospect the long lease is already sold to the club. So effectively it's no risk investment.
No, as you well know it wasn't.
Try this:
If they build a stadium for say £18m (including ground purchase), add a couple of millions for themselves and sell a long lease for £20m to the stadium management club, then they have made a nice little £2m profit right there.
They also lend the stadium management company the £20m (used to pay themselves) at say 6% or 7% over 20 or maybe even 30 years. That's a nice profit too.
It wasn't when the council owned 50% of ACL and protected their own interest. But now?
We went into administration last time that happened didn't we?
Buy into the revenue streams? How could they do that? Would Wasps not need those revenues themselves - especially when you look at the losses they (and ACL) make. How much would they have to pay? Would it even remotely be a good business for the club?
I don't think it's realistic.
So if a major regional stadium a conference centre can't cover those losses, why would a smaller, less adequate stadium be able to generate enough revenue?
Do you think a new stadium being able to generate enough revenue to pay for itself and cover CCFC losses is realistic?
sold to the club that isn't really a going concern and has no ability to pay for it. You can't possibly think that putting 18m (I think its double that easy personally) is a no risk investment, I wouldn't do it at 50% interest and I mean that, you would be much much much better giving your 20m to neil woodford. Maybe you'll end up owning 5% of the next google or Apple, again even ignoring the massive massive risk there is no upside, you are going to end up with something worse the ricoh, that has the ricoh as a competitor but paying much much more than wasps paid for the ricoh, it makes no sense, even if everything works out there is seemingly no profit there.
you can understand why investors originally gave their money to sisu for the club, it was a gamble with a big payoff if it worked out, there is no big pay off with the stadium build.
So if a major regional stadium and conference centre can't cover those losses, why would a smaller, less adequate stadium be able to generate enough revenue?
So the management company would need to find £1.5m a year just to pay the £20m loan over 30 years at 6%. I don't think that would end well for them.
Do you think our long term future (say 15-20 years time) is playing in a wasps owned stadium containing yellow and black seats and WASPS RFC written in the seats?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Do you think our long term future (say 15-20 years time) is playing in a wasps owned stadium containing yellow and black seats and WASPS RFC written in the seats?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Why does it have to be a conference facilities in any new stadium? Pretty much anything could be incorporated, if they find something for which there is a demand it would be a success and there's no reason (other than who would be running it!) it couldn't be more successful than ACL.
It won't add up if the club is the only business there.
Why does it have to be a conference facilities in any new stadium? Pretty much anything could be incorporated, if they find something for which there is a demand it would be a success and there's no reason (other than who would be running it!) it couldn't be more successful than ACL.
I know you wouldn't do it - but Cayman investors with little knowledge of the actual details surrounding the club?
Rich people, investors, usually divide their investments into several segments. They have some for high risk - so maybe already placed a part at Neil Woodford - some for long term low interests like national bonds - some in gold - some in FTSE - and some in property. I don't think it will be too hard to find the investors for a new stadium providing the plans and budgets looks appealing.
But the real argument here is not really if they can pull it off or not. The real argument is whether we want them to build us a new stadium. Right now I want us to have our own home with a surface we can play football on and where every penny spent is making the club stronger.
I don't think it will be too hard to find the investors for a new stadium providing the plans and budgets looks appealing.
So, the land and buildings will be big enough to incorporate other businesses, and all for a total price of around £18m. Looks like it doesn't add up.
Yes, but what?
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?