| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:39 - Feb 24 with 1131 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:09 - Feb 24 by monmouth |
On Marginal cost or full cost though? Big difference.
Personally I'd like to see them in a revamped St. Helens, called Swansea, but this needs greater granularity before nailing them to the cross. |
Which way was the premier club allocated? That serves both the Swans and Ospreys - unfair to allocate it all as though it was the Swans. And commercial arrangements with tourist board and university etc.
That's an aside though. I'm really fed up of hearing 'kick them out' for the Ospreys and I've as much interest in them as I have in watching the wall. It could just as easily be the other way round if we hadn't been promoted. Indeed, for the first couple of years at least it was the other way round - they made more money than us. The stadium was built as an asset for the people of Swansea to watch their sports teams play. If we ever went back down the divisions they'd have bigger crowds again.
The ridiculous self entitlement of the premier league fan is creeping in. What's the difference in Man Utd saying 'the TV deal loses money on Swansea, so kick them out of the arrangement'.
Not directed at you Mon - I just can imagine the fuss if the other way round and they wanted to kick us out, |  | |  |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:44 - Feb 24 with 1121 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 22:06 - Feb 17 by Nookiejack |
It makes you think whether the Trust could raise the Finance to buy the stadium - on the back of mortgaging the stadium - that would set the cat amongst the pigeons. |
That's a bit like me buying next door's house by mortgaging their house. I don't own their house to mortgage it.
While I'm here as I wait for my lift down to that there London for this weekend's activities, this whole the Trust should bank the £20m and wait for the inevitable meltdown. A few issues ... a) there has been no offer to sell the shares, and despite your certainty, the path to forcing a sale is far from clear; b) Is there any guarantee that £20m would be sufficient to buy the club in the future? That rather assumes a complete meltdown which I'm sure nobody wants, and no other interested parties prepared to outbid, and c) What happens in the interim ... zero fan representation, zero engagement, zero accountability, zero influence. Now we can argue on the current levels, your cheap shot aside regarding only being interested in directors box privileges, but it would drop to nothing with a total sale. I can totally understand the logic of accepting an offer, if it comes, truth be told I'd have been in the same camp particularly when relations broke down at the start of the season, but every option has its pros and cons, and there are some major downsides to a total sale.
As for the stadium, I quite like the leasehold concept. Little to no intial capital outlay, so cash isn't tied up or debt taken on. Covenants or agreements can be put in place to protect the fans. Council gets to fill a part of its financial hole. Win win. Care is needed though, particularly in terms of any financial arrangements around relegation. As for the Ospreys, I'm in favour of sharing the stadium, but the club can't bankroll them either. I see no reason why a tenancy agreement couldn't work (although file me in Mon's camp regarding redeveloping St Helens and calling themselves the Swansea Ospreys playing in All White (and preferably the Adidas kit and old badge, while we're at it)/ |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:45 - Feb 24 with 1117 views | Headmaster |
Forgive me, I haven't read through this thread, but is expansion included in this deal? Or is it just a possibility right now? |  | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:49 - Feb 24 with 1110 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:44 - Feb 24 by Uxbridge |
That's a bit like me buying next door's house by mortgaging their house. I don't own their house to mortgage it.
While I'm here as I wait for my lift down to that there London for this weekend's activities, this whole the Trust should bank the £20m and wait for the inevitable meltdown. A few issues ... a) there has been no offer to sell the shares, and despite your certainty, the path to forcing a sale is far from clear; b) Is there any guarantee that £20m would be sufficient to buy the club in the future? That rather assumes a complete meltdown which I'm sure nobody wants, and no other interested parties prepared to outbid, and c) What happens in the interim ... zero fan representation, zero engagement, zero accountability, zero influence. Now we can argue on the current levels, your cheap shot aside regarding only being interested in directors box privileges, but it would drop to nothing with a total sale. I can totally understand the logic of accepting an offer, if it comes, truth be told I'd have been in the same camp particularly when relations broke down at the start of the season, but every option has its pros and cons, and there are some major downsides to a total sale.
