Thohir

tonyw said:
The problem with applying the DC Stadium model to us is that it required the local government to spend $150m, and also offer the club tens of millions in tax breaks.

This is actually not an uncommon arrangement in the US - cities often commit vast sums of money to build sporting infrastructure; partly this is because of the franchise model here, and the danger that a team will up and leave if the city doesn't do this (as my beloved Chargers did a couple of years ago); partly it's because there's a belief that the social and financial benefits of having a big stadium with a successful sports team (job creation, consumer spending, local regeneration etc. etc.) are sufficient to justify that outlay. There's plenty of studies that have been conducted that show that the cities in question never come close to recouping the money they spend.....but I guess elected officials are more scared of the public reaction if the team leaves, than if it wastes their taxes.

In Britain, the only two examples I know of where a similar model has been followed are Hull & Swansea.

It has a terrific positive impact on the club in question no doubt, but does anyone think it's likely to happen with OCC? I don't. And frankly, if I take my OUFC hat off, it is dubious to justify it from a city or countywide financial standpoint.
Click to expand...

As you've said, that model of financing is more common in America. I would guess that whilst it was important to get OCC and other authorities on board, I wouldn't imagine anyone is looking at them funding 50% of the project. However, there are other ways they can support the project that will hopefully keep supporters on board but without pissing off those locals who dislike football (weirdos!!).
 
tonyw said:
In which case, the DC United model is basically irrelevant isn't it?
Click to expand...
Not really no, when ur owners can afford it from their own funds, and ur not looking at anywhere near the same costs. The model we are discussing is how the rent and revenue can work. So not really basically irrelevant at all
 
The funding model has attracted some negative comment regarding how much it has cost the local taxpayer.
The flip side to that being that DC United seem to have got a very good deal that, presumably, Thohir was key to negotiating.
www.mercatus.org

DC Taxpayers to Fund Nearly Half of New Stadium Costs

Earlier this month, the DC City Council, Mayor Bowser, and soccer fans alike celebrated the
www.mercatus.org www.mercatus.org
www.thesportster.com

25 Most Expensive Sports Stadiums (That Taxpayers Paid For)

Whenever a sports franchise needs a new stadium, they always go to the city and try to get the public to pay for it, despite having deep pockets.
www.thesportster.com www.thesportster.com
 
Dave T said:
Not really no, when ur owners can afford it from their own funds, and ur not looking at anywhere near the same costs. The model we are discussing is how the rent and revenue can work. So not really basically irrelevant at all
Click to expand...

But the rent and revenue model at Audi Field is that the club pay $1 a year in rent, and get all the revenue from matchday sales. In other words, it's 100% in the club's favour.

The reason that's happened there is because the owners have been able to leverage so much public financing - and DC wants to ensure that the soccer team plays there for at least the next 30 years, because otherwise what's the point of spending so much money.

If you don't have that public funding in play, then the only way you get that sort of deal is if a) the costs of the stadium go on the club's books or b) through an act of charity from the owners.

And I never expect charity - at least not towards a football club - from successful businesspeople, who are not lifelong fans.
 
tonyw said:
But the rent and revenue model at Audi Field is that the club pay $1 a year in rent, and get all the revenue from matchday sales. In other words, it's 100% in the club's favour.

The reason that's happened there is because the owners have been able to leverage so much public financing - and DC wants to ensure that the soccer team plays there for at least the next 30 years, because otherwise what's the point of spending so much money.

If you don't have that public funding in play, then the only way you get that sort of deal is if a) the costs of the stadium go on the club's books or b) through an act of charity from the owners.

And I never expect charity - at least not towards a football club - from successful businesspeople, who are not lifelong fans.
Click to expand...

But the owners would potentially get the surrounding business/developments . dc only take revenue from their events not all others, and the council in that case get profit back from developing the land, dc don’t they just get to extend the cheap rent. A large chunk of the money the council spent was acquiring the land, they brought more than the stadium needed so that stage b can be developed. I get ur point, but it’s hardly a hidden skeleton that we should all be worrying about that myles was hinting at is it. No one has ever suggested the council will be involved here, if the owners are willing to fund it and can afford it then there is no issue, so long as the club is tied to a decent lease agreement, what happens to the profits from housing, hotels, or businesses around is no different to what would happen if Charlie great WE dream were to have happened. There are however grants available and sponsorships that do bring down the cost. There is no white knight waiting around the corner ready to give us £50-80m to build a stadium which the club own everything. Even teams like derby are selling off their stadium and renting it back to raise funds. A new stadium or even the current one, where the club can’t be split from it, and we have a decent lease that allows us to make the most of revenue streams available is the best we can hope for in reality
 
