| Freeman to the blades 14:32 - Jun 21 with 38123 views | Gloucs_R |
For just £4m???
Surely we'd not let him go that cheaply |  |
| |  |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:54 - Jun 26 with 2014 views | rsonist |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:26 - Jun 26 by Antti_Heinola |
zero chance Leeds have anything like the money to make an offer. I could be wrong, but not sure where on earth they'd even get #4m for one player from. |
I don't think they're in such bad shape are they? Compared to the rest at least. Not well in profit but heads above water. They've usually had a big sale or two every summer - Wood, Viera, Forshaw, Cook, Byram, now Clarke. |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:55 - Jun 26 with 1994 views | rsonist |
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-championship-ffp-vi
Looking at Whites accounts from the last three seasons, the club had a pre-tax loss of £8.9m in 2015/16, a £1m pre-tax profit in 2016/17, and a £4.3m pre-tax loss last season.
This gives the club a £12.2m deficit for the three season cycle 2015/18, again comfortable inside the permitted losses (£39m).
The worry for Leeds, again like any other club, is what their accounts will look like for 2018/19 now that they have failed to win promotion to the Premier League this year. While the club will benefit from the sale of Ronaldo Vieira to Sampdoria, they made need another Chris Wood-to-Burnley type sale to eradicate potential operating losses.
It’s well worth noting Leeds are one of the most revenue-heavy clubs in the Championship. Indeed, once Premier League parachute payments are stripped out, their £40.7m is the largest.
This gives the club much more scope to soak up operating costs, and Leeds have also avoided the pitfall of having a wage bill higher than revenues, like some of its competitors. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 13:56]
| | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:58 - Jun 26 with 1968 views | YorkRanger |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:29 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
Sell Elland Road to the fcking Tooth Fairy or some such bolox.
(Or, more realistically, Jack Clarke heavily linked with £9m Tottenham move)
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Phil Hay, respected journalist and knows all things Leeds United, reporting Clarke in London and having a medical. |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:04 - Jun 26 with 1928 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:29 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
Sell Elland Road to the fcking Tooth Fairy or some such bolox.
(Or, more realistically, Jack Clarke heavily linked with £9m Tottenham move)
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Whilst the Kiyan Prince Foundation is a laudable cause, I still don't understand why QPR didn't take a leaf out of Derby's books and sell the naming rights to Loftus Road to the Tune Fairy. This would have bridged the FFP gap and eliminated any notion that the club have to sell its best players cheaply to survive.
I can't help feeling that by the time QPR actually get around to selling the naming rights the Football League will have closed that FFP loophole thanks to clubs like Derby. For me, it would have made more sense to take advantage of that loophole now and then offer naming rights to charity once the loophole is closed. |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:11 - Jun 26 with 1879 views | Faurlinho |
Fat..? If he’s fat, I’m done for... |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:13 - Jun 26 with 1868 views | Northernr |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:04 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Whilst the Kiyan Prince Foundation is a laudable cause, I still don't understand why QPR didn't take a leaf out of Derby's books and sell the naming rights to Loftus Road to the Tune Fairy. This would have bridged the FFP gap and eliminated any notion that the club have to sell its best players cheaply to survive.
I can't help feeling that by the time QPR actually get around to selling the naming rights the Football League will have closed that FFP loophole thanks to clubs like Derby. For me, it would have made more sense to take advantage of that loophole now and then offer naming rights to charity once the loophole is closed. |
Well first of all Derby didn't sell naming rights, they sold the whole stadium.
Now while it might allow us to splash the cash on some players in the next 18 months, do we really want to give up the ownership of Loftus Road to these owners to do that? Given their fairly disastrous track record with money and spending it here? I guess as owners of the club and with so much money owed to them by the club they effectively do own it to a certain extent, but it's a QPR asset rather than a Fernandes/Tune asset and it's kept us afloat in the past having the ground the borrow against. We've seen what's happened to other clubs (Coventry) who didn't own their ground, and we've seen situations in the past with Ron Noades owning stadiums of clubs he's since left, and has the new owners over a barrel for rent. People are, rightly, concerned that we wouldn't own the LCS if we moved there, so I don't think, rightly, they'd be overly impressed if we no longer owned Loftus Road just so we can spaff £6m on Scott Hogan, for instance.