As for the stadium, I quite like the leasehold concept. Little to no intial capital outlay, so cash isn't tied up or debt taken on. Covenants or agreements can be put in place to protect the fans. Council gets to fill a part of its financial hole. Win win. Care is needed though, particularly in terms of any financial arrangements around relegation. As for the Ospreys, I'm in favour of sharing the stadium, but the club can't bankroll them either. I see no reason why a tenancy agreement couldn't work (although file me in Mon's camp regarding redeveloping St Helens and calling themselves the Swansea Ospreys playing in All White (and preferably the Adidas kit and old badge, while we're at it)/ |
Um - just on the first bit. It's exactly what you did to buy your house - borrowed money secured on the asset you were buying...
But it's not a good idea anyway and I suspect the Trust isn't allowed to take on £20m plus of debt ...
I agree re the lease - seems very sensible - some of us have been saying it could be done that way for quite a long time! | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:56 - Feb 24 with 1100 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:49 - Feb 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Um - just on the first bit. It's exactly what you did to buy your house - borrowed money secured on the asset you were buying...
But it's not a good idea anyway and I suspect the Trust isn't allowed to take on £20m plus of debt ...
I agree re the lease - seems very sensible - some of us have been saying it could be done that way for quite a long time! |
There weren't two sitting tenants with a 50 year lease or whatever it is remaining when I bought my house!
Not sure on the legalities but as we all know, the options open to the Trust by the nature of the relevant legislation is limited. I wouldn't necessarily rule it out as a theoretical possibility. Agree on the desirability though. A straight swap on the other hand might be different, but then that opens an entirely different can of worms. [Post edited 24 Feb 2017 9:57]
| |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 11:44 - Feb 24 with 2211 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:56 - Feb 24 by Uxbridge |
There weren't two sitting tenants with a 50 year lease or whatever it is remaining when I bought my house!
Not sure on the legalities but as we all know, the options open to the Trust by the nature of the relevant legislation is limited. I wouldn't necessarily rule it out as a theoretical possibility. Agree on the desirability though. A straight swap on the other hand might be different, but then that opens an entirely different can of worms. [Post edited 24 Feb 2017 9:57]
|
What I probably should have said is that I'm not sure there's any scenario where the Trust could raise the funds to buy the stadium, short of somehow selling the shares. A mortgage is a complete non-starter - I seriously doubt the Americans would accept that without a significant fight, I can't see the Trust being able to raise the guarantees or, if that somehow happened, meet the repayments (particularly based on the current arrangements).
Plsu you then have the question of, if the Trust had £20m in the bank, was stadium purchase the best use of those funds? An interesting question. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 07:29 - Feb 25 with 2028 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 23:10 - Feb 17 by NOTRAC |
Because you know and I know that in reality the Trust at the time and for years prior, had no intent to sell .Their financial advisor Dave Little had publicly stated that the trust should not sell their shares under any circumstances.They knew the other shareholders were keen to sell, but never gave any indication at that time that they were as well. |
No he didn't. He advised against the sale to Noell and Moore's, who, funnily enough didn't come up with the goods at either Everton nor Nottingham Forest. |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:38 - Feb 25 with 1966 views | STID2017 |
If the stadium capacity is increased, I hope the infrastructure, public transport and parking issues are also dealt with at the same time |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:41 - Mar 1 with 1899 views | NeiltheTaylor |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:38 - Feb 25 by STID2017 |
If the stadium capacity is increased, I hope the infrastructure, public transport and parking issues are also dealt with at the same time |
That would be a given as planning approval can't proceed without it. | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 19:36 - Mar 1 with 1774 views | Nookiejack |
Here's an interesting one for Notrac re this thread
Leyton Orient face a winding up order and look like dropping out of the League.
Barry Hearn who sold the club to the current Italian owner - still appears to own the stadium through his 'Matchroom' corporate vehicle.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/leyton-orient-face-windingup-order-over
This appears to be the risk Notrac is pointing out. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 21:16 - Mar 1 with 1704 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 19:36 - Mar 1 by Nookiejack |
Here's an interesting one for Notrac re this thread
Leyton Orient face a winding up order and look like dropping out of the League.