Dave T said:
But the owners would potentially get the surrounding business/developments . dc only take revenue from their events not all others, and the council in that case get profit back from developing the land, dc don’t they just get to extend the cheap rent. A large chunk of the money the council spent was acquiring the land, they brought more than the stadium needed so that stage b can be developed. I get ur point, but it’s hardly a hidden skeleton that we should all be worrying about that myles was hinting at is it. No one has ever suggested the council will be involved here, if the owners are willing to fund it and can afford it then there is no issue, so long as the club is tied to a decent lease agreement, what happens to the profits from housing, hotels, or businesses around is no different to what would happen if Charlie great WE dream were to have happened. There are however grants available and sponsorships that do bring down the cost. There is no white knight waiting around the corner ready to give us £50-80m to build a stadium which the club own everything. Even teams like derby are selling off their stadium and renting it back to raise funds. A new stadium or even the current one, where the club can’t be split from it, and we have a decent lease that allows us to make the most of revenue streams available is the best we can hope for in reality
Click to expand...

I don't think we're fundamentally in disagreement at all. I agree with everything you've written in the above paragraph.

The only thing I don't agree with is that OUFC can use the same model in any way as DC United! There, there was a white knight and they were the District of Colombia.

There's only one similarity between their situation and ours, and that's the involvement of Erick Thohir.
 
tonyw said:
I don't think we're fundamentally in disagreement at all. I agree with everything you've written in the above paragraph.

The only thing I don't agree with is that OUFC can use the same model in any way as DC United! There, there was a white knight and they were the District of Colombia.

There's only one similarity between their situation and ours, and that's the involvement of Erick Thohir.
Click to expand...
Ok so let’s just for arguments sake say Erick did the whole thing himself with out Colombia, which he could With his wealth let alone the other investors. What about that model ?
It’s exactly the same, except instead of Colombia getting a share for their investment he gets all of it?

A brand new state of the art stadium, which oufc play in for a minimal rent, keeping all their own revenues. A community hub used by other teams and events during all the other days football doesn’t, benefiting the council that allowed it and the local community. And a nice little earner for the investor who gets a stadium that’s known like mk nationwide for events, but in one of the best cities in the world, and keeps the businesses built around it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn’t it be great to get a bit more of an idea from our owners about what they’re plans are instead of having to do all this guesswork?
 
yellowbow said:
Wouldn’t it be great to get a bit more of an idea from our owners about what they’re plans are instead of having to do all this guesswork?
Click to expand...

Maybe they are putting things in place to make sure those plans are achievable rather than getting shot down by a load of angry oufc fans for not delivering a plan they stated, with money they don’t have. Maybe we should encourage them by starting loads of fake rumours about how they are running the club, and boo them when they make an appearance on the pitch, that will convince them I’m sure of it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave T said:
Maybe they are putting things in place to make sure those plans are achievable rather than getting shot down by a load of angry oufc for not delivering a plan they stated, with money they don’t have. Maybe we should encourage them by starting loads of fake rumours about how they are running the club, and boo them when they make an appearance on the pitch, that will convince them I’m sure of it
Click to expand...
The booing was embarrassing. As for the rumours, a symptom of the modern age with social media etc I suppose. In an age of instant access to information people have lost their ability to be patient - I know I’m as big a culprit for that as anyone - and vacuums will always need to be filled with something.
 
Dave T said:
Ok so let’s just for arguments sake say Erick did the whole thing himself with out Colombia, which he could With his wealth let alone the other investors. What about that model ?
It’s exactly the same, except instead of Colombia getting a share for their investment he gets all of it?

A brand new state of the art stadium, which oufc play in for a minimal rent, keeping all their own revenues. A community hub used by other teams and events during all the other days football doesn’t, benefiting the council that allowed it and the local community. And a nice little earner for the investor who gets a stadium that’s known like mk nationwide for events, but in one of the best cities in the world, and keeps the businesses built around it.
Click to expand...

Because if Erick owned a stadium which he had built wholly with his own funding and/or that of other investors, why would he agree to let OUFC play there rent-free, and why would he let OUFC keep all the match day revenues? That would be charity, not business.

You said in your previous post that there's no white knight waiting around the corner, and then describe a model that requires a white knight to make it work!
 
tonyw said:
Because if Erick owned a stadium which he had built wholly with his own funding and/or that of other investors, why would he agree to let OUFC play there rent-free, and why would he let OUFC keep all the match day revenues? That would be charity, not business.

