I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
So ITK types, do any of you think this will be done to give Bowyer time to do business in the transfer window?
I think that ship has sailed.
Unless they are 'all' identified and just waiting for the go ahead once the ink is dry. Still 2+ weeks to sign 'them'. Whether it will actually happen is one question. Whether 'they' are fit/ready go is another question....
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
William the Conquerer was my 26th Great Grandfather.
Just saying.
hello Danny Dyer ;-)
I suspect he was everyone's 26th Great Grandfather - 2 to the power of 28 = 268,435,456 which was more than the population of the world in 1066.
That’s not quite how it works but...
Merde.
It sort of is - everyone has 268m 26th great grandparents - of course it some overlap between those 268m given that we are talking about Danny Dyer and our Royal family.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The same person who told me that the realistic price for Charlton was £20-25m, also always said that this was based on a property play. My understanding then was that this could have meant some sort of sale/development of excess land at the training ground (not a Valley/Peninsular swap).
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The same person who told me that the realistic price for Charlton was £20-25m, also always said that this was based on a property play. My understanding then was that this could have meant some sort of sale/development of excess land at the training ground (not a Valley/Peninsular swap).
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
I was very suspicious about the fact that RD included permission for residential accommodation in the training ground scheme. I'm also unpersuaded that the money he committed to the rugby ground site was only about securing better vehicle access to Footscray Road for CAFC facilities (when he himself had removed a new access at the back of the CAFC site from the original 2014 scheme). One conceivable explanation is that he was looking to open up the site for future residential applications. But it's really about changes in national planning policy. There have been a few rumours but I don't see Greenwich approving anything and it would get referred upwards anyway as a breach of local policy.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
I suspect he had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price. It may well have been undervalued previously, but as there is no significant market for football stadiums it's hard to say. However, it is possible to argue that both the 2010 and 2014 transactions were distressed sales. There is also a scarcity of available London football clubs where you can drive value up, and London is the place to be. The general view seems to be £20m would be fair, though. If the premium is deferred that would make more sense.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Right. So when we look for an increase in the value of the business as a whole since he bought it, land value is not driving any increase. Is that fair to say, IYO?
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m. Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
I suspect he had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price. It may well have been undervalued previously, but as there is no significant market for football stadiums it's hard to say. However, it is possible to argue that both the 2010 and 2014 transactions were distressed sales. There is also a scarcity of available London football clubs where you can drive value up, and London is the place to be. The general view seems to be £20m would be fair, though.
And football is becoming increasingly lucrative at the top end.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Indeed, or to look at it from another angle. RD paid £14m for it (do we agree on that figure, btw?. Certainly not as much as £20m). Since then he has spent £1m on the pitch, and made a start (only) on the training ground. Meantime he has taken the club down a division and has lost thousands of customers in the process.
On what planet, then, can he now claim that the business is worth £40m, or anything near it?
I think that this is the issue holding up the sale. Really that simple.
But we keep hearing that the price has been agreed?
If the potential buyers had told him £20m max was all they would pay, Roland would have had to reduce his asking price surely?
Depends whether his priority s selling the club or trying to get his money back.
I'm not sure the value of the land where the club is located is especially relevant to the price. It's not as if The Valley is a prime location in Greenwich borough, and the club could be relocated to a cheaper part of the borough as has happened with clubs who've relocated from the centre of their towns to the outskirts
I'm not sure the value of the land where the club is located is especially relevant to the price. It's not as if The Valley is a prime location in Greenwich borough, and the club could be relocated to a cheaper part of the borough as has happened with clubs who've relocated from the centre of their towns to the outskirts
It's a moot point but what other cheap land is there available in Greenwich borough that a football club would be allowed to build a football ground on?
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
Equally, as I asked further up the thread, how do they find more "investors" when football can be a notorious black hole when it comes to making profits
Its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Been saying it all along...'Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...
Is it not negative for fans to keep saying we're not worth this or that amount..?
To put it into perspective...I'd hazard a guess that if Joe Gomez came up for sale he'd go for around the same as the asking price for Charlton...
Prices for top quality players are currently going through the roof. Recent reports saying Everton are now looking to sell Ademola Lookman for £20m...Half a Charlton!
Depending where you stand anything can be summed up as expensive, but that's not what the current football market suggests, and if Muir & Co, or whoever can fulfill this great Clubs potential in the near future..."we're not worth it" may well look silly.
Its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Been saying it all along...'Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...
Is it not negative for fans to keep saying we're not worth this or that amount..?
To put it into perspective...I'd hazard a guess that if Joe Gomez came up for sale he'd go for around the same as the asking price for Charlton...
Prices for top quality players are currently going through the roof. Recent reports saying Everton are now looking to sell for Ademola Lookman £20m...Half a Charlton!
Depending where you stand anything can be summed up as expensive, but that's not what the current football market suggests, and if Muir & Co, or whoever can fulfill this great Clubs potential in the near future..."we're not worth it" may well look silly.
Well said. Sports/entertainment is considered by some to be a market with plenty of growth still left in it. Remember the last time we crossed paths with Middlesbrough? (2-0 funeral march, pigs on the pitch) and look at the difference now, financially. Most of the clubs in the Premier League are making good profits, despite fairly enormous overheads.
