| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:09 - Sep 8 with 1561 views | Millie |
Why do we have to purchase the stadium?, this has only been an option for the last 18 months since the council decided to sell County Hall, the Stadium and anything that isn't nailed down.
Yes, in the ideal world the club would purchase and build, but that's going to cost £45 to £50m, money, if found would put this club in serious jeopardy should it get relegated. So the club are now looking at landlords consent to build without the expense of purchase. which, to me is sensible although we'd still need to find close to £20m.
This club has always tried to live within its means and long may that continue, it seems to me that the council are trying to kill the Goose which has laid the golden egg for our city. Shameful |  | |  |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:27 - Sep 8 with 1519 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:09 - Sep 8 by Millie |
Why do we have to purchase the stadium?, this has only been an option for the last 18 months since the council decided to sell County Hall, the Stadium and anything that isn't nailed down.
Yes, in the ideal world the club would purchase and build, but that's going to cost £45 to £50m, money, if found would put this club in serious jeopardy should it get relegated. So the club are now looking at landlords consent to build without the expense of purchase. which, to me is sensible although we'd still need to find close to £20m.
This club has always tried to live within its means and long may that continue, it seems to me that the council are trying to kill the Goose which has laid the golden egg for our city. Shameful |
It's the club that have decided they want to purchase the stadium rather than just expand.
I commented on here previously that I hoped that the pressure on the council was to do with expansion rather than trying to embarrass them into selling the stadium at a lower than market price.
I don't believe that the club need to purchase the stadium - have been saying so for ages. Just do what Man City did and come to an agreement re naming rights / extra income etc etc.
But if the council sold the stadium to the club at less than cost, there would be uproar. Think about what that actually means - the taxpayers of Swansea would be passing value from their pockets to a few already extremely wealthy individuals to increase the value that they will get when the next 'investors' come along.
The council have to play fair on the other hand and ensure that planning is done as efficiently as possible, without any undue restrictions and stupid problems being caused. Similarly, if it is right for both parties to sell the stadium then that's what should happen as the council need the money, and the club seemingly now want the asset. But there should be no cut price deal.
It would be interesting to see in how many other businesses people would support their taxes subsidising multi millionaires. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:41 - Sep 8 with 1491 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:27 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the club that have decided they want to purchase the stadium rather than just expand.
I commented on here previously that I hoped that the pressure on the council was to do with expansion rather than trying to embarrass them into selling the stadium at a lower than market price.
I don't believe that the club need to purchase the stadium - have been saying so for ages. Just do what Man City did and come to an agreement re naming rights / extra income etc etc.
But if the council sold the stadium to the club at less than cost, there would be uproar. Think about what that actually means - the taxpayers of Swansea would be passing value from their pockets to a few already extremely wealthy individuals to increase the value that they will get when the next 'investors' come along.
The council have to play fair on the other hand and ensure that planning is done as efficiently as possible, without any undue restrictions and stupid problems being caused. Similarly, if it is right for both parties to sell the stadium then that's what should happen as the council need the money, and the club seemingly now want the asset. But there should be no cut price deal.
It would be interesting to see in how many other businesses people would support their taxes subsidising multi millionaires. |
Lisa, not sure where the cut price deal idea comes from, I've heard that the council has named its price but want paying over 3 years. Club, want it over longer terms. The 3 year terms would put us in serious jeopardy.
This idea of purchase was only floated because the council are strapped for cash, Huw Jenkins mentioned in an open forum that he would like to see the council retain its asset for the people of Swansea (rugby and football) | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:51 - Sep 8 with 1475 views | JackSomething |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:41 - Sep 8 by Millie |
Lisa, not sure where the cut price deal idea comes from, I've heard that the council has named its price but want paying over 3 years. Club, want it over longer terms. The 3 year terms would put us in serious jeopardy.
This idea of purchase was only floated because the council are strapped for cash, Huw Jenkins mentioned in an open forum that he would like to see the council retain its asset for the people of Swansea (rugby and football) |
The council are presumably keen to sell, but I don't think that's the only reason. When we first got promoted, there was plenty of talk from the club about expansion, but zero mention of buying the stadium. It's hard to miss that the talk about buying first started around the time that potential buyers for the club were sniffing around. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:53 - Sep 8 with 1467 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:41 - Sep 8 by Millie |
Lisa, not sure where the cut price deal idea comes from, I've heard that the council has named its price but want paying over 3 years. Club, want it over longer terms. The 3 year terms would put us in serious jeopardy.