You said in your previous post that there's no white knight waiting around the corner, and then describe a model that requires a white knight to make it work!
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, he probably wouldn’t get permission with out the football club in the first place. You let the club play their free because U own the club and it benefits them, but earn ur profits from all the other businesses, and events u put on . It also adds to the value of the club, dc went from being valued at $5m to $50m . It doesn’t even have to be free, like dc United, just a reasonable rent that gives the club more control over income streams . U know like every chairman in the last 20 years has said they need at the Kassam, so that they have more control over revenues.

Ian said it
Darryl said it
Tiger said it
Charlie said it
Erick has been there and done it.
But tony doesn’t think it will work.

How do u see us moving forward on the stadium front ? Without someone external of the club spending the money ? The club on its own will never have the money to do it, I was referring to a white knight gifting all the money for no return (never gonna happen) even Charlie and Stewart would have made money doing water Eaton . in the dc model the white knight made money while still massively benefitting the club.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's look at a couple of types of football club owners.
1. Andy Holt at Accrington. Trying his best to run a smaller club without losing money.
2. Darryl Eales at Oxford. Was looking to flip the club on by taking it up a division or two, and selling for a profit. No property play involved.
3. Various billionaire trainset owners. Able to stand hits of several million of losses per year every year, but want a Premier League club alongside their mega-yacht and private island etc.

4. Then look at Tiger's history with Reading though. Once him and his associates had got the land off the club, they couldn't wait to offload the loss making football club claiming they couldn't afford it.

There is no indication that Tiger is trying to take approach 2 or 3, and it is more likely to be 4 again, at which point the club gets dumped and we are in situation 1.
 
tonyw said:
Because if Erick owned a stadium which he had built wholly with his own funding and/or that of other investors, why would he agree to let OUFC play there rent-free, and why would he let OUFC keep all the match day revenues? That would be charity, not business.

You said in your previous post that there's no white knight waiting around the corner, and then describe a model that requires a white knight to make it work!
Click to expand...

Maybe so they could gain approval from Oxford Council?
 
MarkG said:
Let's look at a couple of types of football club owners.
1. Andy Holt at Accrington. Trying his best to run a smaller club without losing money.
2. Darryl Eales at Oxford. Was looking to flip the club on by taking it up a division or two, and selling for a profit. No property play involved.
3. Various billionaire trainset owners. Able to stand hits of several million of losses per year every year, but want a Premier League club alongside their mega-yacht and private island etc.

4. Then look at Tiger's history with Reading though. Once him and his associates had got the land off the club, they couldn't wait to offload the loss making football club claiming they couldn't afford it.

There is no indication that Tiger is trying to take approach 2 or 3, and it is more likely to be 4 again, at which point the club gets dumped and we are in situation 1.
Click to expand...


We simply don't know what Tiger wants as no detailed plan has been put forward. However, you can argue that there are signs of all.

1. Tiger has invested in the youth and buying players that can develop and increase in value in order to off set ongoing losses. Peterborough and others run this model fairly successfully whilst bobbing around the top half of the league.

2. The ambition is for promotion (according to recent comments from Tiger, Erick, Fosu etc). This would raise the value of the club for future investmnet in no.1 or to sell on.

3. We have various billionaire train set owners of our own. They are currently taking the hit and would presumably want promotion or stadium development to bring the success they want. Although PL would be the ultimate goal, there is still significant interest in the Championship, particularly in the far east.

4. We currently have no assets and any future assets would have to be funded first before being stipped back. Of course there is the danger that they could do what Kassam did, but this is where it is important to agree a substantial and fixed cost lease that allows the club to play for years to come. That is basically what Erick did at DC and I would imagine is what the plans are for Oxford.
 
Common Villager said:
Are you being intentionally ironic?
Click to expand...
Scotchegg said:
We simply don't know what Tiger wants as no detailed plan has been put forward. However, you can argue that there are signs of all.

1. Tiger has invested in the youth and buying players that can develop and increase in value in order to off set ongoing losses. Peterborough and others run this model fairly successfully whilst bobbing around the top half of the league.

2. The ambition is for promotion (according to recent comments from Tiger, Erick, Fosu etc). This would raise the value of the club for future investmnet in no.1 or to sell on.

3. We have various billionaire train set owners of our own. They are currently taking the hit and would presumably want promotion or stadium development to bring the success they want. Although PL would be the ultimate goal, there is still significant interest in the Championship, particularly in the far east.

4. We currently have no assets and any future assets would have to be funded first before being stipped back. Of course there is the danger that they could do what Kassam did, but this is where it is important to agree a substantial and fixed cost lease that allows the club to play for years to come. That is basically what Erick did at DC and I would imagine is what the plans are for Oxford.
Click to expand...
Point 3, are "they" taking the hit or is it club debt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom