Remortgage the stadium!?

[melonhead]

im not sure its really necessary/adviseable for every business to come out and defend itself against every random ill informed bollox on the internet you know

[MouldyRoyal]

Exactly, no really sure why this is being discussed when there is a complete absence of evidence for it.

Might as well be discussing AZ's plan to murder the current first team and use their skin to create new players.

[melonhead]

no that is something worth worrying about

[M Brook]

no that is something worth worrying about

You sure?

[melonhead]

defo ish

[retro royal]

Might have something to do with an addition 12400 seats.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... xt-6029119

[Norfolk Royal]

Exactly, no really sure why this is being discussed when there is a complete absence of evidence for it.

Might as well be discussing AZ's plan to murder the current first team and use their skin to create new players.

We could do with a few playing out of their skins tbf.

[PieEater]

There is nothing wrong with buying and building a business with borrowed money. That is how most millionaires start out.

The Glazers for example reputedly borrowed all the money to buy Man Unt but they are good businessmen and have built the brand massively since they bought the club. For example if they borrow 600M to buy the club, run it in such a way as the internet is always paid out of turnover and then sell it for 1000M - they walk away with a 400M profit and it has never cost them a penny. There are all sorts of arguments that the interest repayments could be reinvested instead to improve the club and this is true, but there are not many sugar daddies around who have 600M and need no interest on that money. And if the club were paying interest to the owner this is no different than paying it to a bank.

However, the problems with the above are tow fold. First what happens when things go wrong? And second are you good at building a business brand?

If things go wrong with the heavy bank debt issue, then unless the owner can fund the losses from his own pocket, you become Pompey and the club goes bust. So the question is does Anton have any money at all or is he just using borrowed money - I guess none of us know. And the second issue is "how good a businessman is he and can he build the brand" - again we have absolutely no idea and he has no prior experience of running a football club which is a very particular type of business due to the importance of keeping the customers (fans) onside.

So I think it is fair that we are concerned as fans because none of us want to be Portsmouth, but it would be nice if there was some proof that the owner did have some money - or is he instead just using loans/parachute payments to effectively buy the club for nothing at all and has Sir John been duped. As with all these thing only time will tell.

But the sound of silence from the club will keep fuelling the conspiracy theories until they issue a clear statement as to what is going on re the buy out and funding etc.

What a load of bollocks.

Firstly a leveraged buyout is getting a loan but securing it on what you are buying, so the club has the debt not the borrower. That is the dodgy bit as you don't need to have any money in the first place or carry any personal debt subsequently, you just need to make sure that the profit/cash generated by what you are buying covers the interest. That's very different from just getting a loan where you take on debt.

Secondly Portsmouth's problem was it was run above it's means (wages and transfers) and that was added as debt on the club. Money that came into the club that was believed to be "investment" actually turned out to be debt.

Thirdly SJM will get his money regardless of where it came from so I can't see how you can say he's been duped, he's got rid of a liability for a profit.

[andrew1957]

There is nothing wrong with buying and building a business with borrowed money. That is how most millionaires start out.

The Glazers for example reputedly borrowed all the money to buy Man Unt but they are good businessmen and have built the brand massively since they bought the club. For example if they borrow 600M to buy the club, run it in such a way as the internet is always paid out of turnover and then sell it for 1000M - they walk away with a 400M profit and it has never cost them a penny. There are all sorts of arguments that the interest repayments could be reinvested instead to improve the club and this is true, but there are not many sugar daddies around who have 600M and need no interest on that money. And if the club were paying interest to the owner this is no different than paying it to a bank.

However, the problems with the above are tow fold. First what happens when things go wrong? And second are you good at building a business brand?

If things go wrong with the heavy bank debt issue, then unless the owner can fund the losses from his own pocket, you become Pompey and the club goes bust. So the question is does Anton have any money at all or is he just using borrowed money - I guess none of us know. And the second issue is "how good a businessman is he and can he build the brand" - again we have absolutely no idea and he has no prior experience of running a football club which is a very particular type of business due to the importance of keeping the customers (fans) onside.

So I think it is fair that we are concerned as fans because none of us want to be Portsmouth, but it would be nice if there was some proof that the owner did have some money - or is he instead just using loans/parachute payments to effectively buy the club for nothing at all and has Sir John been duped. As with all these thing only time will tell.

But the sound of silence from the club will keep fuelling the conspiracy theories until they issue a clear statement as to what is going on re the buy out and funding etc.

What a load of bollocks.

Firstly a leveraged buyout is getting a loan but securing it on what you are buying, so the club has the debt not the borrower. That is the dodgy bit as you don't need to have any money in the first place or carry any personal debt subsequently, you just need to make sure that the profit/cash generated by what you are buying covers the interest. That's very different from just getting a loan where you take on debt.

Secondly Portsmouth's problem was it was run above it's means (wages and transfers) and that was added as debt on the club. Money that came into the club that was believed to be "investment" actually turned out to be debt.

Thirdly SJM will get his money regardless of where it came from so I can't see how you can say he's been duped, he's got rid of a liability for a profit.

I just don't get some people on here. I think you would argue about everything and anything just for the sake of it.

I was not "defending" leveraged buy outs but that is exactly what happened at Man Unt. Their fans hate the fact that the Glazers placed all the debt for buying the club on the club rather than borrowing the money themselves. I don't know that Anton has done the same but was speculating that it was a possibility. It would appear that he had enough money for the initial payment but the speculation now is about what is happening re the final payment due to Sir John. If it is coming from money drawn or borrowed by the club then it is an issue of concern for us fans.