This idea of purchase was only floated because the council are strapped for cash, Huw Jenkins mentioned in an open forum that he would like to see the council retain its asset for the people of Swansea (rugby and football) |
Sorry - that wasn't in reference to your post - it was in reference to the earlier statements that the price should be much lower than the cost of the stadium.
As I said, if the council need the cash and the club agree, then great, but a lot of the 'purchase' stuff came about with the US investors' emergence. It was never spoken about previously.
Re jeopardy or otherwise - if the club want to buy the stadium, but can't afford the deal, then they don't buy it - it really is as simple as that. However, the increase in income from the league next season onwards is c.£30-£40m per annum.
If the club pay, say, £28m over 4 years, that's £7m a year. Why does that 'seriously jeopardise' us? | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:54 - Sep 8 with 1462 views | Whiterockin |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:27 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the club that have decided they want to purchase the stadium rather than just expand.
I commented on here previously that I hoped that the pressure on the council was to do with expansion rather than trying to embarrass them into selling the stadium at a lower than market price.
I don't believe that the club need to purchase the stadium - have been saying so for ages. Just do what Man City did and come to an agreement re naming rights / extra income etc etc.
But if the council sold the stadium to the club at less than cost, there would be uproar. Think about what that actually means - the taxpayers of Swansea would be passing value from their pockets to a few already extremely wealthy individuals to increase the value that they will get when the next 'investors' come along.
The council have to play fair on the other hand and ensure that planning is done as efficiently as possible, without any undue restrictions and stupid problems being caused. Similarly, if it is right for both parties to sell the stadium then that's what should happen as the council need the money, and the club seemingly now want the asset. But there should be no cut price deal.
It would be interesting to see in how many other businesses people would support their taxes subsidising multi millionaires. |
Spot on. |  | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:04 - Sep 8 with 1438 views | dobjack2 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:51 - Sep 8 by JackSomething |
The council are presumably keen to sell, but I don't think that's the only reason. When we first got promoted, there was plenty of talk from the club about expansion, but zero mention of buying the stadium. It's hard to miss that the talk about buying first started around the time that potential buyers for the club were sniffing around. |
Surely the council could lessen the risk of the ground being sold on for huge profit or at least getting some of that profit for the council by inserting some sort of claw back provisions in the contract. Although I would expect any legal experts to know whether this was possible.
Issues such as The payment term which if short could leave the club having to borrow money to finance the deal on the security of the ground, and any claw back clauses are potential areas of disagreement or even deal breakers in my view | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:20 - Sep 8 with 1419 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 14:53 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
Sorry - that wasn't in reference to your post - it was in reference to the earlier statements that the price should be much lower than the cost of the stadium.
As I said, if the council need the cash and the club agree, then great, but a lot of the 'purchase' stuff came about with the US investors' emergence. It was never spoken about previously.
Re jeopardy or otherwise - if the club want to buy the stadium, but can't afford the deal, then they don't buy it - it really is as simple as that. However, the increase in income from the league next season onwards is c.£30-£40m per annum.
If the club pay, say, £28m over 4 years, that's £7m a year. Why does that 'seriously jeopardise' us? |
It is patently obvious that the Swans are not the cash cow that the council wish it to be, the cash flow is extremely tight, so far, the investment in players, Landore, Fairwood and the Liberty itself has swallowed up most of the PL monies and unfortunately, the extra money will go on sustaining PL football. I'm sure HJ will need a revolving door fitted to his office as the agents are probably already starting to circulate.
I'm sure some would say 'tell 'em to **** off' but that's easier said than done and the end result might be catastrophic. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:33 - Sep 8 with 1398 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:20 - Sep 8 by Millie |
It is patently obvious that the Swans are not the cash cow that the council wish it to be, the cash flow is extremely tight, so far, the investment in players, Landore, Fairwood and the Liberty itself has swallowed up most of the PL monies and unfortunately, the extra money will go on sustaining PL football. I'm sure HJ will need a revolving door fitted to his office as the agents are probably already starting to circulate.
I'm sure some would say 'tell 'em to **** off' but that's easier said than done and the end result might be catastrophic. |
I agree that the majority goes on players' salaries, and that is to be expected.
However, we should be aiming to keep the % of income going on salaries constant in my opinion.
So, let's say we spend 65% of income on salaries now (at £100m income), so £65m total. When the income rises to £140m (I don't know what it is, but that's the sort of figure, I believe) then the salaries should go to 65% of that - £91m.
That still means that the surplus of income over salaries, which is currently £35m becomes £49m.
