It's here. 2nd bullet. Subsequent 40 year leases, at the end of each, we have the option to buy the stadium and site.
It's here. 2nd bullet. Subsequent 40 year leases, at the end of each, we have the option to buy the stadium and site.
Bed now Tim....been a long day.
Telford-Feb-85
Player Valuation: £5m
Is it a 'leap'? USM FF surely tells us what the finance model is for this new Everton.
Standing at the dock at bramley moore
Trying to get Birkenhead pier
The man on the yacht says
You gotta go back
We've got no time for trips to North Wales
Ohhh you know it's EFC
We're building down by the seaaaaa
WITH FARHAD MOSHIRI
AND USMANOVS SPV
Zaschrona
Player Valuation: £10m
The best part about this: we will still have money available for new players.
Let's say that the new stadium is going to be overpriced and it the end it is going to cost us 20m per season for 40 years. The main problem is going to be before we move there, then we will enjoy an increase in revenue from all extra tickets sold, naming deal and all extra revenues from shops, museum, restaurants, etc. The stadium should then earn us so much money that is going to pay for itself. Europa League should get us at least 20 million per season. If we are able to get there every season, just EL is going to cover the cost for us. From this season we also receive extra 30-50 million from PL TV rights and it is likely there will be another huge increase in the new TV deal for period 2019-2022 at least based on data of increase of CL TV rights in England in period 2018-2021. That is so much money involved that unless we relegate, the new stadium is not even such a big investment how it looks.
I have absolutely no problem that the club is going to pay for the stadium. Moshiri needs to spend money on players. The key will be to get the stadium build, then our situation should be much much better.
Let's say that the new stadium is going to be overpriced and it the end it is going to cost us 20m per season for 40 years. The main problem is going to be before we move there, then we will enjoy an increase in revenue from all extra tickets sold, naming deal and all extra revenues from shops, museum, restaurants, etc. The stadium should then earn us so much money that is going to pay for itself. Europa League should get us at least 20 million per season. If we are able to get there every season, just EL is going to cover the cost for us. From this season we also receive extra 30-50 million from PL TV rights and it is likely there will be another huge increase in the new TV deal for period 2019-2022 at least based on data of increase of CL TV rights in England in period 2018-2021. That is so much money involved that unless we relegate, the new stadium is not even such a big investment how it looks.
I have absolutely no problem that the club is going to pay for the stadium. Moshiri needs to spend money on players. The key will be to get the stadium build, then our situation should be much much better.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Could be. Lets see.
Real laymans attempt here but bare with me...
Quite possibly the reason Moshiri is looking to borrow the money rather than use his own is because it would make absolute perfect financial sense to do so.
Let's use the £300m figure being quoted. Moshiri obviously has that amount of cash. It is currently more than likely sat somewhere accruing the best possible rates of interest available to mankind (or is invested in stocks and shares and performing even better). It is making him more money every day.
If he has the opportunity to now borrow £300m for a very competitive rate (with the help of LCC), a rate LESS than his £300m assets are currently generating him, he would make more money keeping his £300m where it is, and just borrow the money instead. His £300m assets would be generating more than the interest payable on the borrowing of an additional £300m.
He COULD use his existing assets to fund the stadium, but it would make absolutely no sense.
It's been suggested that he could easily borrow the money off one of his associates instead of a "normal" lender, at even more competitive rates, but then the same principal applies. Why would someone else be prepared to lend him the £300m, when their own money could be generating them more returns wherever it is currently invested?
Quite possibly the reason Moshiri is looking to borrow the money rather than use his own is because it would make absolute perfect financial sense to do so.
Let's use the £300m figure being quoted. Moshiri obviously has that amount of cash. It is currently more than likely sat somewhere accruing the best possible rates of interest available to mankind (or is invested in stocks and shares and performing even better). It is making him more money every day.
If he has the opportunity to now borrow £300m for a very competitive rate (with the help of LCC), a rate LESS than his £300m assets are currently generating him, he would make more money keeping his £300m where it is, and just borrow the money instead. His £300m assets would be generating more than the interest payable on the borrowing of an additional £300m.
He COULD use his existing assets to fund the stadium, but it would make absolutely no sense.
It's been suggested that he could easily borrow the money off one of his associates instead of a "normal" lender, at even more competitive rates, but then the same principal applies. Why would someone else be prepared to lend him the £300m, when their own money could be generating them more returns wherever it is currently invested?
Haven't been for your ages, so not sure.
The Norseman club adjacent has deffo shut though.
