| If we buy the Stadium 21:27 - Aug 13 with 3665 views | SS2013 |
Will it come out of the gyfi money ? With a 15-20 M replacement incoming ? |  |
| |  |
| If we buy the Stadium on 08:03 - Aug 14 with 1516 views | felixstowe_jack |
It is amazing how so few people understand the difference between "buying" and "leasing"
Once you have obtained a long term lease you can invest in the ground and gain extra finance. If you just hire the ground on a match by match basis as we currently do you would be idiots in invest in the ground without any return. |  |
| |
| If we buy the Stadium on 12:38 - Aug 14 with 1439 views | Garyjack |
| If we buy the Stadium on 08:03 - Aug 14 by felixstowe_jack |
It is amazing how so few people understand the difference between "buying" and "leasing"
Once you have obtained a long term lease you can invest in the ground and gain extra finance. If you just hire the ground on a match by match basis as we currently do you would be idiots in invest in the ground without any return. |
Well done, you're amazed that people don't know the difference between "buying" and "leasing", then attempt to educate them by describing the difference between "buying" and "renting" !  |  | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 12:58 - Aug 14 with 1424 views | Shaky |
| If we buy the Stadium on 21:53 - Aug 13 by Neath_Jack |
I thought i heard or read it was a 30 year lease. |
In that case there is very little difference compared to buying it outright.
30 years is a loooong time. And as Keynes memorably put it, in the long run we're all dead. |  |
| |
| If we buy the Stadium on 13:05 - Aug 14 with 1417 views | Shaky |
| If we buy the Stadium on 03:08 - Aug 14 by EasternJack |
Not sure what you mean.
You argue that a long term renegotiated lease is not advantageous to the club. I suggest it is as it allows for more equitable profit distribution and therefore incentive to invest SCFC time and money in commercial development opportunities.
Your assumptions on costs is pure speculation.
Also, your care for the Ospreys is touching. But you're in the minority. Obviously the deal will be win win for all - but recognising that SCFC want to invest in the stadium while the council and ospreys wont.
On a simpler level - why would the board do this deal if it didn't generate value to the club?
[Post edited 14 Aug 2017 3:11]
|
Yes and no.
On paper this move undoubtedly adds value. I don't see how it could ever be transformaitonal, but no doubt iiit will add value.
IF the club stays in the prem.
If not gates will suffer and the new capacity is unlikely to be filled, corporate sponsorship will be hard hit, and the stadium naming rights will be substantially devalued.
In my view it is in many ways more valuable as a marketing tool if they are trying to sell the club, to demonstrate plans to take the club forward. Building a story as it were. | |
| |
| If we buy the Stadium on 13:18 - Aug 14 with 1388 views | EasternJack |
| If we buy the Stadium on 13:05 - Aug 14 by Shaky |
Yes and no.
On paper this move undoubtedly adds value. I don't see how it could ever be transformaitonal, but no doubt iiit will add value.
IF the club stays in the prem.
If not gates will suffer and the new capacity is unlikely to be filled, corporate sponsorship will be hard hit, and the stadium naming rights will be substantially devalued.
In my view it is in many ways more valuable as a marketing tool if they are trying to sell the club, to demonstrate plans to take the club forward. Building a story as it were. |
Yes - good point. This could be about setting up potential value by paving the way for infrastructure change and returns. If that's the case, the "game" is to open up all these potential areas of investment and stay in the PL until the season before the next TV contracts - that's the next logical value jump. Leaving "low hanging" potential for buyers provides incentive and keeps the price at the higher range of the bracket.
But as you rightly said, the entire piece for the new owners hinges on ongoing PL survival. They seem to be betting heavily on HJ to deliver this. I'm not convinced - he seems more lucky than talented. [Post edited 14 Aug 2017 13:19]
|  |
| |
| If we buy the Stadium on 13:33 - Aug 14 with 1369 views | tomdickharry |
Squad first,Stadium purchase hopefully never,value looks good on the balance sheet but on a forced sale basis an asset that no responsible financial institution would lend against. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 17:30 - Aug 14 with 1301 views | Davillin |
| If we buy the Stadium on 08:03 - Aug 14 by felixstowe_jack |
It is amazing how so few people understand the difference between "buying" and "leasing"
Once you have obtained a long term lease you can invest in the ground and gain extra finance. If you just hire the ground on a match by match basis as we currently do you would be idiots in invest in the ground without any return. |
 I genuinely hope you're not referring to me in your first sentence, but If you are, I'll have a good laugh, thanks. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:10 - Aug 15 with 1210 views | londonlisa2001 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 00:10 - Aug 14 by EasternJack |
I'm sure the business cass for this is rock solid otherwise why take on a (likely) bigger rent for greater control over the stadium and associated revenues.