Barry Hearn who sold the club to the current Italian owner - still appears to own the stadium through his 'Matchroom' corporate vehicle.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/leyton-orient-face-windingup-order-over
This appears to be the risk Notrac is pointing out. |
We do not know anything really about the intentions of the people that now own our football club.We do not know if they are really interested in football or whether they would sell their mother to make a profit.
Why therefore risk the liquidation of a company (Swansea Premium Management Co Ltd) that was set up to safeguard the Stadium for the people of Swansea , by allowing an excellent lease to be rescinded in favour of a lease which will be controlled by an unknown quantity.
Why the rush?
In a few years time when their real intentions have become clearer it could be worthwhile.
But why risk it now.Its like discussing a will before a person has died.
If the present lease is rescinded what is stopping a future lease going the same way.Covenants mean nothing when money is involved.There is already suggestions in the press that some council members would be in favour of a Stadium sale.
Remember the Stadium is expensive to maintain and run.
If we dropped down through the leagues and ended up in a situation where Stadium costs exceeded income what is then stopping the Investors selling the lease for non sporting activities ie for commercial buildings..
You can have all the safeguards in the world but these people have shown that they are extremely financially clever.
Why take the risk now. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 08:58 - Mar 2 with 1590 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 21:16 - Mar 1 by NOTRAC |
We do not know anything really about the intentions of the people that now own our football club.We do not know if they are really interested in football or whether they would sell their mother to make a profit.
Why therefore risk the liquidation of a company (Swansea Premium Management Co Ltd) that was set up to safeguard the Stadium for the people of Swansea , by allowing an excellent lease to be rescinded in favour of a lease which will be controlled by an unknown quantity.
Why the rush?
In a few years time when their real intentions have become clearer it could be worthwhile.
But why risk it now.Its like discussing a will before a person has died.
If the present lease is rescinded what is stopping a future lease going the same way.Covenants mean nothing when money is involved.There is already suggestions in the press that some council members would be in favour of a Stadium sale.
Remember the Stadium is expensive to maintain and run.
If we dropped down through the leagues and ended up in a situation where Stadium costs exceeded income what is then stopping the Investors selling the lease for non sporting activities ie for commercial buildings..
You can have all the safeguards in the world but these people have shown that they are extremely financially clever.
Why take the risk now. |
You keep saying it's an excellent lease, but that is purely from a protectionist perspective. It's a horrible lease from a financial perspective.
Surely there's a way of marrying up the two. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:09 - Mar 2 with 1575 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 08:58 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
You keep saying it's an excellent lease, but that is purely from a protectionist perspective. It's a horrible lease from a financial perspective.
Surely there's a way of marrying up the two. |
I always thought the foremost aim of the trust was protection.
Why do you say that financially it is terrible.
The stadium management accounts show a quite healthy situation.
Potential for a growth in income (naming rights etc) applies to the the present set up in the same way as it would apply to a new lease set up.
The difference is all income from naming rights would presently go towards the cost of maintaining / developing the Stadium.
Under the proposed new lease there is no guarantee that would happen. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:42 - Mar 2 with 1551 views | monmouth |
If 'increased financial benefits flowing to the club' now means 'increased financial benefits flowing to the pockets of American financiers' it is easy to reconcile the two in favour of notracs argument isn't it? |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 10:25 - Mar 2 with 1516 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:09 - Mar 2 by NOTRAC |
I always thought the foremost aim of the trust was protection.
Why do you say that financially it is terrible.
The stadium management accounts show a quite healthy situation.
Potential for a growth in income (naming rights etc) applies to the the present set up in the same way as it would apply to a new lease set up.
The difference is all income from naming rights would presently go towards the cost of maintaining / developing the Stadium.
Under the proposed new lease there is no guarantee that would happen. |
It's pretty simply why it's a bad deal for the football club. Currently it gets a third of the revenues and can't arrange its own deals unilaterally.