The naming rights thing is a different issue. I've seen it said that QPR are stupid for giving away something they could have charged for but TBH having spoken to people at the club about this the general perception is they're worthless i.e. there's no interest at all in paying QPR some money to call Loftus Road The Quashie's Rottie Hut Stadium or whatever. Now, cynically, you could say that this charity thing is paving the way for that, making companies realise it is up for grabs. In my personal opinion, anybody who thinks we've happily given something away for free that could have brought us in any significant amount of commercial revenue hasn't met Hoos before. |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:13 - Jun 26 with 1866 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:04 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Whilst the Kiyan Prince Foundation is a laudable cause, I still don't understand why QPR didn't take a leaf out of Derby's books and sell the naming rights to Loftus Road to the Tune Fairy. This would have bridged the FFP gap and eliminated any notion that the club have to sell its best players cheaply to survive.
I can't help feeling that by the time QPR actually get around to selling the naming rights the Football League will have closed that FFP loophole thanks to clubs like Derby. For me, it would have made more sense to take advantage of that loophole now and then offer naming rights to charity once the loophole is closed. |
I for one am not willing to sell the QPR soul for a slither of financial gain.
Would rather get relegated.
I just don’t trust this board. Not because of the Hughes / Redknapp years, but because they are all venture and property capitalists that don’t just buy into football clubs for the craic.
I suspect Loftus Rd is the reason that some of the property magnates are involved. You mark my words, QPR is just a vehicle to property speculation. That is my prediction.
Until a supporter is elected onto the board to keep an eye on things I just can’t relax. I don’t lose sleep over any Freeman or Luongo transfers, it’s the future of our stadium and the future flight of capital to absent billionaires like Reuben that keeps me awake. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:19]
|  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:15 - Jun 26 with 1848 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:04 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Whilst the Kiyan Prince Foundation is a laudable cause, I still don't understand why QPR didn't take a leaf out of Derby's books and sell the naming rights to Loftus Road to the Tune Fairy. This would have bridged the FFP gap and eliminated any notion that the club have to sell its best players cheaply to survive.
I can't help feeling that by the time QPR actually get around to selling the naming rights the Football League will have closed that FFP loophole thanks to clubs like Derby. For me, it would have made more sense to take advantage of that loophole now and then offer naming rights to charity once the loophole is closed. |
I honestly think i’d give up on top level football if we start going down the Derby, Villa, Wednesday loophole road. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Freeman to the blades on 14:35 - Jun 26 with 1790 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:13 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
Well first of all Derby didn't sell naming rights, they sold the whole stadium.
Now while it might allow us to splash the cash on some players in the next 18 months, do we really want to give up the ownership of Loftus Road to these owners to do that? Given their fairly disastrous track record with money and spending it here? I guess as owners of the club and with so much money owed to them by the club they effectively do own it to a certain extent, but it's a QPR asset rather than a Fernandes/Tune asset and it's kept us afloat in the past having the ground the borrow against. We've seen what's happened to other clubs (Coventry) who didn't own their ground, and we've seen situations in the past with Ron Noades owning stadiums of clubs he's since left, and has the new owners over a barrel for rent. People are, rightly, concerned that we wouldn't own the LCS if we moved there, so I don't think, rightly, they'd be overly impressed if we no longer owned Loftus Road just so we can spaff £6m on Scott Hogan, for instance.
The naming rights thing is a different issue. I've seen it said that QPR are stupid for giving away something they could have charged for but TBH having spoken to people at the club about this the general perception is they're worthless i.e. there's no interest at all in paying QPR some money to call Loftus Road The Quashie's Rottie Hut Stadium or whatever. Now, cynically, you could say that this charity thing is paving the way for that, making companies realise it is up for grabs. In my personal opinion, anybody who thinks we've happily given something away for free that could have brought us in any significant amount of commercial revenue hasn't met Hoos before. |
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Agree that selling the stadium is a whole different ball game to selling naming rights. However I can't help thinking that in Derby's case it's not quite as clear cut as that. Have Derby actually sold the stadium outright or is it just a clever smoke screen to circumnavigate FFP?
Also, with respect to the naming rights, they may well be worthless to outsiders but could the club have considered 'selling' the naming rights to an owner business for a significant sum? This way we straighten out the books without selling off Loftus Road.
P.S. My thinking is not driven by a desire to splash cash on some players in the next 18 months but to straighten out our finances and decrease the chances of selling assets cheaply. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:36]
| | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:42 - Jun 26 with 1761 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:13 - Jun 26 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I for one am not willing to sell the QPR soul for a slither of financial gain.
