County Ground redevelopment

[flash]

The Arkells is out of date , tatty and showing its age , if we are gonna have a redeveloped CG , why keep it ? , it would look out of place ! . It was a good stand in the 70 s and 80 s true , but in this day of modern smart stadia then no way ! , get rid of !! . There are no executive boxes etc either . We need a modern main stand !!!

Looks tatty?
Looks fine to me and has the practical value of seating 6500 spectators. Strange that the Don Rogers stand was built without any state of the art facilities , executive boxes , conference facilities etc to generate extra revenue . Maybe knock it down first .

[pauld]

I think what delta was getting at re where ownership of the ground is vested, where revenue streams initially go etc is trying to avoid the situation Pox had with Kassam. Of course, it's wholly reasonable that ultimate ownership of the redeveloped ground should lie with SFHL and that they should reap a profit on their investment but that can be done via their shareholding in the club, repayment of loans/interest etc. In other words, if the ground is directly owned by the club, then SFHL are still the ultimate owners as they own the club - it's an asset of their asset. Likewise, if revenue streams initially go into the club, hence making the club more profitable, that then means they can recoup their investment via their shareholding and/or repayment of loans/interest on loans etc. But by putting the ownership of both the asset and the revenue streams in the first instance directly in the club, it makes a Kassam-style asset strip (where a future potential predator simply comes in and buys the ground/revenue generating bits and strips them out from under the club) more difficult. Not by any means impossible - such a predator could buy the whole caboodle and then restructure the company to hive off the ground, but it would be more obvious/blatant that they were asset stripping. Likewise, with the revenues, if they go to the club in the first instance and then profits/repayments go from the club to the holding co, that's more transparent as to what's happening with the money than it simply disappearing into a holding co which drip feeds some of it back into the club from time to time.

But I think any redevelopment is likely to result in a complex of facilities at the CG - ie not just the ground itself but associated facilities as part of a sports/leisure complex on the overall site. And if that is the case, it may make sense to have a mix of ownership models (ie club owns the stadium, but holding co directly owns some of the associated facilities).

None of this is an immediate concern with the current board, but it's about putting in a structure that safeguards the club for the future should the current board sell up and we get less benign owners in the future. Or owners with less benign "advisers", for example

[jonny72]

I find it hard to believe the sole intent of SFHL is to make a shit load of money out of the club, if it is they must have a really devious plan as what they've done so far doesn't support it. STFC owes them over £7m and has assets which probably don't even cover the yearly losses still being run up - the club doesn't own the ground, the players value is negligible and there isn't much else. They're likely to be in for £10m before the redevelopment even starts.

The only potential future income is from the redevelopment of the ground and surrounding land, something which is far from guaranteed from going ahead and may not even generate enough profits to cover their current investment. If their interest in the club is solely as an investment, its a pretty bad one and we're not talking about stupid people or bad businessmen.

I'm sure they're planning to get their money back but I find it hard to see that involving screwing over the club. I'm not sure the ownership of the land matters than much to them either, as they pretty much own the club anyway.

[pauld]

jonny, I don't think anyone's suggested the current board are looking to screw the club over, as you put it. Personally I think they're looking to make a reasonable return on their investment and achieve that by making the club a profitable concern. Which would be fantastic. Any concern expressed is not over this board, but about ensuring that a ground redevelopment, and the ownership of assets and income streams arising from it do not leave us vulnerable to potential asset strippers/predators in the future.

If you're looking for a model of the potential danger, look down the A420 - they pay substantial rent for the ground, deprived of virtually all non-matchday income and even matchday income they pay extra for hiring the staff/facilities from the landlord, not exactly the model of a redevelopment benefiting and sustaining the club for years to come is it? Coventry have the same problem - the only matchday revenue they get is from ticket and programme sales, everything else even catering goes to the stadium owners. Which severely limits what they can do to improve their finances.

I don't think we're in great danger of that from the current owners, but what happens 5, 10 years down the line? If the current board sell up, and we've left ourselves in a position where it's easy to hive off the ground from under the club, or salt away profits from the extra revenue streams without any of it even reaching the club (and damn difficult to spot), we'll be ripe for being seen as juicy picking by the likes of some John Batchelor. So, if it's not difficult to structure it to avoid that, why wouldn't we?

[jonny72]

Personally I think they're looking to make a reasonable return on their investment and achieve that by making the club a profitable concern. Which would be fantastic. Any concern expressed is not over this board, but about ensuring that a ground redevelopment, and the ownership of assets and income streams arising from it do not leave us vulnerable to potential asset strippers/predators in the future.

If this is their plan, and I'd agree its most likely it is (to get them their investment back and hopefully a profit) then I'm not sure asset stripping would be that easy for anyone in the future. If they get to the point where the club has cleared its owings, is making a profit and has assets then the club will have a value to match.

The way they're acting suggests they are in it for the long term and that getting the club stable with a decent future is just as important as (and is an integral part of) getting their money back. Most, if not all, of the clubs that have been asset stripped were on the verge of folding and someone found a clever way of getting money out of them then doing a bunk. Has it ever happened to clubs that were stable and profitable?

[pauld]

Fair points jonny. Maybe I'm just being overly cautious - once bitten, twice shy and all that. But if some level of protection can be built in relatively easily without hampering the business, then why not take it?

[RobertT]

Can we rotate the pitch at half time, so we always put the opposing goalkeeper in the sunlight?

[Reg Smeeton]

Can we rotate the pitch at half time, so we always put the opposing goalkeeper in the sunlight?

Derbyshire County CC, are rotating their pitch, to avoid  good light stopped play during day/night games.  I'm missing the cricket season already.

[reeves4england]

Derbyshire County CC, are rotating their pitch, to avoid  good light stopped play during day/night games.  I'm missing the cricket season already.

Yeh, it's a bummer when that sun comes out

[mexico red]

icc and champions leauge coming up, still loads of cricket.....

[michael]

There is also an ODI series against South Africa.

Though it could be argued that, as with the 7 match series against Australia, this one is irrelevant now that England have beaten them when it really mattered.

[Summerof69]

There is also an ODI series against South Africa.

And the test series against SA also.

[Reg Smeeton]

 Indeed plenty of cricket from the Empire, but you can't beat the thwack of willow on leather from some sylvan corner of England...OK and Wales for the PC brigade.