Trust look to buy the CG

[Red Frog]

In the same post that I said it could work out well... it would be foolish not to point out the dangers to our future inherent in this.

Whilst I think everyone agrees that a 100% Trust ownership would be good, I've yet to read anybody explain why Power's 50% is good, other than that's what we've got. I need a bit more before accepting a fait accompli.

A few of the 100% fan-owned ventures have understandably found raising finance and the risk of debt hard to manage, such that both Portsmouth and Swansea have sold a controlling interest back to corporate owners. It will be hard to build for long-term success without them. You might dream of a socialist workers collective  , but owners seem to be a necessary evil if we're to compete. At least joint ownership of the stadium gives the fans a measure of influence that we've never had before.

I don't know why anyone objects to Reg. He insults no-one, challenges received ideas and on a good day stimulates debate.

[RobertT]

He appears to confuse fact with opinion.  Some of his opinions may use well sourced facts to underpin them, but they are opinions, and dressing them up as anything else can be annoying I guess.

Power owning 100% is bad = opinion
JV = 50/50% ownership = fact
Power will get the ground if Trust cannot raise funds = opinion
Leasehold is the same as freehold = wrong fact, or bad opinion? (in relation to a post where he stated that being a leaseholder was no different when sourcing development - they are different legal constructs and as such have different impacts on what happens to property as a result - to what extent is opinion)

[Reg Smeeton]

and nobody has said Power owning 50% is anything, not that I can tell.  So who are you asking that of?

The Trust owning 50% is better than the Trust owning 0% if the Council are inclined to sell the freehold.

Owning a freehold releases you from the burden of being a leaseholder - which in turn increases the value of your asset and provides greater options when it comes to financing, and decreases the risk of investing capital onto leased land.  The DR stand can be moved relatively easily in construction terms, the rest of the ground has zero value other than in situ.  Outside investment is less likely with a short term lease in place - which is the current situation since the original 99 year expired.

Anybody.  It can be theoretical....

Yes, on freehold/leasehold but someone will still need to do something commercially successful on the CG footprint in order to want to invest into the 24/7 thing.  There's the problem; Fitton's mob did some toe dipping research on this, and the best option seemed to be an NHS walk in like at Deepdale.... a good enough idea but SBC built it in one of the holes created in the Town centre, for want of anything else.

Rikki had his casino... which bombed due to the laws not being changed.

The original Arkells had a Stan James bookie shop.... not eventually viable.  Perhaps some flats on the corners like at Brisbane Road... we can see you washing up...

[Reg Smeeton]

A few of the 100% fan-owned ventures have understandably found raising finance and the risk of debt hard to manage, such that both Portsmouth and Swansea have sold a controlling interest back to corporate owners. It will be hard to build for long-term success without them. You might dream of a socialist workers collective  , but owners seem to be a necessary evil if we're to compete. At least joint ownership of the stadium gives the fans a measure of influence that we've never had before.

I don't know why anyone objects to Reg. He insults no-one, challenges received ideas and on a good day stimulates debate.

To some extent I take the point about necessary evil, and it being better to try and get on with the owner than enter conflict, and yes this deal will provide a measure of security... but it will need to be hard wired in to the legals.

Swans probably not the best example, Liberty is owned by the Council and Swans and Ospreys both pay rent... they also cut the council in on deals like naming rights etc.

[Paolo69]

In the same post that I said it could work out well... it would be foolish not to point out the dangers to our future inherent in this.

Whilst I think everyone agrees that a 100% Trust ownership would be good, I've yet to read anybody explain why Power's 50% is good, other than that's what we've got. I need a bit more before accepting a fait accompli.

I'm not sure the 50% to Power is good either but to my mind is a lot better than 100% to Power. The main positive that I've taken from this is that both Power (who I'm sceptical about - as we all are - some more than others) and The Trust (who i trust) are prepared to work together for the benefit of the club. Surely this has to be a positive even to you Reg?