Would rather get relegated.
I just don’t trust this board. Not because of the Hughes / Redknapp years, but because they are all venture and property capitalists that don’t just buy into football clubs for the craic.
I suspect Loftus Rd is the reason that some of the property magnates are involved. You mark my words, QPR is just a vehicle to property speculation. That is my prediction.
Until a supporter is elected onto the board to keep an eye on things I just can’t relax. I don’t lose sleep over any Freeman or Luongo transfers, it’s the future of our stadium and the future flight of capital to absent billionaires like Reuben that keeps me awake. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:19]
|
Yep, my mistake. I confused selling naming rights with selling the stadium.
A board member with QPR FC's interests at heart will be critical if a project like the Linford Christie stadium goes ahead. What would become of Loftus Road and what would QPR ultimately own? | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:47 - Jun 26 with 1731 views | Northernr |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:35 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Agree that selling the stadium is a whole different ball game to selling naming rights. However I can't help thinking that in Derby's case it's not quite as clear cut as that. Have Derby actually sold the stadium outright or is it just a clever smoke screen to circumnavigate FFP?
Also, with respect to the naming rights, they may well be worthless to outsiders but could the club have considered 'selling' the naming rights to an owner business for a significant sum? This way we straighten out the books without selling off Loftus Road.
P.S. My thinking is not driven by a desire to splash cash on some players in the next 18 months but to straighten out our finances and decrease the chances of selling assets cheaply. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:36]
|
On the first point they've sold the stadium outright, albeit to their own chairman. So while that's like passing it from right hand to left hand, what happens if and when he leaves? He's not exactly a stable individual. It is an FFP dodge, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a smokescreen, Derby County don't own Pride Park any more. They also seem to have reached the valuation of some £80m by, in part, including what it would cost them to replace Pride Park, which I'm not sure is how property valuation works. Pride Park is essentially worthless to anybody other than Derby County because who else wants a sports stadium on wasteground on the outskirts of Derby? Indeed they escaped from their own equivalent of the ABC Loan back in the day by telling the lender if they didn't negotiate a fairer settlement they'd just build a new ground next door and leave them holding a worthless asset - now it's suddenly worth £80m apparently. Anyway.
On the second point, if you mean why don't Tune Group just pay £60m to call it The Tune Stadium, there are specific FFP laws against that, basically because I think Man City tried a ruse where they were going to call every suite, stand, dressing room, training pitch The Etihad Toilet Block and The Etihad Suite and The Etihad Directors Box and artificially pump billions in through sponsorship. So you can sell your ground to your chairman, potentially jeopardising the future of the club for a short term cash boost, but your chairman can't pay the same amount to sponsor the place, because that would be unfair apparently. | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:50 - Jun 26 with 1712 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:15 - Jun 26 by CliveWilsonSaid |
I honestly think i’d give up on top level football if we start going down the Derby, Villa, Wednesday loophole road. |
I understand the virtuous approach but what options do QPR have if they are to compete? Forget the Premier League. With each passing year, QPR is becoming a smaller fish in an ever increasing Championship pool.
Whilst I wouldn't condone selling the stadium, I would not be against selling the naming rights for a limited time to an owner business. It would dig us out of a financial hole now without giving up any tangible assets.
The owners often claim to have the interests of the club at heart. What better way to prove that then spending some of their cash on the naming rights?
P.S. Apologies to all if I've taken this thread off piste! [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:51]
| | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:06 - Jun 26 with 1633 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Freeman to the blades on 13:55 - Jun 26 by rsonist |
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/leeds-united-championship-ffp-vi
Looking at Whites accounts from the last three seasons, the club had a pre-tax loss of £8.9m in 2015/16, a £1m pre-tax profit in 2016/17, and a £4.3m pre-tax loss last season.
This gives the club a £12.2m deficit for the three season cycle 2015/18, again comfortable inside the permitted losses (£39m).
The worry for Leeds, again like any other club, is what their accounts will look like for 2018/19 now that they have failed to win promotion to the Premier League this year. While the club will benefit from the sale of Ronaldo Vieira to Sampdoria, they made need another Chris Wood-to-Burnley type sale to eradicate potential operating losses.
It’s well worth noting Leeds are one of the most revenue-heavy clubs in the Championship. Indeed, once Premier League parachute payments are stripped out, their £40.7m is the largest.
