Jump to content

Wilky

Member
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilky

  1. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why? Surely if they don't own the land that the stadium is built on, then the stadium on its own is worthless from the point of view of collateral. The land is the real asset. The stadium is only valuable to a football club. 1) They do own the land through an effective freehold 2) There is a significant investment value to a football stadium. If as an invester you purchased the stadium, leased it back to the club on a fixed term basis then you control the revenue that stadium brings in. That is not worthless!
  2. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged. The previous board borrowed money secured on just about every asset and income source the club had - but never against the stadium. Why? No idea you know the accounts better than I do, but I have not seen any reason as to why the club cannot borrow against the stadium. I can't think of any restrictions (nor understand why) the council could legally place on a lease of this sort that would restrict it, if there is something it is highly unusual and I haven't seen it in practice. The fact is, contrary to what has been reiterated to the point that it appears fact, they do own the ground and have pretty much all the rights a freeholder has and that is not a reason to stop someone borrowing off it. To be honest, you are more likely to come up with a reason the previous board did not borrow against the stadium. But I can't see any legal reason (in terms of Property Law) as to why they couldn't.
  3. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of. So, if it is such an attractive piece of collateral, why did the previous board not borrow against the stadium? Do we definately know that they didn't? I don't know what they loaned money on. Perhaps they didn't need to in that particular lending market? All I'm saying is that NUFC owning a long leasehold (effective freehold) on the land should be no obstacle to the ground being mortgaged.
  4. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most. It's to do with security. In the event of the club going bust (say) and the bank needing to call in a loan that is secured on the stadium how could the bank realise anything from it? The council own the land and they haven't granted a mortgage on that so whats left for the bank to get its hands on? The club have an effective freehold on the land and as I said earlier their interest is worth more than the Council's. If you were to get a mortgage on a flat or an apartment you wouldn't need to get permission off the holding company who owns the land. Risk is of course taken into account (for example the club going bust), however if the club ceased to exist and no pheonix co was forthcoming the ground would not just remain a white elephant in the middle of a city centre. It would then unlock the potential redevelopment - and given this is in an area which is attracting significant leisure investment (hotels) and office development which I think has prime Newcastle rents it would be very attractive for the bank to posession of.
  5. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales). I would never deny that the value of the stadium (especially to the football club) is immense. The issue was whether a bank would lend against it. The mortgages the Guardian is referring to are not specific and relate to "all property" owned by the club. The Guardian has (incorrectly imo) assumed that this includes SJP. I can't see any reason why the bank would not lend against SJP? In fact I can't see any reason why Ashley, if he has mortgaged other property would not mortgage the property which is worth the most.
  6. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    I've had some harsh things put at me in my time but lumping me with that lot is below the belt. It was just a question. apologies. It just grates when people spout that we do not own our ground because we don't own the land. It's just wrong, especially as a long leasehold gives you most the rights of a freehold which gives a significant controlling interest in the land as well as the building on it. If you valued the land today NUFC's value would be more than the Council's.
  7. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk. Ok but Toontastic has a point - and it is why the debt on the redevelopment of the stadium (that Ashley was forced to pay off) was mortgaged on future season ticket revenue and not the stadium itself. There was no collateral for the bank in the stadium and none of the club's debt has ever been mortgaged on SJP. I'm not sure how true that is. In the valuation of this type of property (Leisure) its value is linked to its income (i.e. season ticket sales and other commercial uses - e.g retail/catering/conferencing). In essence it is a valuation of the ground, as the ground has a value but the profit method of Property Valuation is derived from its income. I haven't looked at great detail in the accounts but don't get confused with lending against season ticket sales and lending against the stadium (which is valued based on income - including season ticket sales).
  8. Wilky

