|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 10, 2023 8:43:34 GMT
It’s a bit like paying out 10k for a home improvement which might save you 20k over the term of a loan. Why pay out the cash in full now when you can borrow it and spend the cash on something more interesting whilst still making money on balance when payments are considered. Basic business. The closest comparison I can think of from a personal perspective is when I bought a car. I could have bought it outright but was also saving a deposit for a house. I decided to go for a loan as it didn't dip into my savings. The interest rates were similar too so whilst not cost neutral, it was minimal. Seems a good strategy to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 10, 2023 9:13:05 GMT
Given Wael has never previously seemingly taken on external debt, even when he developed The Quarters, it seems a bit odd timing to do it now when we're looking to eventually sell the ground and move to the Mem. At least its a sign the stand is likely to be going to cost a substantial sum, so should be a decent one when constructed Fair point, but the quarters is an entirely different project than the stadium as it doesn’t earn any income as such, so the only thing it could be is mortgageable or sold to an investment company when built in return for a huge lease of say 250 years. The rule in business is cash flow is always king. So if you can minimise your cash spend, then do so. As Mem generates money there would be a the cost of the stand /cost per seat price x the minimum number of games plus additional revenue. That would give a cost of the stand over a fixed period and would keep Waels millions in the bank. Clearly the numbers add up for a finance company to be able to do it. Be interesting to know how much the stand is costing exactly but this is absolutely standard procedure in business and nothing to worry about. You only need to worry if the club fails to make those payments, but given Wael has capitalised debt 3 years in a row I don’t think there is much to be concerned about. Or money's a bit tighter now than when The Quarters was developed, hence the need for a loan for the stadium development. It'll be interesting to see the full plans when they are eventually released, as I'd imagine it's going to be an impressive looking stand |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 10, 2023 9:22:21 GMT
Fair point, but the quarters is an entirely different project than the stadium as it doesn’t earn any income as such, so the only thing it could be is mortgageable or sold to an investment company when built in return for a huge lease of say 250 years. The rule in business is cash flow is always king. So if you can minimise your cash spend, then do so. As Mem generates money there would be a the cost of the stand /cost per seat price x the minimum number of games plus additional revenue. That would give a cost of the stand over a fixed period and would keep Waels millions in the bank. Clearly the numbers add up for a finance company to be able to do it. Be interesting to know how much the stand is costing exactly but this is absolutely standard procedure in business and nothing to worry about. You only need to worry if the club fails to make those payments, but given Wael has capitalised debt 3 years in a row I don’t think there is much to be concerned about. Or money's a bit tighter now than when The Quarters was developed, hence the need for a loan for the stadium development. It'll be interesting to see the full plans when they are eventually released, as I'd imagine it's going to be an impressive looking stand Or we have greater certainty with the longer term future (vis a vis the FM) so can take some short and medium term decisions now with this paying for itself over the (say) 5 years we'll have it. Wael underwrites it without spending a penny so it's 'reasonably' risk and cost free. Maybe that's why the Quarters is being reviewed, TG has got the Mem improved without affecting the overall infrastructure funds. |
|
|
|
Post by GasAttacK on May 10, 2023 9:33:46 GMT
Post moved to Collins thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on May 10, 2023 10:43:40 GMT
Fair point, but the quarters is an entirely different project than the stadium as it doesn’t earn any income as such, so the only thing it could be is mortgageable or sold to an investment company when built in return for a huge lease of say 250 years. The rule in business is cash flow is always king. So if you can minimise your cash spend, then do so. As Mem generates money there would be a the cost of the stand /cost per seat price x the minimum number of games plus additional revenue. That would give a cost of the stand over a fixed period and would keep Waels millions in the bank. Clearly the numbers add up for a finance company to be able to do it. Be interesting to know how much the stand is costing exactly but this is absolutely standard procedure in business and nothing to worry about. You only need to worry if the club fails to make those payments, but given Wael has capitalised debt 3 years in a row I don’t think there is much to be concerned about. Or money's a bit tighter now than when The Quarters was developed, hence the need for a loan for the stadium development. It'll be interesting to see the full plans when they are eventually released, as I'd imagine it's going to be an impressive looking stand Why would money be tighter now? What evidence do you have that it points to that, out of interest? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 10, 2023 14:41:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mftc on May 10, 2023 22:12:43 GMT
Just doing some rough maths on it all. Having done some sponsorship at the mem myself over the years I know what the rate card is for sponsoring stands etc. Brunel would have paid around £12k for the season sponsorship of the south stand and the Southwest stand would have been in the region of £7k per season. Given that the new stand will in effect be one stand, larger, with more of a presence I could imagine the cost of that would be about £20k per season. Add in the ticket cost per seat per match would give you a real base figure. 3500 seats x £22.00 x 23 games = £1.77m per season. Add in match day revenue from food and drink. I don't know what that figure is but if every seat spent £4.50 that's £15.7k x 23 = £362k. Then of course there is the possibility of blue ribband cup games should we progress to the big club rounds to add to the revenue. So a new stand will gross us around £2.2m per season, meaning that if it costs £5m to build it would be paid for after year 3 but we can spread the liability further for a cost of 3%, say 5 years and maximise the cash flow into the playing budget and gives us much greater flexibility fiscally. The pressure on the club though would be to perform on the pitch and make this a draw for fans, but given that we have put 12k in the stadium when we were in the conference then we should be able to do it in L1.