There is no reason to assume that the other salaries will increase, and also we have less going out from now on on the training ground etc, so we should be able to comfortably cover £7m to the council (or even a little more). We will also have full receipt of income into the ground and naming rights etc, which will obviously reduce the net outflow. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:41 - Sep 8 with 1383 views | tomdickharry |
Any update from either party since last week? | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:43 - Sep 8 with 1377 views | dobjack2 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:33 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree that the majority goes on players' salaries, and that is to be expected.
However, we should be aiming to keep the % of income going on salaries constant in my opinion.
So, let's say we spend 65% of income on salaries now (at £100m income), so £65m total. When the income rises to £140m (I don't know what it is, but that's the sort of figure, I believe) then the salaries should go to 65% of that - £91m.
That still means that the surplus of income over salaries, which is currently £35m becomes £49m.
There is no reason to assume that the other salaries will increase, and also we have less going out from now on on the training ground etc, so we should be able to comfortably cover £7m to the council (or even a little more). We will also have full receipt of income into the ground and naming rights etc, which will obviously reduce the net outflow. |
Based on staying in the premier and eating into parachute payments if relegated. A risk? | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:52 - Sep 8 with 1360 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:43 - Sep 8 by dobjack2 |
Based on staying in the premier and eating into parachute payments if relegated. A risk? |
Of course.
But that's why, if we are going to buy the stadium, doing it over the shortest time we can is probably less risky (I imagine that the council will see it in the same way).
If we are relegated, then the salaries are a far greater risk than a few million on the stadium, albeit that we can recover that from player sales I guess.
All of it is a risk - it'll be a risk for an 'investor' to give current owners £30m or £40m or whatever - if we go down, that value will drop.
All of it is a risk these days, with the huge disparity between the PL and the rest. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:12 - Sep 8 with 1335 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 15:33 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree that the majority goes on players' salaries, and that is to be expected.
However, we should be aiming to keep the % of income going on salaries constant in my opinion.
So, let's say we spend 65% of income on salaries now (at £100m income), so £65m total. When the income rises to £140m (I don't know what it is, but that's the sort of figure, I believe) then the salaries should go to 65% of that - £91m.
That still means that the surplus of income over salaries, which is currently £35m becomes £49m.
There is no reason to assume that the other salaries will increase, and also we have less going out from now on on the training ground etc, so we should be able to comfortably cover £7m to the council (or even a little more). We will also have full receipt of income into the ground and naming rights etc, which will obviously reduce the net outflow. |
You've not accounted for any purchase of players, even a free transfer is not free
I don't have the answers but cash flow is king and know that there wouldn't be the kind of surplus to pay off the purchase price within 3 years and build.
To me, we go back to what we can afford, build the extension and in a few years when things are paid off, look to see if the council will do a ten year deal. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:25 - Sep 8 with 1317 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:12 - Sep 8 by Millie |
You've not accounted for any purchase of players, even a free transfer is not free
I don't have the answers but cash flow is king and know that there wouldn't be the kind of surplus to pay off the purchase price within 3 years and build.
To me, we go back to what we can afford, build the extension and in a few years when things are paid off, look to see if the council will do a ten year deal. |
No I know - that was why I said £7m a year out of the £49m a year 'surplus'.
We've been paying more than that over the past few years on the training ground, and I also don't understand why we can't borrow for this specific thing.
However, I couldn't agree more with your suggestions on the correct order - been saying the same thing for months now. But I think it's tied up with a sale / part sale, which is the issue. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:43 - Sep 8 with 1303 views | dobjack2 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:25 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
No I know - that was why I said £7m a year out of the £49m a year 'surplus'.
We've been paying more than that over the past few years on the training ground, and I also don't understand why we can't borrow for this specific thing.
However, I couldn't agree more with your suggestions on the correct order - been saying the same thing for months now. But I think it's tied up with a sale / part sale, which is the issue. |
Is a claw back clause possible? E.g if deal is for stadium is £30 million then if it is sold within 1 year of deal an additional £15 million would be payable with the additional amount reduced by 20% every year the ground is not sold on. A bit simplistic i know as there would be people on each side looking to make it watertight or find loopholes but is that something that the council might try?
Whatever is going on much will undoubtedly remain commercial in confidence. Regrettably after the American investor saga the council must be wary of underselling the stadium if there is a possibility that there could be further transactions that could make a fortune for some at the expense of the rest of the city. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:01 - Sep 8 with 1283 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 16:43 - Sep 8 by dobjack2 |
Is a claw back clause possible? E.g if deal is for stadium is £30 million then if it is sold within 1 year of deal an additional £15 million would be payable with the additional amount reduced by 20% every year the ground is not sold on. A bit simplistic i know as there would be people on each side looking to make it watertight or find loopholes but is that something that the council might try?