As my old mate used to say " there's two types of women in here lad. The ones that you pay for and the ones that pay you
Ah thanks mate that's the sting in the tail I was looking for, ok so we pay back 576 million over 40 years.
What's to stop the finder looking for an additional 100mill, 200 mill "nominal fee"? For us to take ownership of the ground?
Is there anyone who has expierence of deals of this type who would be able to reassure me that that the nominal fee to take ownership, will likely be preagreed as part of the initial funding agreement?
People are worrying about what happens after 40 years. Not me, I'm 64!
MartSlinger
Player Valuation: £40m
The way i read it, financing a Stadium this way will allow us to remain competitive on the pitch also.
As quoted by Red and White Holdings years ago; They seem to disagree with how Arsenal financed The Emirates.
"The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.
This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.
As a consequence of this policy, which is dressed up as prudent financial planning, it is down to our manager, and not the shareholders, to have to deal with the Club's tight finances, carry the burden of repaying the stadium debt by selling his best players and having to continue to find cheaper replacements. All of that, naturally, comes at the expense of performance on the pitch."
As quoted by Red and White Holdings years ago; They seem to disagree with how Arsenal financed The Emirates.
"The previous decision by the Board to fund the building of the Emirates Stadium with long-term debt was, we believe, certainly not about self-financing. If it had been, it would have been funded through a mixture of debt and non-dividend equity. Instead it allowed, in our view, the major shareholders of the time, who happened to all be Board directors, to load the Club with a liability, to benefit from increased future revenue streams and consequent increase in the value of their holdings, whilst avoiding dilution of their equity. The Board of the time then appeared to pursue a policy of increasing ticket prices and squeezing the fans to cover the short term cost increases which allowed them to bridge until all of these shareholders and Board directors sold 100% of their holdings and cashed out at vast profits.
This policy does not seem to have changed. We have sought and been refused any meetings with Mr Kroenke despite the fact that we own almost 30% of the Club or to put another way almost 1 in every 3 seats in the stadium. It is clear that our stated policy for the major shareholders, namely Mr Kroenke and ourselves, to inject non-dividend paying equity into the Club by way of a rights issue to reduce the debt and invest in the future is of no interest to the Board. Mr Kroenke was sold a vision by the Board at the time that the Club could be successful without further investment, so he is pursuing a similar policy which is to run the Club without any investment and to avoid any dilution of his equity, a good part of which was funded by a loan from Deutsche Bank AG to KSE, UK, Inc. at the time of the mandatory offer. The status of that loan and whether it is still outstanding has not been clarified by Mr Kroenke.
As a consequence of this policy, which is dressed up as prudent financial planning, it is down to our manager, and not the shareholders, to have to deal with the Club's tight finances, carry the burden of repaying the stadium debt by selling his best players and having to continue to find cheaper replacements. All of that, naturally, comes at the expense of performance on the pitch."
The fee would be legally binding and pre-agreed at the start of the contractual term
Early thoughts are that's its a relatively complex financial arrangement designed to a) allow money from 'The Funder' at potentially lower rates of interest, even with the security fee paid to LCC, b) as stated elsewhere 'The Funder' to have a degree of separation of EFC.
The capacity while lower than we anticipated, is surely just a starting point, with the build future proofed to allow expansion.
If we got into financial trouble, there seems to be a risk, with season ticket money and naming rights money unavailable to us, until the rent has been paid, which while giving security to LCC, leaves us with the risk.
Although many were expecting us to be further down the road, you have to expect The Funder to be lined up, and several design options to be fairly advanced, if we're looking at getting planning approval start of 2018.
The timescale actually isn't that bad, with our expected income projections given for next 3 years at GP and following 40 in BM.
Very interesting stuff. Suspect another 2 or 3 reads of the LCC report will be useful.
The capacity while lower than we anticipated, is surely just a starting point, with the build future proofed to allow expansion.
If we got into financial trouble, there seems to be a risk, with season ticket money and naming rights money unavailable to us, until the rent has been paid, which while giving security to LCC, leaves us with the risk.
Although many were expecting us to be further down the road, you have to expect The Funder to be lined up, and several design options to be fairly advanced, if we're looking at getting planning approval start of 2018.
The timescale actually isn't that bad, with our expected income projections given for next 3 years at GP and following 40 in BM.
Very interesting stuff. Suspect another 2 or 3 reads of the LCC report will be useful.
Librarian
Player Valuation: £60m
I don't buy the 'consultation' thing, it's hard to believe that they haven't thought this through, given that capacity determines it's income.
It might make sense to be conservative to get it past any potential enquiry though.
I'll only be bothered about birthday greetings and a bottle of wine when I'm your age.