I heard Papa Johns were pulling out of sponsoring the EFL Trophy.
Have you got some inside info then. The Blue Ribband cup? Is that the new sponsors?
Wasn't Blue Ribband a taxi style wafer bar in the 80's? Didn't a bloke from Are You Being Served feature in the advert? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 10, 2023 22:34:04 GMT
The 3% interest rate quoted now looks on the low side?
Were these figures what TG came up with to convince Wael to agree to the new stand being constructed, as they look like total pie in the sky, unless we're going to somehow sell out every home game next season, and also for the following 4 seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on May 11, 2023 0:13:36 GMT
Just doing some rough maths on it all. Having done some sponsorship at the mem myself over the years I know what the rate card is for sponsoring stands etc. Brunel would have paid around £12k for the season sponsorship of the south stand and the Southwest stand would have been in the region of £7k per season. Given that the new stand will in effect be one stand, larger, with more of a presence I could imagine the cost of that would be about £20k per season. Add in the ticket cost per seat per match would give you a real base figure. 3500 seats x £22.00 x 23 games = £1.77m per season. Add in match day revenue from food and drink. I don't know what that figure is but if every seat spent £4.50 that's £15.7k x 23 = £362k. Then of course there is the possibility of blue ribband cup games should we progress to the big club rounds to add to the revenue. So a new stand will gross us around £2.2m per season, meaning that if it costs £5m to build it would be paid for after year 3 but we can spread the liability further for a cost of 3%, say 5 years and maximise the cash flow into the playing budget and gives us much greater flexibility fiscally. The pressure on the club though would be to perform on the pitch and make this a draw for fans, but given that we have put 12k in the stadium when we were in the conference then we should be able to do it in L1.
I heard Papa Johns were pulling out of sponsoring the EFL Trophy.
Have you got some inside info then. The Blue Ribband cup? Is that the new sponsors?
Wasn't Blue Ribband a taxi style wafer bar in the 80's? Didn't a bloke from Are You Being Served feature in the advert? Blue Riband bars are still available, and very nice they are too. The Blue Riband Cup sounds like a sailing trophy - very posh!  |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on May 11, 2023 6:44:14 GMT
The 3% interest rate quoted now looks on the low side? Were these figures what TG came up with to convince Wael to agree to the new stand being constructed, as they look like total pie in the sky, unless we're going to somehow sell out every home game next season, and also for the following 4 seasons. Your last few posts are very speculative! Rovers have taken out a loan to build a stand. We'd like to think the business has financial advisors and business rates? Posting links from the Times and guessing everything else helps whom? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 7:14:03 GMT
The 3% interest rate quoted now looks on the low side? Were these figures what TG came up with to convince Wael to agree to the new stand being constructed, as they look like total pie in the sky, unless we're going to somehow sell out every home game next season, and also for the following 4 seasons. Your last few posts are very speculative! Rovers have taken out a loan to build a stand. We'd like to think the business has financial advisors and business rates? Posting links from the Times and guessing everything else helps whom? The whole thread is a mess isn’t it? People on both sides of the coin just guessing stuff to suit their narrative. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 7:23:27 GMT
The 3% interest rate quoted now looks on the low side? Were these figures what TG came up with to convince Wael to agree to the new stand being constructed, as they look like total pie in the sky, unless we're going to somehow sell out every home game next season, and also for the following 4 seasons. Your last few posts are very speculative! Rovers have taken out a loan to build a stand. We'd like to think the business has financial advisors and business rates? Posting links from the Times and guessing everything else helps whom? I hope we keep an eye on our tractors and other agricultural equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by perryfenwick on May 11, 2023 8:15:15 GMT
It's not automatically good or bad, people who like the owner will decide it's great and people who are less keen will decide it's not.
