by maffff » 27 Apr 2017 13:12
by CountryRoyal » 27 Apr 2017 14:36
by Nameless » 27 Apr 2017 14:49
M U R T Y Land is an asset I guess, and the Thais, as owners have every right to sell the land (to themselves). I'm just uncomfortable that the club was given that land by RBC (IIRC) as a club & community asset. Is it right that the thais have essentially sold that off for their own private gain?
by royalp-we » 27 Apr 2017 23:10
by M U R T Y » 28 Apr 2017 08:18
by From Despair To Where? » 28 Apr 2017 09:18
by Nameless » 28 Apr 2017 09:25
by Stranded » 28 Apr 2017 09:35
M U R T Y Depends on what happens next, though. If they then sell off 75% of the football side of the business, but keep all of the land surrounding the club, (regardless of whether RFC got £15m for the land - which probably offsets the amount they have "invested"), it very much appears that they only bought the club to obtain the land and permission to develop the land.
by M U R T Y » 28 Apr 2017 10:11
by Nameless » 28 Apr 2017 10:28
M U R T Y Yep, all fair points. I know they have every right to do what they are doing, and if they didn't, someone else would've - but it would have been nice if they came in and developed the land for the benefit of the club - so that the profits were shared with the club, rather than siphoned off to a separate company. After all they only managed to get the land because of the club.
by From Despair To Where? » 28 Apr 2017 11:30
by Hound » 28 Apr 2017 12:07
by BR2 » 28 Apr 2017 12:50
NamelessM U R T Y Land is an asset I guess, and the Thais, as owners have every right to sell the land (to themselves). I'm just uncomfortable that the club was given that land by RBC (IIRC) as a club & community asset. Is it right that the thais have essentially sold that off for their own private gain?
Did you complain when the club sold parts of the land previously to developers in order to generate cash ?
Why is this different ?
It would be wonderful if the club had the resources to do this huge developemnt but we didn't have the much smaller sum needed to build the ground so how we would have funded this one without taking a potentially disaster out risk I am not clear.
Who owns what is extremely clear. How any one is at all confused I am not sure. The Thai's own 100% of everything. They own the land, they own the hotel, they own the club, they own the players. How they split that in the accounts is purely a bookkeeping exercise but ultimately talking about what 'we' own is pointless. This is really no different to how it was under SJM because apart from a few token shareholders he owned us lock stock and barrel.
The best w can hope for is that the Thai's and Chinese continue to be the fairly benevolent sort of owner SJM was. I don't think they have been stripping cash out of the club, managers have been allowed to buy players, they haven't been forced to sell stars, we'v be n treated well in terms of th cost of watching games.
by Nameless » 28 Apr 2017 13:05
BR2NamelessM U R T Y Land is an asset I guess, and the Thais, as owners have every right to sell the land (to themselves). I'm just uncomfortable that the club was given that land by RBC (IIRC) as a club & community asset. Is it right that the thais have essentially sold that off for their own private gain?
Did you complain when the club sold parts of the land previously to developers in order to generate cash ?
Why is this different ?
It would be wonderful if the club had the resources to do this huge developemnt but we didn't have the much smaller sum needed to build the ground so how we would have funded this one without taking a potentially disaster out risk I am not clear.
Who owns what is extremely clear. How any one is at all confused I am not sure. The Thai's own 100% of everything. They own the land, they own the hotel, they own the club, they own the players. How they split that in the accounts is purely a bookkeeping exercise but ultimately talking about what 'we' own is pointless. This is really no different to how it was under SJM because apart from a few token shareholders he owned us lock stock and barrel.
The best w can hope for is that the Thai's and Chinese continue to be the fairly benevolent sort of owner SJM was. I don't think they have been stripping cash out of the club, managers have been allowed to buy players, they haven't been forced to sell stars, we'v be n treated well in terms of th cost of watching games.
Fair points.
One comment on your not forced to sell stars-we did sell Tish and Norwood under the Thais for quite a lot of dough and not spent much on newcomers.
It is questionable of course whether they are "stars" and it is also questionable if we now have any stars to sell but I would suggest that trading on ins and outs of players hasn't cost these owners much.
by Nameless » 28 Apr 2017 13:09
NamelessBR2Nameless
Did you complain when the club sold parts of the land previously to developers in order to generate cash ?
Why is this different ?
It would be wonderful if the club had the resources to do this huge developemnt but we didn't have the much smaller sum needed to build the ground so how we would have funded this one without taking a potentially disaster out risk I am not clear.
