Branson Pickle

[brendywendy]

because if it were true(which it isnt) that we could sell the club without the ground or training ground, no one would buy it

especially not for 80 million

Why isn't it true that we couldn't sell the club without the ground or training ground ?

It might in fact end up being the only way to sell, who knows what buyers would go for. A genuine football person purely wanting to own a football club might find it very attractive to not have the huge additional capital cost of buying the property. Whether there are any such people around I'm not so sure !!!

dont be oxf*rd ridiculous. the ground is the only thing thats worth buying in terms of financial gain, and is the basis of all credit supplied to the football club etc.

and its not illegal/impossible

im just saying its not possible as no one would want to do it

[Sun Tzu]

dont be oxf*rd ridiculous. the ground is the only thing thats worth buying in terms of financial gain, and is the basis of all credit supplied to the football club etc.

and its not illegal/impossible

im just saying its not possible as no one would want to do it

Well Simon what his face at Palace bought a club and didn't buy the ground.
Hull don't own their ground
Stamford Bridge isn't fully owned by the club / Abrahmovic
Many European clubs don't own a ground - neither AC nor Inter own the San Siro, they rent it from the city.

It's a very sweeping statement to say the ground is the only asset. A football stadium is a pretty useless object in it's own right. Unless you have a club to play there what value does it have ? None - bar what you could get if you knocked it down and built something else, which isn't an option for the Mad Stad as nothing else would get planning permission.

If a club was actually freed from the huge cost of building and maintaining a stadium it might find it was on a much better financial footing

I also suspect many clubs don't borrow against the stadium (what would a bank do with a repossessed stadium ?) but against future earnings - it's what Leeds did, Bolton have done it, Cardiff have done it and many others. Ray Ranson built a multimillion pound empire based on clubs mortgaging their future gate receipts.

[brendywendy]

it works in european football, yes.

there are clubs in britain that dont, yes.

what im saying is why on earth would someone buy a club, but not want to buy its most valuable asset, and not only that, but allow someone else to be in control of two things -the ground, and training ground, that are vitally important to the club, and its viability.

[Sun Tzu]

it works in european football, yes.

there are clubs in britain that dont, yes.

what im saying is why on earth would someone buy a club, but not want to buy its most valuable asset, and not only that, but allow someone else to be in control of two things -the ground, and training ground, that are vitally important to the club, and its viability.

1. The ground may not be the most valuable asset. Some grounds may have huge value (Stamford Bridge perhaps) others much less (like ours)

2. Lots of businesses don't own the premises they trade from. I bet many clubs would happily operate in a European style with the ground owned by the council and no need for the club to carry the cost of building / maintaining the ground, ensuring it meets safety regs. Renting it for one day a fortnight would probably be a better deal financially.

3. Not owning the ground doesn't mean you don' t have control over it. You have a lease which sets out your rights. Like the majority of businesses do.

[brendywendy]

yadayadayada

[Dirk Gently]

2. Lots of businesses don't own the premises they trade from. I bet many clubs would happily operate in a European style with the ground owned by the council and no need for the club to carry the cost of building / maintaining the ground, ensuring it meets safety regs. Renting it for one day a fortnight would probably be a better deal financially.

Except that that system fails spectacularly in Italy - because the local authority owns the ground, there's virtually no investment in it, because what's in it for them to make the investment.

Consequentially you don't have the CCTV or other anti-hoolie measure there that are now commonplace here.

[Ian Royal]

and how come half of the clubs you hear about in trouble are upsheet creek because they don't own their ground, so have very little in teh way of assets, and have to pay rent on it the whole time.

There is no way on earth the stadium and training ground aren't involved if the asking price is in the region of £50 - £80m. it's pretty unlikely any investor would want to leave out the only real hard fixed assets the club have and be beholden to another owner...