This gives the club much more scope to soak up operating costs, and Leeds have also avoided the pitfall of having a wage bill higher than revenues, like some of its competitors. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 13:56]
|
precisely.
Would be a huge shock if they spent #5m on one (27 year old) player. Owners aren't putting anything in. They're not in bad shape, but they're not chucking millions at individual players either. |  |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:07 - Jun 26 with 1628 views | derbyhoop |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:47 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
On the first point they've sold the stadium outright, albeit to their own chairman. So while that's like passing it from right hand to left hand, what happens if and when he leaves? He's not exactly a stable individual. It is an FFP dodge, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a smokescreen, Derby County don't own Pride Park any more. They also seem to have reached the valuation of some £80m by, in part, including what it would cost them to replace Pride Park, which I'm not sure is how property valuation works. Pride Park is essentially worthless to anybody other than Derby County because who else wants a sports stadium on wasteground on the outskirts of Derby? Indeed they escaped from their own equivalent of the ABC Loan back in the day by telling the lender if they didn't negotiate a fairer settlement they'd just build a new ground next door and leave them holding a worthless asset - now it's suddenly worth £80m apparently. Anyway.
On the second point, if you mean why don't Tune Group just pay £60m to call it The Tune Stadium, there are specific FFP laws against that, basically because I think Man City tried a ruse where they were going to call every suite, stand, dressing room, training pitch The Etihad Toilet Block and The Etihad Suite and The Etihad Directors Box and artificially pump billions in through sponsorship. So you can sell your ground to your chairman, potentially jeopardising the future of the club for a short term cash boost, but your chairman can't pay the same amount to sponsor the place, because that would be unfair apparently. |
Quick correction, Clive. From a former Derby resident.
Pride Park was one of the first buildings on what used to be wasteland. It is now a thriving industrial/retail estate. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:11 - Jun 26 with 1597 views | DejR_vu |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:47 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
On the first point they've sold the stadium outright, albeit to their own chairman. So while that's like passing it from right hand to left hand, what happens if and when he leaves? He's not exactly a stable individual. It is an FFP dodge, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a smokescreen, Derby County don't own Pride Park any more. They also seem to have reached the valuation of some £80m by, in part, including what it would cost them to replace Pride Park, which I'm not sure is how property valuation works. Pride Park is essentially worthless to anybody other than Derby County because who else wants a sports stadium on wasteground on the outskirts of Derby? Indeed they escaped from their own equivalent of the ABC Loan back in the day by telling the lender if they didn't negotiate a fairer settlement they'd just build a new ground next door and leave them holding a worthless asset - now it's suddenly worth £80m apparently. Anyway.
On the second point, if you mean why don't Tune Group just pay £60m to call it The Tune Stadium, there are specific FFP laws against that, basically because I think Man City tried a ruse where they were going to call every suite, stand, dressing room, training pitch The Etihad Toilet Block and The Etihad Suite and The Etihad Directors Box and artificially pump billions in through sponsorship. So you can sell your ground to your chairman, potentially jeopardising the future of the club for a short term cash boost, but your chairman can't pay the same amount to sponsor the place, because that would be unfair apparently. |
The prohibition on inflated Naming Rights is weird. If FFP / P&S are truly to protect clubs from owners who overspend and create debt, it seems the perfect way to let an owner inject cash without adding debt to the balance sheet, thereby protecting the club, as intended. Just adds to the conspiracy theory that the rules are actually just there to protect the big clubs and give the bigger clubs in lower divisions an advantage over smaller clubs so that the Premier League is full of ‘massive’ clubs. | |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:12 - Jun 26 with 1591 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:47 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
On the first point they've sold the stadium outright, albeit to their own chairman. So while that's like passing it from right hand to left hand, what happens if and when he leaves? He's not exactly a stable individual. It is an FFP dodge, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as a smokescreen, Derby County don't own Pride Park any more. They also seem to have reached the valuation of some £80m by, in part, including what it would cost them to replace Pride Park, which I'm not sure is how property valuation works. Pride Park is essentially worthless to anybody other than Derby County because who else wants a sports stadium on wasteground on the outskirts of Derby? Indeed they escaped from their own equivalent of the ABC Loan back in the day by telling the lender if they didn't negotiate a fairer settlement they'd just build a new ground next door and leave them holding a worthless asset - now it's suddenly worth £80m apparently. Anyway.