    NUFC 2009 Accounts

    It annoys me when people (usually mackems) spout this. NUFC own the ground and it is worth a lot of money. They own the land on an effective freehold (long leasehold) where a small peppercorn rent will be paid. If you bought a flat you would not own the land in which it lies - you cannot own a flying freehold (unless you bought the entire block or entered into a commonhold with neighbours). The head lessee (Council) do have some rights (within reason) but in my view this is a good thing as it restricts Ashley or anyone else redeveloping the ground without Council permission (also would need Local Planning Authority permission mind). The value of the ground therefore has to be as its existing use as there is little chance the Council would allow it to be brought into other uses. To some extent this limits its value as it is only NUFC who could reasonably occupy it with its current capacity, but the value of the ground is linked to its income, which is considerable - although volatile should any reasonably boycot take off - which will be factored into the banks risk.
  9. On a free it's worth the gamble. He seems to do very well in Scotland and if he can do it down here great, if not - no biggy - flog him back to the jocks. If we also manage to get Wilshire from Arsenal on loan then these two with Carroll and Lovenkrands is the best we can hope for. It's not great but I'm confident it is better than a few teams at the bottom of that league.
  10. note to self, read first two words of original quote.
  11. Doubt he would be that stupid. Also he wouldn't be stupid enough to get rid of Hughton. Don't want to get hopes but possibly a deal to purchase the club has been done pending our return to the top flight? PS where has this info come from? On SSN? Nowt on official site about a forthcoming statement.
  12. If they have been thrown out of the league, what happens in the games they have already played? Is it like what was mooted over Pompey in that all the results would be taken away - which would be a good thing for the Heed as they lost home and away to Chester.
  13. I'm not suggesting you are doing anything? All I'm saying is none of us can accurately determine the clubs accounts based on what I believe to be a PR exercise. Quayside's figures seem sensible; however there does not appear any provision for monies received in players sales. If we add the players sales to Quayside's figures then the club is breaking even (even if we are plucking figures, albeit sensibly, out of the air). I'm very interested to see the accounts to see exactly where the money is all going. I had assumed that any profits made on transfers were netted off against the "other costs". Don't forget that cash received on a player sale does not all equal profit, there are costs attached to some of the players - Martins for example still had time left on his contract so there was an unamortised amount of his original transfer fee to offset against the fee we received for him, Duff was the same. And, of course, as I said earlier and others have repeated, this is all about cash not profit or loss. Fair enough, at least you are capable of a constructive response. Mind I would be disappointed if 'other costs' were only reduced by 40% (and I appreciate that is a finger in the air jobby) based on initial monies raised from player sales and the lack of extraordinary costs based on not having to pay off a whole management staff like Allardyce's lot in the last published accounts. Also, how does Ashley's outsourcing of staff affect 'other costs', is this likely to save money in the short term but end up costing the club more in the long term as they cannot reap all the income going forward?
  14. I'm not suggesting you are doing anything? All I'm saying is none of us can accurately determine the clubs accounts based on what I believe to be a PR exercise. Quayside's figures seem sensible; however there does not appear any provision for monies received in players sales. If we add the players sales to Quayside's figures then the club is breaking even (even if we are plucking figures, albeit sensibly, out of the air). I'm very interested to see the accounts to see exactly where the money is all going.
  15. Agreed, but given I've identified c.£80m of revenue are you suggesting other costs amount to £30m? For us to be losing half a million a week other costs would have to amount to nearer £50m? Does that sound plausible? We cannot make an economic appraisal of our finances based on what is probably an "exercise in public relations".
  16. Even if our income is half that of last year; i.e. approximately £50m and our wage bill is c. £40m, also take into account the £20-£30m profit made on the fire sale at the beginning of the season - how have we lost money this year? The figures don't add up IMO and you can't believe a word that comes out from any 'club source'
  17. That doesn't make sense though, he isn't making any money from NUFC, or 'draining anything out'... he's losing millions. And protests and boycotts do little more than make us even more unattractive to serious bidders (if that's possible) thereby prolonging Ashley's ownership. i.e. the protesters end up achieving the opposite of what they want. You couldn't make it up. Absolute tosh. Any reasonable bidder will not be put off by fully justified protests against Ashley. If a prospective bidder cannot understand fans frustration after the things Ashley has done they clearly know nowt about football
  18. Also don't want to be picky but its 130 years - or at least it will be by it comes in next year. Football has been played at SJP since 1880, by West End, East End and of course United.
  19. Its a pity I don't have the money to pay for the naming rights; not that I'd keep it as SJP, I'd call it 'The Mike Ashley is a c*** Park'.
  20. A complete boycott of the club and merchandise will fuck his plans up. No sponsor will touch us with a barge pole. Its time for drastic action. Its the only way
  21. Surely people still cannot poo poo the idea of a boycott. That cunt isnt getting any of my cash. Ive been going to away games only since jan and this justifies my decision
  22. Wilky

    RIP sale thread.

    not that I could ever second guess the bafoon but if it is merely to give Hughton the job; why does he need to be there?
  23. Wilky

    RIP sale thread.

    Sod that, already thought about it, just get FFS to go 50-50 with you, he has the money and the experience, it wouldn't be a bad thing compared to what we've got. Not that I'm claiming to be an ITK... but Shepherd has had his property portfolio valued with a view to securing funds. As I understand he has a bid but it is well below Ashley's asking price. My immediate question upon hearing this news; why doesn't he go 50 50 with Moat. The answer; they absolutely hate each other and love nothing more than putting one over the other when it comes to business.
  24. Wilky

    RIP sale thread.

    It's not really. Even at £80million, NUFC as it stands is very much overpriced at that figure. I mean, what are our assets that make us worth that much? The playing squad certainly isn't - the training ground is probs worth a few quid and the club don't own St James Park, so it cannot be called an asset. If Ashley keeps on fannying about, doesn't invest in January and we don't get promoted - what are we going to be worth then? The club do own SJP; the council own the land and NUFC pay a peppercorn ground rent which will be peanuts. This is not uncommon for city centre property and land of strategic importance. If anything that situation is to our advantage at the moment; whilst it all depends on the lease terms I can't imagine the council did not retain some interest in planning and development (e.g. Ashley could not knock it down and build something else). Whilst this has to be considered within any valuation, for example you couldn't value the land as office/resi/retail because of the restriction in use; you certainly could take into account its existing use value (i.e. a football ground) - which most certainly is an asset I guess the best way to explain it is, take for example flats. Unless you own the entire building; you cannot purchase the freehold of a flat - known as a flying freehold. (well you can hold a commonhold but its relatively new and not taken off yet) Flats are typically bought on long leaseholds with peppercorn rents hidden within service charges usually. It doesn't mean it is not an asset that can be sold on.
  25. I would much prefer if we can keep the site ad free, even if that means I have to pay a few pounds every year. As long as it is not in your face pop-up ads, and more in line with the ads in .com, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Each to their own I suppose.
×
×
  • Create New...