So it takes serious investment to reach the top division, but it can certainly pay dividends if you make it. And you can have fun along the way, which I suspect matters to the Aussies.
I'm not sure the value of the land where the club is located is especially relevant to the price. It's not as if The Valley is a prime location in Greenwich borough, and the club could be relocated to a cheaper part of the borough as has happened with clubs who've relocated from the centre of their towns to the outskirts
It's a moot point but what other cheap land is there available in Greenwich borough that a football club would be allowed to build a football ground on?
I really can't think of any suitable sites. Even moving further out, there are no obvious locations, the way flat are rocketing up along the Thames past Woolwich, on any site available
Its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Been saying it all along...'Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it...
Is it not negative for fans to keep saying we're not worth this or that amount..?
To put it into perspective...I'd hazard a guess that if Joe Gomez came up for sale he'd go for around the same as the asking price for Charlton...
Prices for top quality players are currently going through the roof. Recent reports saying Everton are now looking to sell for Ademola Lookman £20m...Half a Charlton!
Depending where you stand anything can be summed up as expensive, but that's not what the current football market suggests, and if Muir & Co, or whoever can fulfill this great Clubs potential in the near future..."we're not worth it" may well look silly.
Well said. Sports/entertainment is considered by some to be a market with plenty of growth still left in it. Remember the last time we crossed paths with Middlesbrough? (2-0 funeral march, pigs on the pitch) and look at the difference now, financially. Most of the clubs in the Premier League are making good profits, despite fairly enormous overheads.
So it takes serious investment to reach the top division, but it can certainly pay dividends if you make it. And you can have fun along the way, which I suspect matters to the Aussies.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The same person who told me that the realistic price for Charlton was £20-25m, also always said that this was based on a property play. My understanding then was that this could have meant some sort of sale/development of excess land at the training ground (not a Valley/Peninsular swap).
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
I was very suspicious about the fact that RD included permission for residential accommodation in the training ground scheme. I'm also unpersuaded that the money he committed to the rugby ground site was only about securing better vehicle access to Footscray Road for CAFC facilities (when he himself had removed a new access at the back of the CAFC site from the original 2014 scheme). One conceivable explanation is that he was looking to open up the site for future residential applications. But it's really about changes in national planning policy. There have been a few rumours but I don't see Greenwich approving anything and it would get referred upwards anyway as a breach of local policy.
Maybe less so since the change of leader, but Greenwich's enthusiasm for property developments has been heavily influenced by the identity of the developer making the proposals. Economic, environmental, aesthetic and, let's face it, legal concerns routinely take a back seat to the issue the "royal borough" holds dearest. Cruise ship terminal anyone? "No justification for the onshore power supply, because cruise ships running their generators fulltime at the river's edge will create no issues." (to paraphrase) Enderby Wharf through on the nod, unmodified, despite huge toxic atmospheric impact, widespread objection on both sides of the river and loud public reservations from the Mayor of London. However valid our concerns, however strong the objections, however serious the local impact, however tiny the 'affordable' homes element, if the right developer submits the application RBG is as eager to please as a hungry puppy. RBG in current form is absolutely not to be relied upon to uphold anything its residents hold dear.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
I'm not sure the value of the land where the club is located is especially relevant to the price. It's not as if The Valley is a prime location in Greenwich borough, and the club could be relocated to a cheaper part of the borough as has happened with clubs who've relocated from the centre of their towns to the outskirts
It's a moot point but what other cheap land is there available in Greenwich borough that a football club would be allowed to build a football ground on?
Roland Island between the Thames Barrier and the Woolwich Ferry.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Airman, whilst I do have some accounts qualifications, I'm far from an expert.
Please can you explain the value of The Valley plus Sparrows Lane in the accounts ? I ask because you say the land is worth nothing. Yet you then say you suspect RD had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price.
I'm fully aware that if the land can't be developed there is a question as to does it have a value. But what is the book value of the land in the accounts ? Thanks.
I still struggle to get my head around how anything that loses so much money (£5m+ a year) can be worth so much money.
Sure, there is the valuation of the assets, and the potential for increased income at the top of the game. I get that.
But I still don't know why anyone would pay such a premium for it unless it was part of a non-footballing commercial strategy that you would have a greater percentage chance of making the investment profitable.
With professional consortiums that have no emotional ties to their potential purchase, you know this is not am individual vanity or ego project, but on the basis of it being an investment they believe they will get a profitable return from (or their individual contribution is negligible enough to take a risk on).
And its all very well saying that RD is unrealistic in his valuation. But if there are at least two parties that have been prepared to pay his valuation, then unfortunately he is not being unrealistic.
Madness.
The worth/value is mainly in the land. Here are the latest accounts. Look at point 11 on page 25. If I understand the accounts correctly the land is worth £41.5M. RD had the land revalued upwards since ownership. Whilst an owner may not be able to develop the land, the mere fact that it is in London will ensure that the value will continue to grow.
