Topcat Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 At the start of this "administration" I wrote that selling SMS to the Council would be a win/win deal which they would find appealing and would bring in £10m to pay off part of the debt. Instead it looks like SMS is bundled in with the Club as a package requiring figures in the range of £14m* quoted to buy the package. Selling "Saints the Club" for £2m to £4m would have been an easier deal. Why has Fry gone about it in this time wasting way that weakened the chances of deals and reduced the price he will get at the end of all this? *(That is what I have gleaned on here but can those ITK please point out any mistakes....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 Guy from the Council said this week they wouldn't buy us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMPR Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 So in the present economic conditions how much of a political nightmare would it be for public funds to be used to buy a football club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 30 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 30 June, 2009 Guy from the Council said this week they wouldn't buy us. The Council guy said that they were interested in buying the land (and SMS) but not the Club. For obvious reasons. He went on to say that he had not heard from the Administrator in weeks and all updates came after he contacted the Administrator to ask what was happening. The Administrator does not seem to have offered things in separate parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 30 June, 2009 Author Share Posted 30 June, 2009 So in the present economic conditions how much of a political nightmare would it be for public funds to be used to buy a football club Buying SMS (not the Club) for £10m would provide the Council with a facility that it can then rent out. 1. To the Club for £1m a year 2. For concerts to bring in about another £0.5m a year (profit). If maintenance on SMS is £0.5m pa then the Council gets £1m a year for its £10m capital outlay. A better return than if the money was on deposit. Where can the Council get £10m from? Answer = sell a few of its paintings that it does not have the room to display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 Being cynical he wouldnt wish for a quick deal would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 Answer = sell a few of its paintings that it does not have the room to display. Desperate measures are called for; does that painting of the steam train given to Lowe by Doncaster have any value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 SMS not worth £10m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 30 June, 2009 Share Posted 30 June, 2009 Where can the Council get £10m from? Answer = sell a few of its paintings that it does not have the room to display. Something it's already started doing, if I remember rightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 SMS not worth £10m Why do you say that? I explained above how £10m could easily generate £1m to £1.5m pa in rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Something it's already started doing, if I remember rightly. Steve yes it has taken the decision in principle to look into it. What better use to turn £10m of unseen paintings into a local asset that 1) helps Saints and 2) generates a better return than if the money was in the bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 Steve yes it has taken the decision in principle to look into it. What better use to turn £10m of unseen paintings into a local asset that 1) helps Saints and 2) generates a better return than if the money was in the bank? Logic isn't something that comes naturally to councils, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) I can't see it happening,maybe only as a last resort but it seems that fry wants to sell as a package. Tbh the team ain't worth a w@nk ...whereas the stadium,jacksons farm and staplwood are. Edited 1 July, 2009 by lordswoodsaints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I explained above how £10m could easily generate £1m to £1.5m pa in rent. quote] 1) The council probably still think the money is better off in their Icelandic bank account. 2) Seriously, how long do you think that the council would take to get such a deal sorted? Even if they'd started 6 weeks ago they wouldn't be ready to complete it until 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 I went to a meeting about Saints two months ago, two representatives of the council plus Alan Whitehead were there. The council have regularly scheduled meetings and the issue could have been decided in about a month. The council saw themselves a purchaser of the stadium as a last resort only. As long as there are potential purchasers they won't come in. I suspect the final contingency plan is that Salz and co will buy the club leaving a third party (maybe the council) to buy the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 If Fry had sold the ground to the council in the first week, it makes the rest of the club much less of an attractive investment. Especially in the lower leagues it is the ground/facilities that gives you the capacity to increase revenues - the "club" isn't going to do that as well. Bon Jovi could still play an SMS if saints are in L1, but comparatively that is now worth a lot more money than it was when we were in the Prem. Any prospective buyer would have wanted the ground. So easy to say in hindsight but it was the right thing to not sell to the council at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 2) Seriously, how long do you think that the council would take to get such a deal sorted? Even if they'd started 6 weeks ago they wouldn't be ready to complete it until 2011. I think they could complete it relatively quickly IF the price was reasonable. £10m is something the Council could relatively easily borrow ahead of the sale of paintings etc. Royston the Deputy Leader was clearly interested in SMS but Fry has p****d him off by keeping the Council out of the loop. Fry seems to have done this becauase he was trying to sell it all as a package.... to those who were only interested in the package. Politically the purchase of SMS would be seen to "save Saints". Labour and the LDs would not attack the Council over making that move. And if the financial side showed a win for tax payers it would attract widespread support from tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 