What you say about Pompey is true but it was also exacerbated by having a series of owners that either had no money or were not prepared to put any money in.

What I meant about Sir John is that I believe he has the best interests of the club at heart. I very much doubt that he is just interested in the money as the club is very much his legacy. I am sure he could have sold the club many times over but wanted someone with deep pockets (as he repeatedly said). What if Anton told him that dad has lots of money and is providing financial backing and it turns out this is not true and there is no financial backing. However much due diligence he did would not have established this one way or another.

So I think the club does need to reassure us fans or more and more will vote with their feet - particularly if the turgid dross that was served up on Saturday keeps being repeated.

[JIM]

The responsibility re finance must now rest with the FA, who cleared AZ as a fit and responsible person to own the club. therefore he must have proved to them (FA) that he had enough money to pay JM for his part of the club, without remortgaging the club.remortgage of the stadium may be only for the seating increase

[melonhead]

not sure thats what the fit and proper test requires tbh

I just don't get some people on here. I think you would argue about everything and anything just for the sake of it.

yay!

[Ian Royal]

Yay more conspiracy bellendery from nothing.

[blythspartan]

Had we signed someone like Cameron Jerome on a season's long loan a lot of these types of negative threads wouldn't exist.

I am as disappointed as the next fan about our lack of signings and being Reading are my club I have worried about them for years but all this negativity is bollox.

[Nameless]

How would you mortgage a stadium ?

It has zero value, if someone defaulted on the mortgage what would be the point in repossessing it as there is hardly a market for 24,000 seater stadia in the Berkshire area.

Dur! Clueless?!

Is the stadium built within the infamous blackhole? Does it float in the air defying gravity? Even if it has no value (questionnable) the land it stands and which surrounds it is worth a fortune. The mortgage would be taken out against that value.

Is there a need to be so patronizingly aggressive ?

The land has all sorts of issues with it and I believe had special planning permission for this particular use. It can't be redeveloped for housing, industry, office or retail use so I wonder on what basis it becomes worth a fortune ?
Would it be worth tearing down the stadium, with all the cost that involves, if all you could do was build another stadium ?
I have no doubt that you can obtain finance on just about anything but the concept of a 'mortgage' on something like a stadium just doesn't sound right. Probably just loose use of terms...

If anyone has an intelligent, informed answer it would be interesting to hear.

[melonhead]

Might have something to do with an addition 12400 seats.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... xt-6029119

i believe the key sentences are just below that one actually, stating that the delay is over one small change in the conditions relating to something small, and utterly non conspiracy remortgage/cancelling the application related:

Its application involves a variation of one condition.
The changes, which involve engineering works, are to ease the phasing of the development, particularly the new outside broadcast unit area.

now oxf*rd off you oxf*rd morons

[bigmike]

How would you mortgage a stadium ?

It has zero value, if someone defaulted on the mortgage what would be the point in repossessing it as there is hardly a market for 24,000 seater stadia in the Berkshire area.

Dur! Clueless?!

Is the stadium built within the infamous blackhole? Does it float in the air defying gravity? Even if it has no value (questionnable) the land it stands and which surrounds it is worth a fortune. The mortgage would be taken out against that value.

Is there a need to be so patronizingly aggressive ?

The land has all sorts of issues with it and I believe had special planning permission for this particular use. It can't be redeveloped for housing, industry, office or retail use so I wonder on what basis it becomes worth a fortune ?
Would it be worth tearing down the stadium, with all the cost that involves, if all you could do was build another stadium ?
I have no doubt that you can obtain finance on just about anything but the concept of a 'mortgage' on something like a stadium just doesn't sound right. Probably just loose use of terms...

If anyone has an intelligent, informed answer it would be interesting to hear.

I believe the special planning permission that you talk of was for building on what used to be a landfill site. Hence all the vents with the chinese hat shaped tops on them. However due to technological advancements in recent years they can now remove methane safely and they will allow developers to build houses on old landfill sites and even old sewerage works (kennet Island). The planning issues that were put in place in 1997 to allow the construction of the stadium would no longer be of any concern.

[PieEater]

I'm no planning expert but I thought it was the opposite. There are new rules that mean you can build houses on landfill but first you have to dig it all up and process it/send it elsewhere just as they are doing at Sandford Farm in Woodley. Before then they'd let you build without digging it all out.

[melonhead]

I'm no planning expert .

its ok, we have many non financial experts, and a whole load of non footballing experts weighing in on those subjects. you'll fit right in.

[Nameless]

Isn't there more to it than just methane though. IIRC they had to install some special membrane to stop various unpleasant substances contaminating the groundwater and the brook. Presumably the stadium was built on foundations that were appropriate for that and demolishing the stadium and building something else might be quite complex.

I don't know, thanks for the insights though and I guess we'll have to wait for RoyalBlue to give the definitive expert view....

[bigmike]

Isn't there more to it than just methane though. IIRC they had to install some special membrane to stop various unpleasant substances contaminating the groundwater and the brook. Presumably the stadium was built on foundations that were appropriate for that and demolishing the stadium and building something else might be quite complex.

I don't know, thanks for the insights though and I guess we'll have to wait for RoyalBlue to give the definitive expert view....

You will be waiting for some time if you want an expert view on here

I wouldnt be too sensitive this board is full of self opinionated cockends