Finch Farm Sold

[Jacko93]

I'm not entirely sure, but could the agreement here be similar to the agreement at Citeh?

At Citeh, they still rent the ground off the council, as they were given European money in order to construct the stadium, and that money arrived with clauses. One clause being that if the ground was sold, the money in it's entirety would have to be returned to European coffers. So the continuing rental, with very little in the way of profit margins suits both parties, and with Citeh offering to purchase the ground, tyhey were actively discouraged from doing so.

During the RS proposals, they were told that they had to include social regeneration in order to recieve further monies from the council, through European grants. That money would be awarded to the council by Europe, for them to pass out to social regeneration projects. LCC could feasibly claim that this money has gone towards a local business to enable them to continue their community work, ergo, they dont have to return the money to Europe, but are in fact getting it back in their own pockets, to do with as they wish.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Those are the lines I was thinking along too. If so, it's a sensible deal all round, but you wonder why it wasn't announced earlier.

Because a deal that is seen to benefit one of the cities football clubs, in times of service & job cuts within the public sector, wouldn't be something that they might want to make a meal out of particularly when Mr Anderson is such a vocal Blue. It doesn't make it bent though, as it'd had to have got through all the legal channels.

 

[Eggs]

...it all seems a bit odd and a reflection ofr financial mis-management. My understanding is that we actually bought and owned FF but sold it on to a company who leased it back to us. Its a bit like buying your house ouright and then selling it to somebody else who you then rent it off. The reason for this was to raise monies to build the infrastucture because we didn't have the cash to do this.
I look at Arsenal getting themselves in a strategically advantageous financial position and then see so called businessmen on our board making decisions you wouldn't think of doing with your own household. It all seems so short-sighted although the more economically savy of you may disagree,

 

[Ihaters]

...it all seems a bit odd and a reflection ofr financial mis-management. My understanding is that we actually bought and owned FF but sold it on to a company who leased it back to us. Its a bit like buying your house ouright and then selling it to somebody else who you then rent it off. The reason for this was to raise monies to build the infrastucture because we didn't have the cash to do this.
I look at Arsenal getting themselves in a strategically advantageous financial position and then see so called businessmen on our board making decisions you wouldn't think of doing with your own household. It all seems so short-sighted although the more economically savy of you may disagree,

Its more like owning a field, selling it, then renting a state of the art house that the buyers built on the land because you couldn't afford to buy it.
We now have a facility we couldn't afford outright and when we can, we will buy it.

 

[royalblue66]

Like they say everyone s a winner baby. Nice bit of biz

 

[toffeestillidie]

It cost 12 - 15m to build, and were renting it for a cost that'll eventually rise towards 30 odd million.. Makes sense?.. we should've just bought it.

Since it's a 50 year lease agreement, if we assume it costs 13.5 mil, and will pay 30 mil eventually, this works out to an annual interest rate of ~1.5%, which I imagine is better than anything we can get from a bank.

 

[pfim]

...it all seems a bit odd and a reflection ofr financial mis-management. My understanding is that we actually bought and owned FF but sold it on to a company who leased it back to us. Its a bit like buying your house ouright and then selling it to somebody else who you then rent it off. The reason for this was to raise monies to build the infrastucture because we didn't have the cash to do this.
I look at Arsenal getting themselves in a strategically advantageous financial position and then see so called businessmen on our board making decisions you wouldn't think of doing with your own household. It all seems so short-sighted although the more economically savy of you may disagree,

Financially, the arrangement makes sense. And there's really no upside to owning FF as opposed to leasing it for 50 years. If anything, that the original owners were insolvent and sold it at a loss tells you what sort of investment these facilities are and why it's a good idea to have someone else hold the risk.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Just shows what a forward thinking Council can do for the mutual benefit of it's taxpayers, and it's premier club, when it has sound, rational businessmen to negotiate with on the other side of the transaction.

Compare and contrast this with the problems LCC have faced in past dealings directly with Bill Clownright and his merry band of investors.

 

[Wavy D]

What I don't get is why the council have reduced the annual costs to the club? You'd think the council's duty would be to maximise the return on their investments, in which case surely they could have just left the cost to us the same?

The only thing I can think of is that the club had first refusal on buying out the freehold, and that we gave that up in return for a lowered annual payment. In other words, if the annual cost was kept high it would be more valuable for us to buy it ourselves and avoid the annual payments.

 

[peteblue]

What I don't get is why the council have reduced the annual costs to the club? You'd think the council's duty would be to maximise the return on their investments, in which case surely they could have just left the cost to us the same?

The only thing I can think of is that the club had first refusal on buying out the freehold, and that we gave that up in return for a lowered annual payment. In other words, if the annual cost was kept high it would be more valuable for us to buy it ourselves and avoid the annual payments.

The councils duty is to provide services to the people of Liverpool and it's business community, it is not an investment house. What they have done though allows one of it's main businesses to continue to prosper and also make some money for the good people of Liverpool. It's win/win.......

 

[Azza]

hahaha, Elstone has lost his head big time!


http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/06/14/ceo-angered-by-report

 

[Chang Elephant]

hahaha, Elstone has lost his head big time!


http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/06/14/ceo-angered-by-report

Would Everton have had any actual say in the transaction as merely the leaseholder ?

 

[Azza]

Would Everton have had any actual say in the transaction as merely the leaseholder ?

I assume that Everton will have reached out to LCC and as a gesture of goodwill then LCC will have reduced the rate slightly. Politics and all that. I can't see them having a say in any other circumstance.

 

[Moomin]

Would Everton have had any actual say in the transaction as merely the leaseholder ?

Change in payment terms???? lower rate, but are contracted for a minimum of years????

 

[tsubaki]

Would Everton have had any actual say in the transaction as merely the leaseholder ?

Possibly not, though the nature of FF - and the lack of alternate uses for it - would suggest that the club did have some input into the process, since the place would be worth a lot less without the ongoing involvement of the / a club and a long-term commitment to pay for it.