Totally understand why people want to know - nobody batted an eyelid at fans asking around Higgs and his Wonga loans and Wael has what was Higgs' job.
We live in a world where people follow this stuff, Kieran Maguire at the Price of Football can tweet it out and then the Post report on it.
Does seem odd that a non-bank lender would be offering rates of 3% or so in the current climate, and also v odd to my simple mind that a bloke on the board of an international bank needs to go to a lender like this, but maybe that's just me. Not a negative point, it's good that they're getting rid of the tents and trying to improve the Mem, but the source of the cash looks a bit off to me. Those links shared about their antics are concerning too.
On a slightly related note, I see that Wael, not Hani as per previous years, is the named person underwriting the going concern of the business. Maybe that's a clue? I'm not one of those who hears the chummy gossip in the boxes but there's a reason for that surely?
In any case, the club ought to have expected news of a loan to come out. The club has history of dodgy loans with Higgs and of losing stadiums to creditors (albeit a while back) so while Tom was writing his programme notes all about how incredible the stand will be, he could've covered the finance, just to be up front.
Not everyone cares but some do and it gets out.
Now to build the thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 11, 2023 9:09:53 GMT
It's not automatically good or bad, people who like the owner will decide it's great and people who are less keen will decide it's not. Totally understand why people want to know - nobody batted an eyelid at fans asking around Higgs and his Wonga loans and Wael has what was Higgs' job. We live in a world where people follow this stuff, Kieran Maguire at the Price of Football can tweet it out and then the Post report on it. Does seem odd that a non-bank lender would be offering rates of 3% or so in the current climate, and also v odd to my simple mind that a bloke on the board of an international bank needs to go to a lender like this, but maybe that's just me. Not a negative point, it's good that they're getting rid of the tents and trying to improve the Mem, but the source of the cash looks a bit off to me. Those links shared about their antics are concerning too. On a slightly related note, I see that Wael, not Hani as per previous years, is the named person underwriting the going concern of the business. Maybe that's a clue? I'm not one of those who hears the chummy gossip in the boxes but there's a reason for that surely? In any case, the club ought to have expected news of a loan to come out. The club has history of dodgy loans with Higgs and of losing stadiums to creditors (albeit a while back) so while Tom was writing his programme notes all about how incredible the stand will be, he could've covered the finance, just to be up front. Not everyone cares but some do and it gets out. Now to build the thing! Not all loans are bad for sure. This one is at least for something tangible that should bring in and increase revenue. the old board and the MSP borrowing was more worrying as that was seemingly to fight a case we couldn't win and 'chasing the dream' of the UWE. Reward was arguably greater, but so was the risk I Knew about the charge because I have alerts on from companies house, so got one when it went live. Being an accountant that kind of thing interests me. As soon as I saw it, I assumed it was related to the new stand, so was not as concerned as some other random loan showing up ala MSP under Nick Higgs |
|
|
|
Post by perryfenwick on May 11, 2023 9:28:11 GMT
Yep, this appears on the basis of Tom's tweet to be a loan to make an improvement as opposed to Higgs rolling the dice, that's fair.
Just odd that the club seems to know that they have critics in the fanbase (as per Wael's interview with GT talking about haters and attention seekers etc), and they like to keep an eye on criticism (club staff in Facebook fan pages etc.) yet they didn't think this would be queried.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on May 11, 2023 9:38:34 GMT
Yep, this appears on the basis of Tom's tweet to be a loan to make an improvement as opposed to Higgs rolling the dice, that's fair. Just odd that the club seems to know that they have critics in the fanbase (as per Wael's interview with GT talking about haters and attention seekers etc), and they like to keep an eye on criticism (club staff in Facebook fan pages etc.) yet they didn't think this would be queried. I also wonder on what basis fans are querying this. Wael underwrites the losses, it appears that has guaranteed this loan. As we are in massive negative cash flow, he will also be writing the cheque for the repayments. So what's the difference? Everyone seems to think, well not everyone (me included) that this is all fine and dandy and will carry on indefinitely. So why the fuss??🤷💅 |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on May 11, 2023 10:14:10 GMT
The 3% interest rate quoted now looks on the low side? Were these figures what TG came up with to convince Wael to agree to the new stand being constructed, as they look like total pie in the sky, unless we're going to somehow sell out every home game next season, and also for the following 4 seasons. Your last few posts are very speculative! Rovers have taken out a loan to build a stand. We'd like to think the business has financial advisors and business rates?Posting links from the Times and guessing everything else helps whom? You would like to think so.... |
