The size of the proposed new stadium and ownership aren't clear. Hard to see how a new stadium built by our owners would be different from the current position though - they own the current ground, they would own the new ground.
St Andrews is an asset of community value because there isn't a better alternative nearby. It wasn't "used as a stick to beat on the previous" but to prevent us ending up playing on Coventry or where ever for the next 20 years.
Concerts and other events turn an FFP profit from the start for the club - which is what is needed, converting the money Knighthead can invest into money the club can spend on the squad. We'd also see higher match day revenue, with more facilities for fans to spend at around a ground with room for more facilities.
Do Coventry City reap the profits from expos and concerts, or is it the owners of the stadium that pocket the filthy lucre?
Maybe someone more enlightened can clear it up, bur ground isn't owned by the club, its still a separate entity. What bearing on FFP would that have in regards to extra profit, from any future concerts?
The narrative on here regarding ACV status was that it would scupper the Chinese. There was an uproar when the ground was made into a seperate company. Are you suggesting now that it's of no consequence whether BCFC owns the ground, or not?
foghorn leghornThe size of the proposed new stadium and ownership aren't clear. Hard to see how a new stadium built by our owners would be different from the current position though - they own the current ground, they would own the new ground.
St Andrews is an asset of community value because there isn't a better alternative nearby. It wasn't "used as a stick to beat on the previous" but to prevent us ending up playing on Coventry or where ever for the next 20 years.
Concerts and other events turn an FFP profit from the start for the club - which is what is needed, converting the money Knighthead can invest into money the club can spend on the squad. We'd also see higher match day revenue, with more facilities for fans to spend at around a ground with room for more facilities.
Do Coventry City reap the profits from expos and concerts, or is it the owners of the stadium that pocket the filthy lucre?
Maybe someone more enlightened can clear it up, bur ground isn't owned by the club, its still a separate entity. What bearing on FFP would that have in regards to extra profit, from any future concerts?
The narrative on here regarding ACV status was that it would scupper the Chinese. There was an uproar when the ground was made into a seperate company. Are you suggesting now that it's of no consequence whether BCFC owns the ground, or not?
Coventry don't own the ground - currently it is owned by Mike Ashley. Which is a very different set up than it being owned by the club owners, who can choose to put the profit from it through the club.
You seem to be missing the key point of now vs the previous owners, which I'm not going to repeat. I guess you just don't see a difference between the previous owners and the current.
RasputinI appreciate that there are some good reasons for taxpayer money funding facilities for private use in some circumstances.
But we should not at any point being spending 'our' money on football stadiums for rich clubs and owners. if they want it, pay for it themselves.
The eyewatering amounts of public money spent on stadia in America is astonishing for example.
Well it depends if there's a chance for a return on it surely? Both in terms of commercial revenue generated by the stadium, interest and potential uplift in tourism and business events.
I think your viewpoint is very simplistic.
There's no difference in relation to how the club is structured in regards to there being a separate stadium company. That hasn't been rectified yet. Knighthead own the stadium company as well as 48% of BCFC.
Talking hypothetically, I have a transaction between a concert promoter and the stadium company, with no mention of BCFC in the contract. I can't put the invoice through the books of BCFC, in order to alleviate P&S.
Surely not, but if the stadium belongs to BCFC then the contract would be between the concert promoter and the football club. That wouldn't be an issue at all, because the revenue has been generated by the club.
You are saying that the stadium company could choose to invest their concert profits into the club, but how would that reduce the burden of FFP?
ThongsAye up. It’s Andy StreetOr by voting Labour
Oh shit
Politics
Quick run
foghorn leghornThere's no difference in relation to how the club is structured in regards to there being a separate stadium company. That hasn't been rectified yet. Knighthead own the stadium company as well as 48% of BCFC.
Talking hypothetically, I have a transaction between a concert promoter and the stadium company, with no mention of BCFC in the contract. I can't put the invoice through the books of BCFC, in order to alleviate P&S.
Surely not, but if the stadium belongs to BCFC then the contract would be between the concert promoter and the football club. That wouldn't be an issue at all, because the revenue has been generated by the club.
