You haven’t got a scoob here Astro, as LCC have said no such thing. The council made £200k pa profit on the deal in year 1, which was the cost of borrowing vs the the cost of the lease payment. The annual cost increase in the lease is 3% so that therefore increases yr on yr. The improvements to FF since were covered by a further annual lease charge and the entire capital will have been repaid by yr 25 of 40, meaning that their profit level will be around £1.2m pa for the last 15 years.
I don't have a problem with the council helping our clubs out but the finance has to make sense. Council's borrowing huge amounts of money to help out private businesses isn't within their remit. Every loan has a risk attached to it.
Finally, someone who looked at the deal. Finch farm is different to the Stadium deal. The stadium deal is Everton using LCC borrowing rates and paying a fee that gives the council a profit each year. Everton ‘benefit’ from the cost of this being lower than other options available to them.
I think the rent went up after the upgrades, could be wrong, I only just found the council explanation of the deal and only read it once
£200k barely covers Fat Joe's legal expenses, no wonder he refuses to say where the money's gone So in a quarter of a century LCC makes the same money as EFC make selling advertising there in a single year, what a deal
That's where I read it. The deal benefits EFC more than the council, for sure. I don't have a problem with it other than I don't think a city council should be involving itself in helping wealthy private businesses - not just LCC and EFC but any council or wealthy private business, it's not what they're there for.
It's a total gift. It's a training facility so LCC were completely incompetent by giving EFC the rights to use it to generate revenue with naming rights without even thinking to ask for a slice. I don't want that incompetence scaled up from a £17m investment to a £280m investment.
I don't know on what grounds they could ask for a slice of the naming rights. If it was a council house I don't think the occupant could have it painted and sponsored by a company and keep the sponsorship money [I could be wrong] - but it's not a council house so who knows what council rented properties are allowed to do.
Rental agreements usually cover the purpose of the propery and you can't unilaterally change it. That's why you almost always can't sublet rented property for your own profit. Everton are renting training facilities. If they wanted to start using it for revenue instead or as well as training the council should have thought about that.
Just to finish this subject off, I have no feelings either way about the premise of the council helping out our two clubs, whether they're even handed about it or not - I'm not that bothered. I am concerned that the council or Joe or both, spend our money wisely and always put the city's needs before individual's needs.
No, the council own FF and Everton lease it from them. The stadium will be owned by Everton and a fee paid each year for accessing the reduced borrowing rate the council can access.
no actually that's not quite right but close. the stadium will be owned by a holding company who will lease it to Everton
So.....Everton borrow the money direct from the council, Everton build and own the stadium, Everton pay the loan back to the council over 25 years at an agreed rate plus interest. Is that anywhere near correct?
