Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Staying at/moving from the Valley. What's the business case?
Comments
-
Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.0
-
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assets0 -
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.0 -
Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?0
-
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?1 -
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it thoughvalleynick66 said:
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?2 -
Very good !eaststandmike said:
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it thoughvalleynick66 said:
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
I doubt a season ticket or indeed a match ticket will be in the range of many supporters in that unlikely event since we abandoned the aspiration of offering the most affordable tickets in London. ‘dodgy stream nick66’ may be more appropriate 😉😆1 -
User name selhurst66 would not be allowed as well.eaststandmike said:
You might have to ask the mods to change your name, Peninsulanick66 doesn’t have the same ring to it thoughvalleynick66 said:
Because at some point the club will want a longer lease and he will want more money.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?1 -
Stay at the Valley and RD can rot in hell.
We can re-form the Valley Party if RD tries to push us out.
0 -
RD is a dick who is holding onto The Valley and Sparrows Lane through pure spite. Full stop. It has cost him money to do so for 6 years now and at the current rent levels will continue to do so.
The real value of land and of commercial property has fallen in recent years. He should have got out of the whole thing in one go in 2019 to a sensible buyer but his nasty, spiteful, grudge holding nature got the better of him and now he is even further out of pocket than he could have been. Blokes a moron.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
You don’t happen to live in Ashford do you 🤔Braziliance said:Our future will be here. All our fans live in Kent anyway
0 -
A large property company was mentioned to me prior to the takeover. Not sure if they remain on the scene. They will though be clued up enough to work out the numbers and what can be done.0
-
He means the Crimeanthai malaysia addick said:
Do you mean in Cornwall?IanJRO said:Has anyone ever considered a new stadium on the peninsular?0 -
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.1 -
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.0 -
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.valleynick66 said:
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.0 -
Allegedly, he keeps complaining to the club and RFU that the balls are flat and a funny shape...JohnnyH2 said:
Now at Bath Rugby Uniontom_k said:
Has burger boy left the club?cafc999 said:
Remember that - Burger boy went under the radar to Leyton Orient without telling anyone and couldn't work out how the fans found out. That's what happens when you don't know your history or fanbaseAirman Brown said:Remember that in 2016 Duchatelet was looking at redeveloping the Jimmy Seed Stand with residential units. We don't know how far he got. He can't do that under the existing lease. A potential scenario, however, is that the parties agree a new extended lease and in return he is allowed to do something like that, subject obviously to planning consent. I don't think a new stadium is a realistic option.0 -
Nine and a half years. It expires in January 2035. Please do not be misled by media or execs who haven’t done the research.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?5 -
MartinCAFC said:
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.valleynick66 said:
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
But if he wants to simply play landlord then he is really, really, really bad at it. His value £44M. His rent £621K. A yield of 1.4% - less than inflation.
For comparative purposes, I know of a commercial building on Oxford St that changed hands at 6.25% yield a year or so back.0 -
youre commentary here is a slight at the whole football industry though. Clubs with huge loss-making are exchanging hands for substantial sums all the time.valleynick66 said:
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.
That is the landscape we sit in and within that mindblowing and nonsensical context, CAFC is surely a better proposition with security of tenure and ownership of it's own assets.
RD's loss-making investment or position is of no specific relevance to that point1 - Sponsored links:
-
I’m simply highlighting more potential buyers at a lower value.paulsturgess said:
youre commentary here is a slight at the whole football industry though. Clubs with huge loss-making are exchanging hands for substantial sums all the time.valleynick66 said:
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.
That is the landscape we sit in and within that mindblowing and nonsensical context, CAFC is surely a better proposition with security of tenure and ownership of it's own assets.
RD's loss-making investment or position is of no specific relevance to that pointRD has an asset which is not easy to realise.He doesn’t have us over a barrel but does have a very strong hand.My point is our owners don’t appear to have the desire to spend £40m on the ground when it won’t automatically add that much value / make the club more attractive to other suitors.As I said if the price were closer to £10m the commercial argument makes more sense.0 -
Airman Brown said:
Nine and a half years. It expires in January 2035. Please do not be misled by media or execs who haven’t done the research.benjest1989 said:Why would Roland negotiate a new lease? He agreed one, which he must be happy with - still has 11/12 years left? Unless we are going to offer to pay more rent each year what's in it for him?
Possibly a notice period from both sides so we have 8 1/2 years to make a decision? The clock is ticking down fast either way.
0 -
Unless he knows the true valuation, a lot lower, which would then yield a higher % based on the figures you provided. It's also a guaranteed income stream. It could also be spite or a bit of both. Either way and even with 9.5 years left it's clear the agreement is there until RD calls it a day or time calls for him.Athletico Charlton said:MartinCAFC said:
At 78 years old if the lease has 12 years on it RD will be 90 by the time it expires. He'll be too old to try and do anything with the land, I think he's happy playing landlord and taking in the rent money for the rest of his time.valleynick66 said:
Logical to an extent.paulsturgess said:
the uncertainty of a rapidly diminishing lease must be hugely impactful on both the immediate and potential future value of the club, in the same way it is on the value of a housevalleynick66 said:
But doubtful you throw £40m at it on the outside chance a very wealthy party is able to double your money.paulsturgess said:
Some American guy has recently had a $75m (£56m) for Sheffield Wednesday from this current rogue owner rejected. Obviously a bigger club/ supporter base, but not in London and very similar status over the last 20 years to us.valleynick66 said:Simple maths tells you this ownership won’t spend £40m on it as they won’t get the money back.They will renegotiate a lease at some point.If they could get the ground for £10m (ball park) it might make more commercial sense relative to the lease.The real price should be measured against what RD paid when he got the ground.
if the current owners paid £12m for the club, £40-50m to get the assets back together doesn’t seem ridiculous to me considering cumulative potential overall value of the business with/ without assetsMore buyers available at a lower price in the event we look like a PL candidate and you can still walk away with a profit.If our current owners had that level of cash I’d expect more being thrown at the team to more obviously make us a PL prospect in the soonest possible time.But by contrast RD is sitting on an asset with a sole use and far from certain he can ever secure planning permission for anything else. Arguably he has little choice but to agree a ‘fair’ lease cost with the only viable tenantBy contrast the value of a football club with a modest squad and annual losses is minimal. It’s still a surprise to me TS got any premium in return for passing on a loss making business.Gullible investors are our saviours.
Getting planning permission to build flats himself or selling to a developer is something I don't think he'll see in his lifetime. The key will be what the family would intend to do with it or if he might decide to sell up and retire one day.
But if he wants to simply play landlord then he is really, really, really bad at it. His value £44M. His rent £621K. A yield of 1.4% - less than inflation.
For comparative purposes, I know of a commercial building on Oxford St that changed hands at 6.25% yield a year or so back.
0