NB I believe one of the reasons RD bought Charlton without comprehensive due dilligence, was because he paid £14M + £4M as Charlton escaped relegation, knowing full well the value/increasing value of the land.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Airman, whilst I do have some accounts qualifications, I'm far from an expert.
Please can you explain the value of The Valley plus Sparrows Lane in the accounts ? I ask because you say the land is worth nothing. Yet you then say you suspect RD had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price.
I'm fully aware that if the land can't be developed there is a question as to does it have a value. But what is the book value of the land in the accounts ? Thanks.
I wasn’t agreeing it was worth nothing. I was agreeing that it is valued for its current use, not some hypothetical other use.
The land is worth nothing if you can't build on it. Unless you want it as a football stadium for another team.
Indeed. That's the basis of the valuation.
Airman, whilst I do have some accounts qualifications, I'm far from an expert.
Please can you explain the value of The Valley plus Sparrows Lane in the accounts ? I ask because you say the land is worth nothing. Yet you then say you suspect RD had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price.
I'm fully aware that if the land can't be developed there is a question as to does it have a value. But what is the book value of the land in the accounts ? Thanks.
I wasn’t agreeing it was worth nothing. I was agreeing that it is valued for its current use, not some hypothetical other use.
Yes, but do you or anyone understand the accounts better than me ?
What is the value of the leaseholds is it £41M/42M as I said or am I wrong ? I'm confused re the value at cost and the second valuation.
The net book value is £41M, which means the land has a value of £41M, doesn't it ? If the land has a £41M value, then is this not why RD can set the asking price so high ?
Ok, so a new owner may not be able to develop said land, but as the value increases, when they sell they can get their money back, plus a profit in relation to the land value ? I'm more than happy to be told I'm talking nonsense. I'm looking for an understanding.
Comments
Thank you for the correction on his purchase price, lets be generous to him and round it up to £19m.
Do you believe that talk of a sale price settling at £40m is accurate?
If so then he is arguing that the value of the club has more than doubled in 4 years. I am trying hard, but I just cannot see any business parameter you could apply to the club that would lead to such a value. If we were still in the Champ, maybe because there you could argue that the value of the prize of promotion to the PL has gone up. But in the 3rd division?
Mr Muir seems like a successful businessman in fields closer to football than RD's. Everything in the para above would have been obvious to him from an early stage. He cannot want us so much that he would be prepared to pay any old price that RD plucks out of the air. Successful business people just don't behave like that, and it is not the "miser" mentality that we assign to RD, but rational business thinking.
What am I missing, when it comes to the sale price valuation?
My scepticism then was that the likelihood of getting planning permission was minimal (just look at how long the GAA grounds down the road have lain dormant). That said, the rules around planning have changed in the last couple of years and a development that delivers much needed homes may now get through ( @Airman Brown - does your council experience suggest that a housing development proposal may be viewed favourably?)
Is it not negative for fans to keep saying we're not worth this or that amount..?
To put it into perspective...I'd hazard a guess that if Joe Gomez came up for sale he'd go for around the same as the asking price for Charlton...
Prices for top quality players are currently going through the roof. Recent reports saying Everton are now looking to sell Ademola Lookman for £20m...Half a Charlton!
Depending where you stand anything can be summed up as expensive, but that's not what the current football market suggests, and if Muir & Co, or whoever can fulfill this great Clubs potential in the near future..."we're not worth it" may well look silly.
Remember the last time we crossed paths with Middlesbrough? (2-0 funeral march, pigs on the pitch) and look at the difference now, financially.
Most of the clubs in the Premier League are making good profits, despite fairly enormous overheads.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17
So it takes serious investment to reach the top division, but it can certainly pay dividends if you make it. And you can have fun along the way, which I suspect matters to the Aussies.
Cruise ship terminal anyone? "No justification for the onshore power supply, because cruise ships running their generators fulltime at the river's edge will create no issues." (to paraphrase)
Enderby Wharf through on the nod, unmodified, despite huge toxic atmospheric impact, widespread objection on both sides of the river and loud public reservations from the Mayor of London.
However valid our concerns, however strong the objections, however serious the local impact, however tiny the 'affordable' homes element, if the right developer submits the application RBG is as eager to please as a hungry puppy.
RBG in current form is absolutely not to be relied upon to uphold anything its residents hold dear.
Please can you explain the value of The Valley plus Sparrows Lane in the accounts ?
I ask because you say the land is worth nothing.
Yet you then say you suspect RD had the land revalued to justify an increase in the sale price.
I'm fully aware that if the land can't be developed there is a question as to does it have a value.
But what is the book value of the land in the accounts ?
Thanks.
What is the value of the leaseholds is it £41M/42M as I said or am I wrong ?
I'm confused re the value at cost and the second valuation.
The net book value is £41M, which means the land has a value of £41M, doesn't it ?
If the land has a £41M value, then is this not why RD can set the asking price so high ?
Ok, so a new owner may not be able to develop said land, but as the value increases, when they sell they can get their money back, plus a profit in relation to the land value ?
I'm more than happy to be told I'm talking nonsense. I'm looking for an understanding.