On the second point, if you mean why don't Tune Group just pay £60m to call it The Tune Stadium, there are specific FFP laws against that, basically because I think Man City tried a ruse where they were going to call every suite, stand, dressing room, training pitch The Etihad Toilet Block and The Etihad Suite and The Etihad Directors Box and artificially pump billions in through sponsorship. So you can sell your ground to your chairman, potentially jeopardising the future of the club for a short term cash boost, but your chairman can't pay the same amount to sponsor the place, because that would be unfair apparently. |
Sneaky Derby. I guess the contract of sale will be key in establishing what the owner can and can't do with Pride Park in the event that he leaves. Interesting story about the ABC loan. Whilst White City is no Mayfair, land in London is valuable so QPR couldn't pull the same trick with ABC
On the naming rights, I do mean something along those lines but perhaps a more obscure company than the Tune Group that the owners have an interest in or partner with. Whilst Man City didn't get away with naming each and every corner (rightly so), the stadium itself is sponsored as the Etihad. There are plenty of other similar examples (Emirates stadium, JJB, King Power, Sports Direct Arena etc.). What's stopping QPR from doing the same? | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:14 - Jun 26 with 1571 views | Northernr |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:12 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Sneaky Derby. I guess the contract of sale will be key in establishing what the owner can and can't do with Pride Park in the event that he leaves. Interesting story about the ABC loan. Whilst White City is no Mayfair, land in London is valuable so QPR couldn't pull the same trick with ABC
On the naming rights, I do mean something along those lines but perhaps a more obscure company than the Tune Group that the owners have an interest in or partner with. Whilst Man City didn't get away with naming each and every corner (rightly so), the stadium itself is sponsored as the Etihad. There are plenty of other similar examples (Emirates stadium, JJB, King Power, Sports Direct Arena etc.). What's stopping QPR from doing the same? |
Because there is a rule that says you can only sell it for what it's worth. So Man City, global audience, Champions League, hangers on all over the world, naming rights for their stadium are worth quite a lot. Loftus Road, not so much. And there are rules to prevent us paying an artificially high amount to do it. | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:16 - Jun 26 with 1553 views | Boston |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:07 - Jun 26 by derbyhoop |
Quick correction, Clive. From a former Derby resident.
Pride Park was one of the first buildings on what used to be wasteland. It is now a thriving industrial/retail estate. |
Y’ep, I’d noticed how that area had been transformed by Pride Park. | |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:28 - Jun 26 with 1513 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:14 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
Because there is a rule that says you can only sell it for what it's worth. So Man City, global audience, Champions League, hangers on all over the world, naming rights for their stadium are worth quite a lot. Loftus Road, not so much. And there are rules to prevent us paying an artificially high amount to do it. |
Drat and double drat! I'm beginning to think DejR_vu is right.
Hang on. How do the powerhouse that is Wigan Athletic get around this? | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:29 - Jun 26 with 1513 views | Northernr |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:07 - Jun 26 by derbyhoop |
Quick correction, Clive. From a former Derby resident.
Pride Park was one of the first buildings on what used to be wasteland. It is now a thriving industrial/retail estate. |
Nothing behind it though up to the railway, or between the Derwent and the A52. It's wouldn't exactly be sought after would it if you put Pride Park on the market and Derby played somewhere else. | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:31 - Jun 26 with 1502 views | PunteR |
| Freeman to the blades on 12:01 - Jun 26 by Northernr |
He's more credible than just about anywhere else on QPR yes, but I'm not saying all you should talk about is his stories. I'm saying that in this specific example, taking the Sky story as true and his as false is a stupid thing to do. |
Well im currently putting my thumb back together with electrical tape so i have form for stupidity... |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:33 - Jun 26 with 1484 views | BostonR |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:50 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
I understand the virtuous approach but what options do QPR have if they are to compete? Forget the Premier League. With each passing year, QPR is becoming a smaller fish in an ever increasing Championship pool.
Whilst I wouldn't condone selling the stadium, I would not be against selling the naming rights for a limited time to an owner business. It would dig us out of a financial hole now without giving up any tangible assets.
The owners often claim to have the interests of the club at heart. What better way to prove that then spending some of their cash on the naming rights?
P.S. Apologies to all if I've taken this thread off piste! [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:51]
|
We as fans need to understand that at some point (approaching fairly soon) Loftus Rd will be sold. The stadium is not fit for purpose, which the Board have made very clear.