There's nothing in the Trust's aims regarding the club not holding the leasehold to the stadium. In fact you could quite easily argue that a primary aim of the Trust is to ensure the club is as financially well off as possible. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 10:29 - Mar 2 with 1505 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 09:42 - Mar 2 by monmouth |
If 'increased financial benefits flowing to the club' now means 'increased financial benefits flowing to the pockets of American financiers' it is easy to reconcile the two in favour of notracs argument isn't it? |
I understand Notrac's argument. I'd just counter you can ensure protections, for the football and the rugby, whilst the club also enjoying the financial benefits also. I'm not sure I buy the argument that SSMC have been wonderful in terms of ensuring the stadium has been looked after ... in fact, any developments (lighting, scoreboards, extra seating etc) have been funded by the club rather than SSMC. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 10:52 - Mar 2 with 1478 views | NeathJack |
Hopefully if this goes ahead the circa 1950's PA system will finally be upgraded. |  | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:17 - Mar 2 with 1422 views | Nookiejack |
At the moment it appears Club can play at the Liberty for the next 50 years (or how many years are left on the 50 years lease).
Going forward there will be no guarantee.
What quantum of net income (increased revenue less costs of new lease less payment to Ospreys to record new lease (if you assume they are benefiting from current position).
If net position is small then doesn't seem to be worth giving up guarantee.
Even more so if true intention is to leverage the club up on the assumption that the new lease will provide additional revenues. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:18 - Mar 2 with 1421 views | GB11 |
Build ya own. |  | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:31 - Mar 2 with 1400 views | Nookiejack |
You would think it is a zero sum game - so I can't understand how the club, council and Ospreys are all going to be better off.
If we ever become relegated you would think we will significantly be worse off. Unless you can negotiate stadium naming rights deal without any relegation penalty clauses. Although this would eventually expire even if you did and club would then face punative lease costs in contrast to current position. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:49 - Mar 2 with 1369 views | monmouth |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:31 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
You would think it is a zero sum game - so I can't understand how the club, council and Ospreys are all going to be better off.
If we ever become relegated you would think we will significantly be worse off. Unless you can negotiate stadium naming rights deal without any relegation penalty clauses. Although this would eventually expire even if you did and club would then face punative lease costs in contrast to current position. |
It needs a bigger cake, so clearly that's what the yanks believe can be achieved. Remember too all the agonizing about expansion. This would allow expansion without purchase and with all the benefits flowing to the club.
That opens a different argument obviously, but is clearly a potential factor. If the club wasn't run by American money men looking for a return, I'm sure this would be seen as a beneficial move. As it is, then it's hard not to be a bit rattled. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:51 - Mar 2 with 1356 views | Landore_Jack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 10:29 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
I understand Notrac's argument. I'd just counter you can ensure protections, for the football and the rugby, whilst the club also enjoying the financial benefits also. I'm not sure I buy the argument that SSMC have been wonderful in terms of ensuring the stadium has been looked after ... in fact, any developments (lighting, scoreboards, extra seating etc) have been funded by the club rather than SSMC. |
It's about time SSMC fixed the dreadful P.A system. |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:53 - Mar 2 with 1346 views | Nookiejack |
Will the Council need the club to publish its Financial Accounts - to confirm current credit rating of club?
Huw Jenkins stated the club had made a substantial loss - so would that impact on the credit rating of the club - from the Councils point of view - given the club will apparently be counter party to the lease?
The lasts accounts were lodged at Companies House 17 Dec 25.
Is the club's finance department under resources? | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:54 - Mar 2 with 1345 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:53 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
Will the Council need the club to publish its Financial Accounts - to confirm current credit rating of club?
Huw Jenkins stated the club had made a substantial loss - so would that impact on the credit rating of the club - from the Councils point of view - given the club will apparently be counter party to the lease?
The lasts accounts were lodged at Companies House 17 Dec 25.
Is the club's finance department under resources? |
.......currently under resourced. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:00 - Mar 2 with 1257 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 12:53 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
Will the Council need the club to publish its Financial Accounts - to confirm current credit rating of club?
Huw Jenkins stated the club had made a substantial loss - so would that impact on the credit rating of the club - from the Councils point of view - given the club will apparently be counter party to the lease?
The lasts accounts were lodged at Companies House 17 Dec 25.
Is the club's finance department under resources? |
Under resourced despite those sneaky c*nts awarding themselves inflation busting pay rises?
There were rumours doing the rounds that the accounts weren't exactly a true reflection, hence Pearlman's appointment. Is this just hot air or are there any foundations to these rumours? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
