Takeover / Investment - A Different Take

they said Sartori was going to invest more when needed obviously that was a lie

 

I wouldn’t be overly confident about redevelopment of the Academy. It’s a hugely constrained piece of land.

 

That is then this now.
There are pristine places all over the world that people thought were inviolate.
A few brown paper envelopes etc and new council and those covenants get booted.

 

Appointing Parkinson...is hardly encouraging for any new investor..imho

 

so again adds weight to my theory that any investor will be happy to wait?

 

If they’re desperate for cash then why wouldn’t they.

There’s nothing to say they wouldn’t get planning permission now. Anything that can be shown to have an economic benefit and the councils would jump at the chance.

 

I don't think that'll be the case to be honest.

Firstly, the price is low now. If they wait there's just as much chance that we might get promoted. SAFC in the championship would cost a fair bit more than SAFC in league one so hanging on would be a risk, especially given the fact we're hardly miles off the pace.

Then there's the issue that even if they wait and we don't go up, yes the price might have to drop, Donald might need to go, but that might attract rival investors. Maybe more people would be involved and there could be a bidding war of sorts, again reducing your chance of taking over and making profit.

Ultimately if I had the money and wanted to buy SAFC I'd be wanting to do it now. I'd get it pretty cheap whilst there's still a good chance of promotion which would immediately see my investment looking decent. In a league where hardly anyone spends I could also put in a comparatively tiny amount in January to try and ensure promotion. Additionally it would give me time to invest in staff ready for when we go up, rather than taking over in the championship and trying to do too much too quickly.

I like the positivity but I'm just really down about it, if the Americans don't take over (or invest) soon I think it's done

 

Imagine building eg 500 houses on aol land.
The rates revenue would be an enticing inducement to rethink the planning zones etc.

 

Essentially, releasing equity by selling some of it. They said in the RR podcast on the 28th May (click this link) I've time stamped it but if it doesn't go, 1:13:38

 

I may be clutching at straws but I'm hoping that the deal is still on and just around the corner, despite them taking the seemingly cheap option for the manager. My reasoning is that they would never have announced the big-money investment first, getting all the fans excited and hoping for a big-time manager, only then to announce the cheap-option manager and face an even bigger backlash than they just have.

My theory is that any new investment wouldn't be used much this season. If it was used and spent on a new manager, it could perhaps have been a waste of money - storming the league clear at the top by 10 points has no more benefit (other than to our health!) than scraping into second. Also, the more money we spend this year, the less 3-year loss allowance we get under FFP in the championship.

The bad(ish) news before the good news?
Either that or they are waiting for this backlash to dissipate before the next lot of bad news!

 

Releasing equity by mortgaging it you mean? Not sure who would want to buy just some of it e.g. the north stand.

 

Be a ****er if someone bought the concourse then charged people to walk round it to get to their seats or use the toilet

 

Not quite how it works, but it's the same reason why an equity release company might purchase 25% of your home mate. Because the arrangement likely means that if we went bankrupt, they'd own the stadium, or if we/the stadium were sold in future, they'd make a big profit.

Simple.

 

Thanks for the reply, I've listened to the part they mention looking at raising money from the stadium. I think they meant they considered taking a mortgage out to raise funds if needed, that's not really selling the stadium.

Ronnie

 

Not selling the stadium but putting it up as colateral against a loan is much the same thing. It's like putting something in a pawn shop.

 

You make the payments like on any loan, that is not selling the club it's an age old way of raising cash.
At the end of the day they didn't have to go down that route because of the crowd numbers. no one expected a 30k plus average attendance and that's where any potential shortfall was covered.

Ronnie

 

The club own surprisingly little land around the stadium, someone's put up the brochure for the redevelopment of sheepfolds
As to the hotel this is owned by a separate company which is controlled by Ellis Short
I understand

 

The question is what happens if we can't afford the loan for any reason, though. We've been close to administration a few times in recent years, that would potentially mean a third party taking ownership of the whole stadium, even if the original agreement was only for a part of it.

Anyway, it's not great that they considered it at this stage, rather than SD putting his hand in his pocket.

 

It really isn’t. The club isn’t sustainable in this division no matter what Donald says. Once the parachute payments stop our income will drop by a huge sum. A few hundred extra ticket sales won’t cover it

 

Absolutely right.

I worked out that 30k at an average of £25 head would bring in £17.5 million a season.

The average per head is far lower with concessions, and the fact that 23,000 of us are season card and as such pay a bit less.

Also, 30k isn’t guaranteed and will certainly drop without promotion. The crowds alone aren’t nearly enough to sustain the club.

The bigger worry is that we need a new shirt sponsor and kit deal. The last were negotiated at a far higher level, the kit deal was Premier League.

Selling club assets to cover short term finances would be a recipe for absolute catastrophe.