m
Well-known member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 8,327
Is there anything Ferguson and Williams can say that'll get people onside?
Well let's sincerely hope not.
It's what people DO that matters, not what people say. IMO, of course.
Is there anything Ferguson and Williams can say that'll get people onside?
What will likely happen is that the ‘rent’ will appear very affordable but the ‘cost’ will not be the same number.
Eg. The amount applied as ‘rent’ for the stadium is £500,000 per year but the total ‘cost’ of servicing the debts and the shareholder yields are £4million per year. This could potentially mean that the money from the bar and restaurant, all usual match day revenues, and maybe even the club shop turnover may have to go towards servicing this, but technically it wouldn’t be ‘rent’. The devil is in the detail.
This is why when Ferguson says he understands that the club could be able to keep all the profit above and beyond servicing the debt, it’s a really delicate issue. There is no guarantee that there will be any profit, and if the stadium is owned by the markets then the shareholders reserve the right to increase the fees and charges over time. Even if the ‘rent’ is locked in at a fixed rate, what about the interest on the debt or the other miscellaneous charges applied to the site?
If anything, as far as I’m concerned that interview with Ferguson has left me more worried than ever that this is going to be an absolute stitch up.
And what happens if the club is unable to meet those obligations for whatever reason? Who is liable?
They clearly have this all worked out, but what they don’t want to do is tell anybody. Even though the fans are the people who have campaigned the hardest to get it to this point and will be the ones ultimately stumping up to keep paying for it for decades to come.
What will likely happen is that the ‘rent’ will appear very affordable but the ‘cost’ will not be the same number.
Eg. The amount applied as ‘rent’ for the stadium is £500,000 per year but the total ‘cost’ of servicing the debts and the shareholder yields are £4million per year. This could potentially mean that the money from the bar and restaurant, all usual match day revenues, and maybe even the club shop turnover may have to go towards servicing this, but technically it wouldn’t be ‘rent’. The devil is in the detail.
This is why when Ferguson says he understands that the club could be able to keep all the profit above and beyond servicing the debt, it’s a really delicate issue. There is no guarantee that there will be any profit, and if the stadium is owned by the markets then the shareholders reserve the right to increase the fees and charges over time. Even if the ‘rent’ is locked in at a fixed rate, what about the interest on the debt or the other miscellaneous charges applied to the site?
If anything, as far as I’m concerned that interview with Ferguson has left me more worried than ever that this is going to be an absolute stitch up.
And what happens if the club is unable to meet those obligations for whatever reason? Who is liable?
They clearly have this all worked out, but what they don’t want to do is tell anybody. Even though the fans are the people who have campaigned the hardest to get it to this point and will be the ones ultimately stumping up to keep paying for it for decades to come.
No ,it's how we feel because at the end of the day we have no say. Every club ,even your Man utds of this world have no say. Maxwell did us Kassamm is still doing us. Reading are in a terrible place ,Bury ,it goes on and on. Hopefully at the minute our direction is a new ground a new promised land and not A new Maxwell or Kassamm. But at the end of the day as well image if this forum ran the club .I always like the saying the committee that runs it should be an odd number of which 3 is too many.Are we (the fans) viewed as useful idiots?
I've worked with project finance quite a bit although not anything like stadiums or hotels to be fair. I think we've got to be realistic about how much detail we will get about the financing of the stadium, but what I would want to hear is that:There are lots of questions about the financing of the potential new stadium and clearly there are some very knowledgeable people here on this subject. It strikes me that it is they who’re most unhappy with what they’re hearing, so can any of them, Ryan/Colin for example, lay out what ‘great/good’ looks like from the perspective of an arrangement that balances the protection the club with a financial structure that gives the owners a reason outside of ego and image to do it?
The company that owns the stadium must be inextricably linked to OUFC Ltd by common directors and guarantees so if one company starts to feel pain the other one does too. That way its in the bests interest of everyone for both companies to trade sustainably.
Why should the football company be penalised for losses in the property speculation, which is by its nature more risky?
I’ve just arrived in Portsmouth, but will post something later/tomorrow regarding how the financial business plan for the stadium was going to look.There are lots of questions about the financing of the potential new stadium and clearly there are some very knowledgeable people here on this subject. It strikes me that it is they who’re most unhappy with what they’re hearing, so can any of them, Ryan/Colin for example, lay out what ‘great/good’ looks like from the perspective of an arrangement that balances the protection the club with a financial structure that gives the owners a reason outside of ego and image to do it?
Nope. I have zero faith in either of them.Is there anything Ferguson and Williams can say that'll get people onside? Seems bridges have been burnt in some fans eyes.
and what's happened to Niall ? but lets not askWithout a new stadium we're fucked. There are going to be very few people who are willing and able to spend £3m+ every year on a mid table league one club with no home of its own and limited finance streams.
We currently have owners who are rich enough that they can cover this for a few years, and those years have to date given us 2 playoff campaigns, another where we fell just short, and this one where we are still in contention (on paper).
They have also given us a proper training ground of our own and have invested in the youth set up, the women's team and other community groups.
Things could be a lot worse.
However, we have to ensure that a new stadium doesn't leave us just as fucked as before and that there is the opportunity to build on the improvements we have seen and go from playoff campaigns to promotion and championship sustainability, and make Oxford United central to the lives of our communities.
I've heard a lot previously that gives me confidence that there are good intentions and the club will be protected. However, talk is cheap and at a time when the future of our club is on a knife edge, now is the time to get the details out in the open and ensure that the club has legal protection for future generations.
As for Ferguson and Williams, they are merely employees and I don't think we need to get too huge up on personalities and focus on actions over words. It's not long ago that some on this same forum were mocking Niall McWilliams as being a miserable school teacher. But he is the one person who has got us to the brink of having planning permission and has fought every step of the way to ensure that our club is protected.
Again, this isn't about protecting anyone. But we need answers not meaningless soundbites.
Jerome did mention the ex MD rumoured to be leaving in that list of leavers and wasn't contradicted. End of the season?and what's happened to Niall ? but lets not ask
Seeking debt doesn’t stop you contributing equity.Why do our wealthy owners want to outsource the financing of this? Are they getting cold feet?
What 'external markets' will want to invest in a project with zero equity?
In the sense that our football club making a loss is one of the safest bets around, whilst property sometimes makes a profit?Why should the football company be penalised for losses in the property speculation, which is by its nature more risky?
Pretty easy to change Directors though.With personal guarantees the directors personally would be liable.
I'd like to see common directors between the stadium company and OUFC Ltd and personal guarantees granted to secure the borrowings of both. That way its in the directors' personal interests to ensure both companies don't default on their liabilities.