In response to CB Fry if the Council owned SMS then the Club would rent it back from them for a set fee per match etc. Thus attendance money would still go to the Club. Not all prospective buyers would want SMS. It will make up most of the value and it is therefore easier to put up £2m to £4m for the club than £12m to £14m for the Club and SMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 In response to CB Fry if the Council owned SMS then the Club would rent it back from them for a set fee per match etc. Thus attendance money would still go to the Club. Not all prospective buyers would want SMS. It will make up most of the value and it is therefore easier to put up £2m to £4m for the club than £12m to £14m for the Club and SMS. I do know how renting works. My point is about additional funding generated by the facilities going to the council rather than the football club would hurt the club, especially in L1 where a 32,000 state of the art stadium is a more significant advantage than it is in the Prem or even CCC. Ask Mark Goldberg how not owning Selhurst Park worked for him. And Coventry aren't doing too well either in their council owned stadium. Hull are the one example I can think of where it is working, but lets not get too excited about them yet - their success could still be a passing fad. The point is the council owning the stadium should have been last resort, and it probably still is, so that's about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 CB Fry, there is no consortium that can fund it all after 3 months at the price Fry etc are asking. By now even The Trust for example might have managed to put together a bid for £2m to buy the Club if that had been an opportunity 3 months ago. As to last resorts, we may even have run out of time to do that if the Club is impaired with 30 point deductions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 (edited) I do know how renting works. My point is about additional funding generated by the facilities going to the council rather than the football club would hurt the club, especially in L1 where a 32,000 state of the art stadium is a more significant advantage than it is in the Prem or even CCC. Ask Mark Goldberg how not owning Selhurst Park worked for him. And Coventry aren't doing too well either in their council owned stadium. Hull are the one example I can think of where it is working, but lets not get too excited about them yet - their success could still be a passing fad. The point is the council owning the stadium should have been last resort, and it probably still is, so that's about right. Agreed and also public sector debt is at record levels. The public sector recession has only just begun IMO even if the overall one started 15-18 months ago. Mind you, load of garbage on ITV News last night, whether the economy receded 0.5% more Jan-March is irrelevant, it's what it does from now to October and more p!ss poor media coverage will not restore confidence. Edited 1 July, 2009 by saint1977 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 If Fry had sold the ground to the council in the first week, it makes the rest of the club much less of an attractive investment. Especially in the lower leagues it is the ground/facilities that gives you the capacity to increase revenues - the "club" isn't going to do that as well. Bon Jovi could still play an SMS if saints are in L1, but comparatively that is now worth a lot more money than it was when we were in the Prem. Any prospective buyer would have wanted the ground. So easy to say in hindsight but it was the right thing to not sell to the council at the time. I'd go further than that to say that for some of the potential investors, the promise of getting a £30m+ stadium, land, training facilities, other property and the football club for ~£12M-£14M might have been what brought them to the table. But I do agree that the option of removing the stadium purchase from the deal should be there. Isn't that what the Salz bail out plan is? I'd seen £5m mentioned there so that surely doesn't include the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 CB Fry, there is no consortium that can fund it all after 3 months at the price Fry etc are asking. By now even The Trust for example might have managed to put together a bid for £2m to buy the Club if that had been an opportunity 3 months ago. As to last resorts, we may even have run out of time to do that if the Club is impaired with 30 point deductions.... Do you know what "price Fry is asking for"? Well, that is what is called hindsight, and I for one would not have been happy if the club was broken up and the stadium flogged to the council in the first week. I'd have said there were better deals to be done out there, and I think there still is. So I won't be loosing sleep over it, especially if your dream ticket is Trust + Council. Jesus wept that is the lastest, lastest resort you could think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 CB Fry I never said the Trust + Council was the "dream ticket". You wrote "there were better deals to be done out there, and I think there still is. " After 3 months where are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 While I'm ambivalent about the Council owning the stadium, it has be said that the Council will incur significant costs if it is forced to remove its own facilities from it by a new owner. The City's CCTV control room is housed there and to move it, I'm told, would cost £1 million. But it's unlikely that a new owner would want the Council to leave as it provides rental income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 1 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 1 July, 2009 http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=353596&postcount=3577 dubai_phil also asks why Fry structured the selling of the bits in this manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 CB Fry I never said the Trust + Council was the "dream ticket". You wrote "there were better deals to be done out there, and I think there still is. " After 3 months where are they? Well, last post on this one - this is hindsight. Not selling to the council was the right move then, and I still think it will prove to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyin Posted 1 July, 2009 Share Posted 1 July, 2009 SCC couldn't organise a p1ss up in a brewery. Everything they touch rots away. Why would you think they could do any better with SFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now