Off the top of my head I'm thinking:
Naming rights sponsorship deal
Stadium expansion
Just those two has the potential to move our commercial dependency a few more percentage points away from TV money. |
It's that, but also the way the income on games etc is currently shared out, which is unfair at present to the club,
Ticket income goes into the pot for sharing - different percentages of what goes into the pot apply at different levels of ticket sales but Stadco get a disproportionate percentage of the Swans ticket revenue. The club benefits by getting the income itself which will happen if the club own the lease. It also has an impact on FFP.
The naming rights are often grossly exaggerated. People seem to think these are worth millions, whereas in reality, there are not many stadium names that are worth very much money. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:11 - Aug 15 with 1205 views | londonlisa2001 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 08:03 - Aug 14 by felixstowe_jack |
It is amazing how so few people understand the difference between "buying" and "leasing"
Once you have obtained a long term lease you can invest in the ground and gain extra finance. If you just hire the ground on a match by match basis as we currently do you would be idiots in invest in the ground without any return. |
We don't hire the ground on a match by match basis. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:13 - Aug 15 with 1195 views | londonlisa2001 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 12:58 - Aug 14 by Shaky |
In that case there is very little difference compared to buying it outright.
30 years is a loooong time. And as Keynes memorably put it, in the long run we're all dead. |
From a fans' perspective, leasing carries significant protection as compared to purchase.
The covenants and reversion rights that will be included protect the club (as distinct from the owners of the club). Assuming the council are savvy (or the Trust are)... | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:20 - Aug 15 with 1178 views | londonlisa2001 |
'Ownership on a 30 year lease'.
Not ownership then. A lease. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:25 - Aug 15 with 1164 views | andypitt56 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:20 - Aug 15 by londonlisa2001 |
'Ownership on a 30 year lease'.
Not ownership then. A lease. |
Just means we have more control over it than we currently do, however there is less risk than buying outright. I think lease is a sensible move. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:34 - Aug 15 with 1142 views | londonlisa2001 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:25 - Aug 15 by andypitt56 |
Just means we have more control over it than we currently do, however there is less risk than buying outright. I think lease is a sensible move. |
I agree.
It's also, quite genuinely, about time the people of Swansea start seeing a proper return for the investment. Ridiculous that the council are desperate for money while the club effectively pays sod all while employing players on millions and management on huge salaries. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 11:01 - Aug 15 with 1126 views | Meraki |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:34 - Aug 15 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree.
It's also, quite genuinely, about time the people of Swansea start seeing a proper return for the investment. Ridiculous that the council are desperate for money while the club effectively pays sod all while employing players on millions and management on huge salaries. |
The council have recently had £1.2 billion in the form of a grant, not that desperate. | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 11:17 - Aug 15 with 1110 views | londonlisa2001 |
| If we buy the Stadium on 11:01 - Aug 15 by Meraki |
The council have recently had £1.2 billion in the form of a grant, not that desperate. |
When have they had a £1.2bn grant?
I assume you're not talking about the city deal, which is nothing even approaching a grant? | | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 12:38 - Aug 15 with 1067 views | nice_to_michu |
The sooner the club buys the stadium the better. |  | | |
| If we buy the Stadium on 14:30 - Aug 15 with 1038 views | E20Jack |
| If we buy the Stadium on 10:10 - Aug 15 by londonlisa2001 |
It's that, but also the way the income on games etc is currently shared out, which is unfair at present to the club,
Ticket income goes into the pot for sharing - different percentages of what goes into the pot apply at different levels of ticket sales but Stadco get a disproportionate percentage of the Swans ticket revenue. The club benefits by getting the income itself which will happen if the club own the lease. It also has an impact on FFP.
The naming rights are often grossly exaggerated. People seem to think these are worth millions, whereas in reality, there are not many stadium names that are worth very much money. |
Naming rights can be big business. I have not seen any figures bandied about to deduce what is being over exaggerated but they are certainly not something to be brushed off as meaningless. Spurs are chasing a £400m naming rights deal, on no way our level but big business all the same.
Its huge business in the States which drives revenue for many of the franchises in sports with far less global reach than the Premier League. I believe the likes of the Houston Astros, Washington Redskins, Carolina Panthers all get between $7m and $10m per annum for stadium naming rights. Due to the pull of the Premier League you could probably change the "$" to "£" and it would be somewhere in the region of what we are looking at.
We are scrapping for any increase in revenue we can as we try and compete in this league and naming rights which could pay for, or significantly contribute to expansion, which increases footfall and thus annual revenue could be invaluable in the longrun. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