To answer your question, i guess Power's 50% is good if the Trust can only raise £1.2million and not the £2.4million the council are demanding?

Now your turn, maybe you could tell me how this could lead to the demise of the club?

[horlock07]

In the same post that I said it could work out well... it would be foolish not to point out the dangers to our future inherent in this.

Whilst I think everyone agrees that a 100% Trust ownership would be good, I've yet to read anybody explain why Power's 50% is good, other than that's what we've got. I need a bit more before accepting a fait accompli.

Has anyone suggested that Power holding 50% is a good thing, seen plenty of people saying that as it stands its a necessary thing, but must have missed the other posts.

[suttonred]

Has anyone suggested that Power holding 50% is a good thing, seen plenty of people saying that as it stands its a necessary thing, but must have missed the other posts.

I think it is. Being devils advocate, what's to say the trust aren't really Oxford fans with pretend manners and intelligence intent on destroying us.

[Reg Smeeton]

He appears to confuse fact with opinion.  Some of his opinions may use well sourced facts to underpin them, but they are opinions, and dressing them up as anything else can be annoying I guess.

Power owning 100% is bad = opinion
JV = 50/50% ownership = fact
Power will get the ground if Trust cannot raise funds = opinion
Leasehold is the same as freehold = wrong fact, or bad opinion? (in relation to a post where he stated that being a leaseholder was no different when sourcing development - they are different legal constructs and as such have different impacts on what happens to property as a result - to what extent is opinion)

Of course it's mostly opinion... take the leasehold/freehold question, what the facts show is that if the club wanted to build a new stand on the Shrivenham Road... it could.   It's there... even though the SBC owned the leasehold. That is a fact, not an opinion.

A regards the what if the Trust can't raise funds question...... we know SBC are selling assets, we know the are legally obligated to give the Trust or community use first dibs.... we know there's a convenant.  Once they discharged the Community obligation, there's still the convenant.. Power would be in pole position to say sell to me I want to keep a football club here, in the absence of AN Other coming in and saying here's 2.2 mill I want to keep a football club here.

[Bogus Dave]

I think the football club owning 50% is a good thing

Trusts are well intentioned but lack the potential to generate as much income (and reinvest in the stadium) as a 3rd party investor

[Ticker45]

Like Reg I am well retired and have done the Hon. Sec./Treasurer/Minutes taker/AGM Attendee for local clubs in previous years and had my fill of committee meetings etc.. I was only superficially interested in the Trust, read what they had to say but I never thought about helping them out and was not convinced that they had enough backing to make any difference, especially over the last few years.

Fine, I am proved wrong as far as it can be said currently regarding their ambitions although the raising of the necessary money required to be a 50% partner in the venture does require an input from fans/interested parties so I still have the underlying concern that it might not be all sweetness and light.

When the eventual Council vote is ratified, I assume there will be more information that will clarify the situation and until then I am keeping my options open regarding any money "invested" in the cause but hope it will happen as it is desperately required.

 

[Reg Smeeton]

I think the football club owning 50% is a good thing

Trusts are well intentioned but lack the potential to generate as much income (and reinvest in the stadium) as a 3rd party investor

Well yes.... if by club you were talking about the old skool construct, but unfortunately Lee Power is legally the club.

So it follows, it's down to his benevolence what he'll do with his 50% ownership, or that of whoever he sells on to... may prove a problem or not, but it is something we need to be aware of.

[RobertT]

Reg - nobody has said they are happy with Power getting 50% (unless I missed anyone seriously stating that), until that last post by Bogus.  So who were you asking to answer your question?  You raised a hypothetical question to people who agreed with you on the fact they didn't really want Power to own 100%.

The Intel Stand was developed in large part by Grant money, not private financing.  Someone has already raised that this is no longer viable, so private finance is most likely required.  Freehold makes that easier to obtain, usually.  Less risk and something of value to grab.