The question we need to ask is what will be sold for? My assumption is that the Board will create a development company (they are already partners in one - Notting Hill Genesis) and sell the land for high-end residential development, probably as part of another joint venture.
They could sell it today and essentially hold the land until they are ready to develop. It is clear all of their sights are on the LC opportunity and the sale of LR and the yield from the development will fund part of the LC re-development. If I were Hoos, I would not bother about naming rights given the golden opportunity the club now has to re-locate.
Most importantly, despite FFP the owners have the cash to deliver on a new ground and the associated development opportunities. |  | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:35 - Jun 26 with 1476 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:33 - Jun 26 by BostonR |
We as fans need to understand that at some point (approaching fairly soon) Loftus Rd will be sold. The stadium is not fit for purpose, which the Board have made very clear.
The question we need to ask is what will be sold for? My assumption is that the Board will create a development company (they are already partners in one - Notting Hill Genesis) and sell the land for high-end residential development, probably as part of another joint venture.
They could sell it today and essentially hold the land until they are ready to develop. It is clear all of their sights are on the LC opportunity and the sale of LR and the yield from the development will fund part of the LC re-development. If I were Hoos, I would not bother about naming rights given the golden opportunity the club now has to re-locate.
Most importantly, despite FFP the owners have the cash to deliver on a new ground and the associated development opportunities. |
Ground and facility building is exempt from FFP regulations. | | | |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:36 - Jun 26 with 1471 views | CamberleyR |
| Freeman to the blades on 14:35 - Jun 26 by Benny_the_Ball |
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Agree that selling the stadium is a whole different ball game to selling naming rights. However I can't help thinking that in Derby's case it's not quite as clear cut as that. Have Derby actually sold the stadium outright or is it just a clever smoke screen to circumnavigate FFP?
Also, with respect to the naming rights, they may well be worthless to outsiders but could the club have considered 'selling' the naming rights to an owner business for a significant sum? This way we straighten out the books without selling off Loftus Road.
P.S. My thinking is not driven by a desire to splash cash on some players in the next 18 months but to straighten out our finances and decrease the chances of selling assets cheaply. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 14:36]
|
"could the club have considered 'selling' the naming rights to an owner business for a significant sum? This way we straighten out the books without selling off Loftus Road"
Not quite as simple as that. That sort of loophole was clamped down on a few years ago by UEFA when Manchester City announced a 10 year naming rights deal with Etihad (which was owned by the half brother of City's owner Sheikh Mansour) for £400m. Etihad at the time were a third the size of BA and had yet to make a profit since starting in 2004.
EDIT: Just seen that Clive alluded to that in his reply. [Post edited 26 Jun 2019 15:46]
|  |
| |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:59 - Jun 26 with 1376 views | wombat |
| Freeman to the blades on 15:33 - Jun 26 by BostonR |
We as fans need to understand that at some point (approaching fairly soon) Loftus Rd will be sold. The stadium is not fit for purpose, which the Board have made very clear.
The question we need to ask is what will be sold for? My assumption is that the Board will create a development company (they are already partners in one - Notting Hill Genesis) and sell the land for high-end residential development, probably as part of another joint venture.
They could sell it today and essentially hold the land until they are ready to develop. It is clear all of their sights are on the LC opportunity and the sale of LR and the yield from the development will fund part of the LC re-development. If I were Hoos, I would not bother about naming rights given the golden opportunity the club now has to re-locate.
Most importantly, despite FFP the owners have the cash to deliver on a new ground and the associated development opportunities. |
its always been the gran plan to recoup money invested/ thrown away since they arrived , Hence the hard on for the car giant land , plnk a stadium there with the selling point of the HS2 station bring people from far and wide to witness gigs boxing and the odd game of football , trouble is while being blinkered with car giant other suitable pieces of land were put up for sale and sold <dairy creat and the BBC site all would have given a good return for the outlay and build us a nice little stadium with the best transport infrastructure of any London club on its door step, when I asked Lee Hoss at the recent Q+A if we had even bid for that land his ansa was I don't know ! sorry don't buy that ansa and don't dislike him but id have though any one in his postion would have been made aware of all bids , ideas thoughts made previously to his appt LC is last chance saloon for a new ground in our area , maybe that's was the grand plan or uncle tone and friends are that stupid to leave it to the last bit of aval land in W12 when over bits were aval much much sooner and with little issues with planning permission ever being granted |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