Whatever is going on much will undoubtedly remain commercial in confidence. Regrettably after the American investor saga the council must be wary of underselling the stadium if there is a possibility that there could be further transactions that could make a fortune for some at the expense of the rest of the city. |
The problem with the clawback is that it wouldn't be the stadium being sold within a year or whatever, it would be the club, and that would be quite hard to legislate for.
I agree though that the city itself must not run the risk of selling 'for the good of the club' only to see it end up in the hands of US / Russian / Arab investors (only use these are they are the most common investors in the premier league - it doesn't matter much where they come from once the club leaves local hands).
I wold prefer the stadium to be owned by the people of Swansea, even if it means that the club pays more to the council - after all, any payments to the council are payments to the City at large. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:22 - Sep 8 with 1263 views | dobjack2 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:01 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with the clawback is that it wouldn't be the stadium being sold within a year or whatever, it would be the club, and that would be quite hard to legislate for.
I agree though that the city itself must not run the risk of selling 'for the good of the club' only to see it end up in the hands of US / Russian / Arab investors (only use these are they are the most common investors in the premier league - it doesn't matter much where they come from once the club leaves local hands).
I wold prefer the stadium to be owned by the people of Swansea, even if it means that the club pays more to the council - after all, any payments to the council are payments to the City at large. |
Ta thought that I could be being simplistic with the ground being an asset of the club and how that asset could be tied in to any sale of the shares in the club that owns it.
Just shows the complications behind buying the ground which on the face of it appears a relatively straightforward thing to do. | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:33 - Sep 8 with 1247 views | Millie |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:01 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with the clawback is that it wouldn't be the stadium being sold within a year or whatever, it would be the club, and that would be quite hard to legislate for.
I agree though that the city itself must not run the risk of selling 'for the good of the club' only to see it end up in the hands of US / Russian / Arab investors (only use these are they are the most common investors in the premier league - it doesn't matter much where they come from once the club leaves local hands).
I wold prefer the stadium to be owned by the people of Swansea, even if it means that the club pays more to the council - after all, any payments to the council are payments to the City at large. |
Why complicate things with claw backs, an American, Arab or Russian billionaire would continue with rental similar to MCFC or spend another £30m to purchase but either way it wouldn't be a deal breaker, I'm sure. Let's hope it never comes to that.
Lisa, I'd love your figures to be right but I really think it's top top end, anyway, time will tell | | | |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:37 - Sep 8 with 1240 views | Uxbridge |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:01 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
The problem with the clawback is that it wouldn't be the stadium being sold within a year or whatever, it would be the club, and that would be quite hard to legislate for.
I agree though that the city itself must not run the risk of selling 'for the good of the club' only to see it end up in the hands of US / Russian / Arab investors (only use these are they are the most common investors in the premier league - it doesn't matter much where they come from once the club leaves local hands).
I wold prefer the stadium to be owned by the people of Swansea, even if it means that the club pays more to the council - after all, any payments to the council are payments to the City at large. |
That last sentence is the bit where we differ I think. Why should the club be funding the council? If the council had any wit they'd be seeking to maximise their income off the secondary benefits of the Swans, not trying to get milk straight from the teet, which would only by definition weaken them ... and ultimately makes our status at this level less secure.
I agree with you on the original issue on who was originally all for the stadium purchase, but views have clearly changed since the lack of "investment" and there's only one side chasing stadium purchase and it sure ain't the club. It'll be interesting to hear from the club on Thursday on this issue, particularly if the council are holding things up for ulterior motives. |  |
| |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:37 - Sep 8 with 1240 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The council blame Huw on expansion on 17:33 - Sep 8 by Millie |
Why complicate things with claw backs, an American, Arab or Russian billionaire would continue with rental similar to MCFC or spend another £30m to purchase but either way it wouldn't be a deal breaker, I'm sure. Let's hope it never comes to that.
Lisa, I'd love your figures to be right but I really think it's top top end, anyway, time will tell |
This was in response to the suggestion from dobjack - who was basically suggesting an anti-embarassment clause on the asset - I was only pointing out it would be a share sale rather than an asset sale which makes such things difficult.
Anyway - I think we are both on the same page anyway - would prefer to see just expansion rather than an asset sale for the time being at least. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
