by melonhead » 17 Sep 2013 15:10
by MouldyRoyal » 17 Sep 2013 15:24
by melonhead » 17 Sep 2013 15:42
by M Brook » 17 Sep 2013 15:43
melonhead no that is something worth worrying about
by melonhead » 17 Sep 2013 15:52
by retro royal » 17 Sep 2013 15:58
by Norfolk Royal » 17 Sep 2013 16:16
MouldyRoyal Exactly, no really sure why this is being discussed when there is a complete absence of evidence for it.
Might as well be discussing AZ's plan to murder the current first team and use their skin to create new players.
by PieEater » 17 Sep 2013 16:55
andrew1957 There is nothing wrong with buying and building a business with borrowed money. That is how most millionaires start out.
The Glazers for example reputedly borrowed all the money to buy Man Unt but they are good businessmen and have built the brand massively since they bought the club. For example if they borrow 600M to buy the club, run it in such a way as the internet is always paid out of turnover and then sell it for 1000M - they walk away with a 400M profit and it has never cost them a penny. There are all sorts of arguments that the interest repayments could be reinvested instead to improve the club and this is true, but there are not many sugar daddies around who have 600M and need no interest on that money. And if the club were paying interest to the owner this is no different than paying it to a bank.
However, the problems with the above are tow fold. First what happens when things go wrong? And second are you good at building a business brand?
If things go wrong with the heavy bank debt issue, then unless the owner can fund the losses from his own pocket, you become Pompey and the club goes bust. So the question is does Anton have any money at all or is he just using borrowed money - I guess none of us know. And the second issue is "how good a businessman is he and can he build the brand" - again we have absolutely no idea and he has no prior experience of running a football club which is a very particular type of business due to the importance of keeping the customers (fans) onside.
So I think it is fair that we are concerned as fans because none of us want to be Portsmouth, but it would be nice if there was some proof that the owner did have some money - or is he instead just using loans/parachute payments to effectively buy the club for nothing at all and has Sir John been duped. As with all these thing only time will tell.
But the sound of silence from the club will keep fuelling the conspiracy theories until they issue a clear statement as to what is going on re the buy out and funding etc.
by andrew1957 » 17 Sep 2013 17:20
PieEaterandrew1957 There is nothing wrong with buying and building a business with borrowed money. That is how most millionaires start out.
The Glazers for example reputedly borrowed all the money to buy Man Unt but they are good businessmen and have built the brand massively since they bought the club. For example if they borrow 600M to buy the club, run it in such a way as the internet is always paid out of turnover and then sell it for 1000M - they walk away with a 400M profit and it has never cost them a penny. There are all sorts of arguments that the interest repayments could be reinvested instead to improve the club and this is true, but there are not many sugar daddies around who have 600M and need no interest on that money. And if the club were paying interest to the owner this is no different than paying it to a bank.
However, the problems with the above are tow fold. First what happens when things go wrong? And second are you good at building a business brand?
If things go wrong with the heavy bank debt issue, then unless the owner can fund the losses from his own pocket, you become Pompey and the club goes bust. So the question is does Anton have any money at all or is he just using borrowed money - I guess none of us know. And the second issue is "how good a businessman is he and can he build the brand" - again we have absolutely no idea and he has no prior experience of running a football club which is a very particular type of business due to the importance of keeping the customers (fans) onside.
So I think it is fair that we are concerned as fans because none of us want to be Portsmouth, but it would be nice if there was some proof that the owner did have some money - or is he instead just using loans/parachute payments to effectively buy the club for nothing at all and has Sir John been duped. As with all these thing only time will tell.
But the sound of silence from the club will keep fuelling the conspiracy theories until they issue a clear statement as to what is going on re the buy out and funding etc.
What a load of bollocks.
Firstly a leveraged buyout is getting a loan but securing it on what you are buying, so the club has the debt not the borrower. That is the dodgy bit as you don't need to have any money in the first place or carry any personal debt subsequently, you just need to make sure that the profit/cash generated by what you are buying covers the interest. That's very different from just getting a loan where you take on debt.
Secondly Portsmouth's problem was it was run above it's means (wages and transfers) and that was added as debt on the club. Money that came into the club that was believed to be "investment" actually turned out to be debt.
Thirdly SJM will get his money regardless of where it came from so I can't see how you can say he's been duped, he's got rid of a liability for a profit.
by JIM » 17 Sep 2013 17:25
by melonhead » 17 Sep 2013 18:34
I just don't get some people on here. I think you would argue about everything and anything just for the sake of it.
by Ian Royal » 17 Sep 2013 20:49
by blythspartan » 17 Sep 2013 21:12
by Nameless » 18 Sep 2013 10:50
RoyalBlueNameless How would you mortgage a stadium ?
It has zero value, if someone defaulted on the mortgage what would be the point in repossessing it as there is hardly a market for 24,000 seater stadia in the Berkshire area.
Dur! Clueless?!
Is the stadium built within the infamous blackhole? Does it float in the air defying gravity? Even if it has no value (questionnable) the land it stands and which surrounds it is worth a fortune. The mortgage would be taken out against that value.
by melonhead » 18 Sep 2013 12:02
retro royal Might have something to do with an addition 12400 seats.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... xt-6029119
Its application involves a variation of one condition.
The changes, which involve engineering works, are to ease the phasing of the development, particularly the new outside broadcast unit area.
by bigmike » 18 Sep 2013 12:05
NamelessRoyalBlueNameless How would you mortgage a stadium ?
It has zero value, if someone defaulted on the mortgage what would be the point in repossessing it as there is hardly a market for 24,000 seater stadia in the Berkshire area.
Dur! Clueless?!
Is the stadium built within the infamous blackhole? Does it float in the air defying gravity? Even if it has no value (questionnable) the land it stands and which surrounds it is worth a fortune. The mortgage would be taken out against that value.
Is there a need to be so patronizingly aggressive ?
The land has all sorts of issues with it and I believe had special planning permission for this particular use. It can't be redeveloped for housing, industry, office or retail use so I wonder on what basis it becomes worth a fortune ?
Would it be worth tearing down the stadium, with all the cost that involves, if all you could do was build another stadium ?
I have no doubt that you can obtain finance on just about anything but the concept of a 'mortgage' on something like a stadium just doesn't sound right. Probably just loose use of terms...
If anyone has an intelligent, informed answer it would be interesting to hear.
by PieEater » 18 Sep 2013 12:54
by melonhead » 18 Sep 2013 13:04
PieEater I'm no planning expert .
by Nameless » 18 Sep 2013 13:32
by bigmike » 18 Sep 2013 14:42
Nameless Isn't there more to it than just methane though. IIRC they had to install some special membrane to stop various unpleasant substances contaminating the groundwater and the brook. Presumably the stadium was built on foundations that were appropriate for that and demolishing the stadium and building something else might be quite complex.
I don't know, thanks for the insights though and I guess we'll have to wait for RoyalBlue to give the definitive expert view....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests