New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Audrey]

Hope you’re not wrong!

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

My theory is the ownership are just putting the bare minimum in to keep the club ticking over, no firther investment and then sell the club.

Probably want a fucking stupid asking price mind

This.

At this point if Clem is that hard up would he sell the club for £1 and his money back putting the club in a truly debt free position? He'd probably want a bit of a profit but how realistic is that? He might consider it on some assurance he'll be involved in redevelopment.

[RobertT]

Given the long term nature of a development and the risks that are still inherent in any such venture providing a good enough return, I think that is precisely the most likely exit strategy for Clem.  The one that makes most sense - stabalise the club off the field, clear the debts and transfer them to Directors Loans, get planning permission for the Ground and tie up the contracts for construction as needed with the JV.  Then, sell-up.  He has made the potential purchase of the business look a little less fraught with pot holes by tidying up the balance sheet.  The development of the ground gives an upside coming to any potential investor and Clem still gets to make some money from that deal by being either a lead or sub contractor.  He can strike a deal for paying him the money owned, either upfront or over a period of time.

[CotswoldsCJ]

One possibility for the current lack of funding for the squad maybe that the club has been given a heads up by the FA that a points deduction is incoming and so any money sunk in the paying squad would be wasted this season.  Maybe we’re funded to get enough points to stay up after, say, a 15 point deduction

[Batch]

Of course not. That takes money. And based on our budget so far at least an additional 33%

plenty of money be made out the flats on the CG car park

(for the avoidance of doubt, this is a joke)

[Batch]

I seem to think that Clem stated that if Standing was declared to be the owner of 50% of Powers 85% that he (Clem) would or had the means to pay Standing the estimated money for sole ownership of the club, FA, ELF punishment not withstanding. Also that any punishment of the club would be financial and that again money had been set aside for that eventuality. Happy for someone to correct me if I’m wrong.

eek. didn't realise there was Clem money in the game

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

One possibility for the current lack of funding for the squad maybe that the club has been given a heads up by the FA that a points deduction is incoming and so any money sunk in the paying squad would be wasted this season.  Maybe we’re funded to get enough points to stay up after, say, a 15 point deduction

At least that would make some sort of sense compared to the shite we have to hear from Clems apologists.

[ThreeDrawsMentality]

I seem to think that Clem stated that if Standing was declared to be the owner of 50% of Powers 85% that he (Clem) would or had the means to pay Standing the estimated money for sole ownership of the club, FA, ELF punishment not withstanding. Also that any punishment of the club would be financial and that again money had been set aside for that eventuality. Happy for someone to correct me if I’m wrong.

Kind of feel that if the outcome of the Standing Vs Power case is that Standing was indeed found to be 50% owner of the club, it would have only applied pre-sale so would more likely be a case of Power owing X from the sale or X for other grounds, rather than Standing now being entitled to X % of the club.

[STFC_Manc]

Kind of feel that if the outcome of the Standing Vs Power case is that Standing was indeed found to be 50% owner of the club, it would have only applied pre-sale so would more likely be a case of Power owing X from the sale or X for other grounds, rather than Standing now being entitled to X % of the club.

That would make logical sense

[horlock07]

My theory is the ownership are just putting the bare minimum in to keep the club ticking over, no firther investment and then sell the club.

Probably want a fucking stupid asking price mind

Pretty much this is being stated as FACT by some on Twitter.

Kind of feel that if the outcome of the Standing Vs Power case is that Standing was indeed found to be 50% owner of the club, it would have only applied pre-sale so would more likely be a case of Power owing X from the sale or X for other grounds, rather than Standing now being entitled to X % of the club.

Frankly that would be an argument between Standing and Power, Power was touting himself as 85/100% owner at the PoS, so tough. Albeit I do wonder whether Clem's taking over was with the blessing of Standing and we may see change if Standings ownership is proven in court.

Given the long term nature of a development and the risks that are still inherent in any such venture providing a good enough return, I think that is precisely the most likely exit strategy for Clem.  The one that makes most sense - stabalise the club off the field, clear the debts and transfer them to Directors Loans, get planning permission for the Ground and tie up the contracts for construction as needed with the JV.  Then, sell-up.  He has made the potential purchase of the business look a little less fraught with pot holes by tidying up the balance sheet.  The development of the ground gives an upside coming to any potential investor and Clem still gets to make some money from that deal by being either a lead or sub contractor.  He can strike a deal for paying him the money owned, either upfront or over a period of time.

I know I keep saying this, but no property investor in their right mind would take on a development where contracts were already in place with an associated party of the vendor, it would be  massive conflict of interest and the scope for compensation events in any subsequent construction would be an enormous and entirely unknown liability.

My fear is if this is Clem's exit strategy then he is going to either struggle to exit whilst understandably not putting a bean into the business bar basic running costs to keep it afloat or we get some clueless numbnuts who thinks the ground development is some sort of golden goose (which it really isn't*) and then realises that they don't have the cash to do the development plus keep the club on anything bar prison rations.

* The developments which have made decent cash for club/owner are those with a decent amount of land and lucrative commercial development value, think MK with the Asda/Ikea/Retail Park around the ground or Brentford with an incredibly supportive Council (possibly too supportive) and the scope for a shed load of residential development around the wider ground, we might get a Travelodge/Costa drive through a bit of commercial (both of which will want a decent bit of car parking) and not much else as there isn't that much land!

[RobertT]

It wasn't that long ago that the Trust believed they had an interested party who would develop the Town End into something amazing, pay for it all themselves BUT want to retain any earned revenue from the new facility for 10 years in return.  That facility would still need contractors.

You keep bringing up the fact that money is tough to make in such an industry - I don't doubt it, but clearly some people think they can make that money.  Nobody is saying whether or not we will make a success of such a plan, just that it seems a logical plan to make (if you did think you were the one who could do it right).

[joeydubya]

Redevelopment will cost  a fortune - it makes sense in the short term to just make the place remotely functional for the next five years. Put in some modular cabins for the SB loos and a MOT failed food truck like Newport do - anything!

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

It wasn't that long ago that the Trust believed they had an interested party who would develop the Town End into something amazing, pay for it all themselves BUT want to retain any earned revenue from the new facility for 10 years in return.  That facility would still need contractors.

This is interesting, I never heard this. Without disclosing the party, what industry?

[horlock07]

You keep bringing up the fact that money is tough to make in such an industry - I don't doubt it, but clearly some people think they can make that money.  Nobody is saying whether or not we will make a success of such a plan, just that it seems a logical plan to make (if you did think you were the one who could do it right).

Money isn't that tough to make in property (although harder than Dion Dublin would have you believe), it is getting much harder than it was a couple of years ago in the present economic climate.

However, there are considerably easier ways to make money in property without the deal coming with an added dead weight of a football club also needing funding (with a substantial customer base who are going to call you a cunt at the first opportunity if you don't do what they demand) and/or contracts already in place for the vendors other business to build the bloody thing, meaning everything i going to get mired in willy waving competitions between QS's about compensation events every 5 minutes.

It could potentially work if there were a developer Town fan out there who was prepared to take the risk and had the capital and skills to deliver, but I would suspect if such a mythical person existed they would have shown their face before now, so instead we are probably looking at the Jed McCrory end of the development market, so that will be great fun.

Out of interest, it would be interesting to know how the titles for the overall site are broken down, for instance I assume that the covenant is only applied for the footprint of the ground and does not extend to the CG car park or the bit between the DRS and the MR which one would hope are covered by separate titles.

[Batch]

I always thought the land was given by the Goddard estate before the stadium was built. But looking around that isn't correct.

Obviously need the covenant to be sure but from this it appears to be the whole site (whatever that is, but must at least include the car park as we bought that as part of the deal)

https://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/19882202.latest-swindon-town-council-talks-county-ground-sale/

Coun Renard added: “That covenant is still in place and it says the whole site must be used for sports and leisure purposes and I don’t imagine the Goddard estate would be looking to lift that covenant.

Though that is from former cllr Renard, so ...