Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it though
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it though
Very good !
I doubt a season ticket or indeed a match ticket will be in the range of many supporters in that unlikely event since we abandoned the aspiration of offering the most affordable tickets in London. ‘dodgy stream nick66’ may be more appropriate 😉😆
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it though
User name selhurst66 would not be allowed as well.
RD is a dick who is holding onto The Valley and Sparrows Lane through pure spite. Full stop. It has cost him money to do so for 6 years now and at the current rent levels will continue to do so. The real value of land and of commercial property has fallen in recent years. He should have got out of the whole thing in one go in 2019 to a sensible buyer but his nasty, spiteful, grudge holding nature got the better of him and now he is even further out of pocket than he could have been. Blokes a moron.
A large property company was mentioned to me prior to the takeover. Not sure if they remain on the scene. They will though be clued up enough to work out the numbers and what can be done.
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Gullible investors are our saviours.
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.
Remember that - Burger boy went under the radar to Leyton Orient without telling anyone and couldn't work out how the fans found out. That's what happens when you don't know your history or fanbase
Has burger boy left the club?
Now at Bath Rugby Union
Allegedly, he keeps complaining to the club and RFU that the balls are flat and a funny shape...
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Nine and a half years. It expires in January 2035. Please do not be misled by media or execs who haven’t done the research.
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Gullible investors are our saviours.
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
But if he wants to simply play landlord then he is really, really, really bad at it. His value £44M. His rent £621K. A yield of 1.4% - less than inflation.
For comparative purposes, I know of a commercial building on Oxford St that changed hands at 6.25% yield a year or so back.
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Gullible investors are our saviours.
youre commentary here is a slight at the whole football industry though. Clubs with huge loss-making are exchanging hands for substantial sums all the time.
That is the landscape we sit in and within that mindblowing and nonsensical context, CAFC is surely a better proposition with security of tenure and ownership of it's own assets.
RD's loss-making investment or position is of no specific relevance to that point
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Gullible investors are our saviours.
youre commentary here is a slight at the whole football industry though. Clubs with huge loss-making are exchanging hands for substantial sums all the time.
That is the landscape we sit in and within that mindblowing and nonsensical context, CAFC is surely a better proposition with security of tenure and ownership of it's own assets.
RD's loss-making investment or position is of no specific relevance to that point
I’m simply highlighting more potential buyers at a lower value.
RD has an asset which is not easy to realise.
He doesn’t have us over a barrel but does have a very strong hand.
My point is our owners don’t appear to have the desire to spend £40m on the ground when it won’t automatically add that much value / make the club more attractive to other suitors.
As I said if the price were closer to £10m the commercial argument makes more sense.
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Nine and a half years. It expires in January 2035. Please do not be misled by media or execs who haven’t done the research.
Possibly a notice period from both sides so we have 8 1/2 years to make a decision? The clock is ticking down fast either way.
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.
They will renegotiate a lease at some point.
If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.
The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.
More buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.
If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a house
Logical to an extent.
But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenant
By contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.
Gullible investors are our saviours.
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
But if he wants to simply play landlord then he is really, really, really bad at it. His value £44M. His rent £621K. A yield of 1.4% - less than inflation.
For comparative purposes, I know of a commercial building on Oxford St that changed hands at 6.25% yield a year or so back.
Unless he knows the true valuation, a lot lower, which would then yield a higher % based on the figures you provided. It's also a guaranteed income stream. It could also be spite or a bit of both. Either way and even with 9.5 years left it's clear the agreement is there until RD calls it a day or time calls for him.
Comments
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets
I doubt a season ticket or indeed a match ticket will be in the range of many supporters in that unlikely event since we abandoned the aspiration of offering the most affordable tickets in London. ‘dodgy stream nick66’ may be more appropriate 😉😆
We can re-form the Valley Party if RD tries to push us out.
The real value of land and of commercial property has fallen in recent years. He should have got out of the whole thing in one go in 2019 to a sensible buyer but his nasty, spiteful, grudge holding nature got the better of him and now he is even further out of pocket than he could have been. Blokes a moron.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
But if he wants to simply play landlord then he is really, really, really bad at it. His value £44M. His rent £621K. A yield of 1.4% - less than inflation.
For comparative purposes, I know of a commercial building on Oxford St that changed hands at 6.25% yield a year or so back.
That is the landscape we sit in and within that mindblowing and nonsensical context, CAFC is surely a better proposition with security of tenure and ownership of it's own assets.
RD's loss-making investment or position is of no specific relevance to that point
Possibly a notice period from both sides so we have 8 1/2 years to make a decision? The clock is ticking down fast either way.