John - Hilts was questioning things relevent to the thread when he answered Mabb's post. Some very pertinent questions too. Whether they pay their rent or not is nothing to do with it - just an excuse for you to have another go at them. The fact that Mabb's was totally wrong in saying that Stadco owned the Liberty and the Council didn't has far better mileage to discuss, rather than just wum **** about the same old same old. No offence meant John, but your comments lack a certain originality.
Also no offence Sparky but please show me where i mentioned swansea?, jezz come onnnnnnnn now . Do you want me to print a list of clubs with rented grounds... Don`t be so quick to jump in .
John - come on mate pleeeeaaasse! We didn't all just come up the river on a banana boat. You're just inviting conflict over here with this stuff. Can't you get enough of it on your own threads, without dropping these sort of quips on others? There're plenty from down the road ready for some agro to satisfy your needs. You do your own thing, but please allow discussion threads to stay on track.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ! Back to topic, there's more clubs than you'd be aware renting their stadiums and just like West Ham they have long term leases. It makes sound financial sense because if something went horribly wrong at any stadium then it's the landlord and not the tennant that's liable for any repairs and day to day running costs. Groundsharing brings in two sets of revenue for the landlord too, the trick is to hope both tennants can get along. The Coventry situation is shocking and I think it's only a matter of time before an established club goes all together. Pompey and Rangers are a shambles, Luton and Plymouth are hanging on by a thread. Perhaps some clubs do need to look at ground sharing because it can cut their costs. If AC and Inter Milan can do it why not other clubs too
No sparks you've done it again. S W A N S E A. If it doesn't contain those letters in that order he could be talking about anyone.
On topic the WH deal for a state of the art 60k stadium is an amazing deal for them. That rent gets covered for a year by the visit of Man U if they fill it. When you compare that to the financial restraint Arsenal had to show to pay for their 60k stadium for example.
As Sparkey said, not having a tangible asset may limit outside investment. Owning property provides stability and a figure on the balance sheet. It would be interesting to get a list of clubs and their ground status and to review their relative success. Would there be a trend, exceptions to the rule or a spread? Arsenal's investment in their ground certainly put a dent in their progress on the field. In the long term, will that help or hinder their status? Since the Bosman ruling, the value of players keeps needing to be written down as at some point they will walk for nothing. How is that reflected in the balance sheet. It certainly is an unusual (unique?) business model.
Surely you just depreciate the value to 0 over the contract. It gives the clubs accountants some real 'wiggle' room with regards to profit/loss. Need to get rid of a 20mill profit. Knock it straight off your assets via depreciation or vice versa.
Seems simple but what if they appreciate and how do you put a value on someone like Bale ? Or even that mad man Suarez, can't believe Liverpool supporters applauded him today, he doesn't want to play for their team and they don't seem to get it.
To be honest I'm quite surprised myself that there has been no talk about us buying our stadium. I think it was brought up a few seasons ago when we were in the championship about buying, but the council wouldn't allow. Perhaps they are making too much off it to want to sell? I'm not sure.
He'd have a book value, which is probably well below 105m or they'd be paying tax on the profit. If they sell him it becomes an actual value.
I'll add that I'm on page 1 of basic business accounting. The amounts involved mean I'm sure there are some pretty amazing accountants involved in PL football and some amazing tax avoidance/minimising schemes too!
Please explain yourself Sparky , i only mentioned teams with rented grounds and straight away you jump in with this swansea thing!!! FFS let it go fella ... Newport County have had major changes to their playing grounds over the last ten yrs or so and thankfully they are now back in the league and looking good
Give over John. Despite what the Jacks say about you, you're not that thick that you don't realise that we aren't either.
Is the way its read i suppose ....................................as Stevo has commented you are seeing SWANSEA in every message i send?
John - I don't think Stevo meant it the way you've read it. It wasn't support for your posts - it was a thinly veiled attempt to point out your sub-concious issues..... In the meatime, I suggest you let it go as well.
the liberty stadium was built for the city of swansea and not just for the swans or the ospreys. there is something on or being held at the liberty nearly every day of the week. we are part of stadco who has shares in the stadium, we all pay to use it and reap the profits, We pay the lions share now because we are so successful. stadco runs the commercial side of things that generates outside income....It works very well for us so much so other cities and towns have visited the liberty to see how it is done, Its the way forward for most clubs as they find that the expense of going it alone is starting to find its toll....It works very well for us...
Dai - no idea if Stadco has "shares" in the Liberty or even if that's possible. They are the operating management company who run the facility on behalf of Swansea City Council who own the stadium and the ground on which it stands. I wasn't aware that any shares are issued by a City Council on it's property, but perhaps your situation is different. However, back to the point which unfortunately Mabbs got wrong in his post. The Liberty Stadium is owned by Swansea City Council and not Stadco. As rightly said, Stadco operate it on behalf of the City Council, Swans and Ospreys - if it works, then fine. The basic point here is that it does not belong to the football club that plays there and is therefore not viewed as a balance sheet asset for inward investment from wherever should it become necessary. If you never need that sort of influx of cash to move forward should it get difficult at some point in the future, it shouldn't be a problem.
Dai! You seem to be in the know about the stadium. You say the jax pay the lions share but my understanding was that you pay a peppercorn rent. Approximately how much is the lions share?