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on May 11, 2023 10:18:49 GMT
Just doing some rough maths on it all. Having done some sponsorship at the mem myself over the years I know what the rate card is for sponsoring stands etc. Brunel would have paid around £12k for the season sponsorship of the south stand and the Southwest stand would have been in the region of £7k per season. Given that the new stand will in effect be one stand, larger, with more of a presence I could imagine the cost of that would be about £20k per season. Add in the ticket cost per seat per match would give you a real base figure. 3500 seats x £22.00 x 23 games = £1.77m per season. Add in match day revenue from food and drink. I don't know what that figure is but if every seat spent £4.50 that's £15.7k x 23 = £362k. Then of course there is the possibility of blue ribband cup games should we progress to the big club rounds to add to the revenue. So a new stand will gross us around £2.2m per season, meaning that if it costs £5m to build it would be paid for after year 3 but we can spread the liability further for a cost of 3%, say 5 years and maximise the cash flow into the playing budget and gives us much greater flexibility fiscally. The pressure on the club though would be to perform on the pitch and make this a draw for fans, but given that we have put 12k in the stadium when we were in the conference then we should be able to do it in L1. Don't forget it is the marginal uplift you need to look at, i.e. the increase in numbers of people using the stand and their spend excluding current use. At current use we are losing c £2 - 3mln p.a. in total as a club. Pro rata that per seat... Any beneficial income to pay for the interest on the loan will be from additional usage and spend on top of what is already occurring. |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on May 11, 2023 10:42:42 GMT
It's not automatically good or bad, people who like the owner will decide it's great and people who are less keen will decide it's not. Totally understand why people want to know - nobody batted an eyelid at fans asking around Higgs and his Wonga loans and Wael has what was Higgs' job. We live in a world where people follow this stuff, Kieran Maguire at the Price of Football can tweet it out and then the Post report on it. Does seem odd that a non-bank lender would be offering rates of 3% or so in the current climate, and also v odd to my simple mind that a bloke on the board of an international bank needs to go to a lender like this, but maybe that's just me. Not a negative point, it's good that they're getting rid of the tents and trying to improve the Mem, but the source of the cash looks a bit off to me. Those links shared about their antics are concerning too. On a slightly related note, I see that Wael, not Hani as per previous years, is the named person underwriting the going concern of the business. Maybe that's a clue? I'm not one of those who hears the chummy gossip in the boxes but there's a reason for that surely? In any case, the club ought to have expected news of a loan to come out. The club has history of dodgy loans with Higgs and of losing stadiums to creditors (albeit a while back) so while Tom was writing his programme notes all about how incredible the stand will be, he could've covered the finance, just to be up front. Not everyone cares but some do and it gets out. Now to build the thing! Tom clarified last year that it was a mistake by the auditors (copy and paste?) that Hani was named in the previous set of accounts, it should have been Wael. |
|
|
|
Post by perryfenwick on May 11, 2023 12:23:25 GMT
It's not automatically good or bad, people who like the owner will decide it's great and people who are less keen will decide it's not. Totally understand why people want to know - nobody batted an eyelid at fans asking around Higgs and his Wonga loans and Wael has what was Higgs' job. We live in a world where people follow this stuff, Kieran Maguire at the Price of Football can tweet it out and then the Post report on it. Does seem odd that a non-bank lender would be offering rates of 3% or so in the current climate, and also v odd to my simple mind that a bloke on the board of an international bank needs to go to a lender like this, but maybe that's just me. Not a negative point, it's good that they're getting rid of the tents and trying to improve the Mem, but the source of the cash looks a bit off to me. Those links shared about their antics are concerning too. On a slightly related note, I see that Wael, not Hani as per previous years, is the named person underwriting the going concern of the business. Maybe that's a clue? I'm not one of those who hears the chummy gossip in the boxes but there's a reason for that surely? In any case, the club ought to have expected news of a loan to come out. The club has history of dodgy loans with Higgs and of losing stadiums to creditors (albeit a while back) so while Tom was writing his programme notes all about how incredible the stand will be, he could've covered the finance, just to be up front. Not everyone cares but some do and it gets out. Now to build the thing! Tom clarified last year that it was a mistake by the auditors (copy and paste?) that Hani was named in the previous set of accounts, it should have been Wael. It was in every set of accounts up to this year, so was it a mistake every year or just last year? If just last year, what changed? I'm not sure quality auditors make those sorts of errors tbh. EDIT: I think I get it, once W capitalised the debt in 2020, the next accounts covering 2020/21 should have said W not H. |
|