Your notion of some yesteryear construct of ownership is dead, it isn't here anymore, move on.  We can only deal with what we have right now.  On that basis, most people agree that the Trust getting 50% is good for the club and the JV is the best way to open up new avenues of financing for the ground development.

If Power liquidates the club, we lose our Golden Share - so is having any owner a problem?  Yes, but you have to have one, so risk is always inherent.  This venture provides a degree of security and opportunity, I am struggling to see how you can't see that?  Is it a panacea, no.

[Reg Smeeton]

Reg - nobody has said they are happy with Power getting 50% (unless I missed anyone seriously stating that), until that last post by Bogus.  So who were you asking to answer your question?  You raised a hypothetical question to people who agreed with you on the fact they didn't really want Power to own 100%.

The Intel Stand was developed in large part by Grant money, not private financing.  Someone has already raised that this is no longer viable, so private finance is most likely required.  Freehold makes that easier to obtain, usually.  Less risk and something of value to grab.

Your notion of some yesteryear construct of ownership is dead, it isn't here anymore, move on.  We can only deal with what we have right now.  On that basis, most people agree that the Trust getting 50% is good for the club and the JV is the best way to open up new avenues of financing for the ground development.

If Power liquidates the club, we lose our Golden Share - so is having any owner a problem?  Yes, but you have to have one, so risk is always inherent.  This venture provides a degree of security and opportunity, I am struggling to see how you can't see that?  Is it a panacea, no.

By saying how happy they are with the deal, it follows they must be happy like BD with Power getting 50%. It could be they are focusing on the good news of Trust engagement, or are happy that Power isn't getting 100% or they genuinely believe that Power is now going to bring something which has largely eluded him in his 5 year tenure.  I'm interested that's all.

I'm fully aware of the development of all our stands.... TE fan subscription, Arkells loan from SBC, DRS mostly grants, which could have applied to the Bank.

Private finance will only come in if they see a profit.... whoever owns the ground

[Samdy Gray]

Well yes.... if by club you were talking about the old skool construct, but unfortunately Lee Power is legally the club.

So it follows, it's down to his benevolence what he'll do with his 50% ownership, or that of whoever he sells on to... may prove a problem or not, but it is something we need to be aware of.

Power may pull the strings, but don't forget that Black and Arbib still have debentures over the assets of the company. If anyone can fuck us, it's those two. No doubt they'll be extremely pleased to hear that the company will soon (potentially) own a readily saleable asset that could satisfy their charges.

[RobertT]

By saying how happy they are with the deal, it follows they must be happy like BD with Power getting 50%. It could be they are focusing on the good news of Trust engagement, or are happy that Power isn't getting 100% or they genuinely believe that Power is now going to bring something which has largely eluded him in his 5 year tenure.  I'm interested that's all.

I'm fully aware of the development of all our stands.... TE fan subscription, Arkells loan from SBC, DRS mostly grants, which could have applied to the Bank.

Private finance will only come in if they see a profit.... whoever owns the ground

Right, so when the JV own the ground, they can source finance (looking for that profit) knowing they have more options because people see potential upsides with less downsides (who would invest in the Town End in a deal with the club when the Council own the land and the club only has a small term lease?).

Power was going to buy the whole thing - so a 50/50 deal is seen by many as a good deal, with opportunities.  You could argue that the club owning 50% is also good because it produces a better balance sheet which in turn stops scaring away potential investors or future buyers.  We all know those buyers could be trouble as well, but getting 50% of the ground creates a shared future.  Nobody can take the ownership away from the Trust once purchased without paying.  As the Trust has no losses to cover, it is unlikely to be leveraged away to cover debt.  Power can sell-up to whoever he wants to, they won't own the thing in it's entirety.  He can move the club wherever he wants to, regardless of who owns the ground - he'd have to fund a new ground by himself or with new investors though, and have very little to finance that with shared ownership of the CG.  Or he could rent another ground, neither option are sufficiently tasty though - if it was that easy, Oxford would have moved by now.