Who owns what is extremely clear. How any one is at all confused I am not sure. The Thai's own 100% of everything. They own the land, they own the hotel, they own the club, they own the players. How they split that in the accounts is purely a bookkeeping exercise but ultimately talking about what 'we' own is pointless. This is really no different to how it was under SJM because apart from a few token shareholders he owned us lock stock and barrel.
The best w can hope for is that the Thai's and Chinese continue to be the fairly benevolent sort of owner SJM was. I don't think they have been stripping cash out of the club, managers have been allowed to buy players, they haven't been forced to sell stars, we'v be n treated well in terms of th cost of watching games
.
Fair points.
One comment on your not forced to sell stars-we did sell Tish and Norwood under the Thais for quite a lot of dough and not spent much on newcomers.
It is questionable of course whether they are "stars" and it is also questionable if we now have any stars to sell but I would suggest that trading on ins and outs of players hasn't cost these owners much.
Not sure how questionable it is we have stars. Moore, Kelly, McLeary and Swift would all attract lots of interest if made available.
The sale of Tish and Norwood weren't the sort of flogging off of stars we've seen in the past. Turning down £5 million for Tish would have been crazy and subsequent events have shown we were bang on. Losing Norwood was a significant plus for the team, Kelly would probably have left for nothing if Norwood had stayed.
All clubs buy and sell players and we will always be the sort of club that needs to wheel and deal. The difference is whether you replace them and I think it's clear that we don't miss either, and we are £7 million up on the deal. Neither sale saw the manager's plans being ripped up by owners wanting to make a quick buck. If we sell Moore or Kelly this summer it would be completely different.
As for not spending much on newcomers, we spent the Tish money on Moore and Illori with Norwood funding Popa, Beerens, Joey, Blackett.....
by Hound » 28 Apr 2017 14:41
by Ian Royal » 28 Apr 2017 18:22
NamelessBR2Nameless
Did you complain when the club sold parts of the land previously to developers in order to generate cash ?
Why is this different ?
It would be wonderful if the club had the resources to do this huge developemnt but we didn't have the much smaller sum needed to build the ground so how we would have funded this one without taking a potentially disaster out risk I am not clear.
Who owns what is extremely clear. How any one is at all confused I am not sure. The Thai's own 100% of everything. They own the land, they own the hotel, they own the club, they own the players. How they split that in the accounts is purely a bookkeeping exercise but ultimately talking about what 'we' own is pointless. This is really no different to how it was under SJM because apart from a few token shareholders he owned us lock stock and barrel.
The best w can hope for is that the Thai's and Chinese continue to be the fairly benevolent sort of owner SJM was. I don't think they have been stripping cash out of the club, managers have been allowed to buy players, they haven't been forced to sell stars, we'v be n treated well in terms of th cost of watching games.
Fair points.
One comment on your not forced to sell stars-we did sell Tish and Norwood under the Thais for quite a lot of dough and not spent much on newcomers.
It is questionable of course whether they are "stars" and it is also questionable if we now have any stars to sell but I would suggest that trading on ins and outs of players hasn't cost these owners much.
Not sure how questionable it is we have stars. Moore, Kelly, McLeary and Swift would all attract lots of interest if made available.
The sale of Tish and Norwood weren't the sort of flogging off of stars we've seen in the past. Turning down £5 million for Tish would have been crazy and subsequent events have shown we were bang on. Losing Norwood was a significant plus for the team, Kelly would probably have left for nothing if Norwood had stayed.
All clubs buy and sell players and we will always be the sort of club that needs to wheel and deal. The difference is whether you replace them and I think it's clear that we don't miss either, and we are £7 million up on the deal. Neither sale saw the manager's plans being ripped up by owners wanting to make a quick buck. If we sell Moore or Kelly this summer it would be completely different.
by Lower West » 28 Apr 2017 18:54
by Nameless » 28 Apr 2017 18:58
Lower West REP needs the football club. The match attendance brings footfall. Footfall brings customers. Customers spend money and generate profit.
by Hound » 28 Apr 2017 19:06
NamelessLower West REP needs the football club. The match attendance brings footfall. Footfall brings customers. Customers spend money and generate profit.
Except the football is once a fortnight and match days are the times when no one else would go there. So on 340 days per year there is no football to drive footfall and on the other days the football inhibits football !
Undoubtably whatever bars and restaurants there are will benefit from the football but it's amaze business model if it assumes that he football will be the main attraction for football.
They will need lots of business conference / exhibition activity Monday- Friday and then medium sized concerts / events at weekends.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 406 guests