You are saying that the stadium company could choose to invest their concert profits into the club, but how would that reduce the burden of FFP?
The club has an agreement to rent the stadium. That agreement can be structured in different ways.
If you own the stadium but not the club, you are likely to want any non-football profit to accrue to yourself and the contract is set up accordingly. The promoter deals with your stadium company and the club don't have any involvement. The Coventry situation, which isn't great.
If you own the stadium and the club, you are likely to want any non-football profit to accrue to the club and the contract is set up accordingly to give control of stadium use to the club. The promoter deals with the club, the stadium company don't have any involvement. The Birmingham situation, which is nicer.
It's fine to carry on with this arrangement, as long as the Knighthead honeymoon continues. Your explanation is rather convoluted and is full of ifs and maybes.
We are currently reliant on the philanthropical nature of our benevolent owners, to maintain them as separate entities. Having the stadium and club as one, is in the long term interests of BCFC.
The stadium is an ACV and it should also be an asset of BCFC. Any financial benefit derived from selling St Andrews ran out, a long time ago.
[priceoffootball.com]
Are you happy with continuing the Chinese ownership model?
I think its concerning that it hasn't changed yet. It's merely a clerical exercise to change the paperwork and submit it to the relevant authority. It would have been right near the top of my list of priorities, as a new owner.
We’re not continuing with the Chinese model of ownership imo
foghorn leghornIt's fine to carry on with this arrangement, as long as the Knighthead honeymoon continues. Your explanation is rather convoluted and is full of ifs and maybes.
We are currently reliant on the philanthropical nature of our benevolent owners, to maintain them as separate entities. Having the stadium and club as one, is in the long term interests of BCFC.
The stadium is an ACV and it should also be an asset of BCFC. Any financial benefit derived from selling St Andrews ran out, a long time ago.
[priceoffootball.com]
Are you happy with continuing the Chinese ownership model?
I think its concerning that it hasn't changed yet. It's merely a clerical exercise to change the paperwork and submit it to the relevant authority. It would have been right near the top of my list of priorities, as a new owner.
Pretty much every real estate investment is done via a separate vehicle from the main entity. It has numerous advantages, because it allows you to bring in investors for the actual stadium who wouldnt ordinarily want to invest in something as risky as a middling championship football club.
We’re not continuing with the Chinese model of ownership imo
How is it any different, in regards to the stadium ownership? You can call it the dvb model, if you'd prefer. Either way, it hasn't been rectified, we are still using the China/dvb model.
The Chinese copied Christian Purslow's idea, which worked out fine for the vile. Although, no other team has done so well from copying the dvb's and the EFL were going to change the rules, in 2021, to prevent any more owners trying their luck.
[theathletic.com]
foghorn leghornFrom a football fans perspective, it sounds like a nightmare scenario. 20 k rattling around with zero atmosphere, in a stadium we don't own.
Whatever happened to st Andrew's being an asset of community value? Or was that just used as a stick to beat on the previous owners?
Concerts may be lucrative, but it would take many years before you started to turn a profit on that caper.
Rab C NesbittWe’ve always been scared of change and thinking bigger. Let’s embrace someone doing it for us
One way to be sure of never becoming successful is to have no ambition not to be and not even try.
Are you denying the right to raise a voice and ask pertinent questions, concerning finance and future development?
I'm not scared, or lacking in ambition. Redevelopment at stans is first prize, bernabau at Smithfield is second place, wheels comes in third, an out of town mega dome is the booby prize.
That's exactly the mentality we need to ditch, if this club is ever to move on, it needs the fans to accept, be ambitious and welcome change as well. Small time, Small heath is right at times with a big portion of our fans - needs to change. Tom was right.
Of course I have ambition and welcome changes that need to happen. The definition of small time is not wanting to draw the vile, in the 4th round. Just because you'd feel embarrassed if we lost.
What would you expect an owner to do? Look at any successful club and they are pretty much run along similar lines. They are businesses.
The days of Jack Walker et al buying a club for the love of it are stone dead.