Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[mlyons]

I personally dont see them dipping their hands in their own pockets at all, loans all over the show, on favourable terms, as you say, these fellas are likely to have access to different kind of people that the current board possibly has.

Meh, lets see what happens, could either be the most exciting few years or the worst EVER!

Could be. The point is, some billion-pound consortium is going to have an easier time getting a hold of £500 million for a new stadium (wherever that money eventually ends up coming from) than our current board.

 

[ijjysmith]

I personally dont see them dipping their hands in their own pockets at all, loans all over the show, on favourable terms, as you say, these fellas are likely to have access to different kind of people that the current board possibly has.

Meh, lets see what happens, could either be the most exciting few years or the worst EVER!

I've not read loads into it as y'know...Everton takeover, but it will probably be boring and we won't notice any difference.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Everton takeover and BK haters go nuts. You couldn't make it up.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

My understanding is that the outstanding debt with the Prudential would be factored into the asking price, and that we would become debt free after the takeover? Is this incorrect?

I honestly don't know.
I think that BK? said something to that effect in the past.
Sort of begs the question is the 200mil being bandied around including debt of circa 40mil excluding early repayment penalties or 200mil cash + paying off debt.
Whichever, what I meant by the above is until AIB sorted don't think anything can happen about a new stadium.

 

[The Esk]

It is reported that the Padres new stadium was 75% funded with tax payers money, buy who funded the remaining 25%? Was it cash from Moores, or was it debt?

Nobody can predict the future, but I'm not expecting any handouts from this consortium, and I'm starting to think that any investment will come in the form of debt. That may be OK with our increased borrowing capacity after the new TV deal, and if it results in us getting a new stadium then it could arguably be considered progress. But it was only recently that @esk was stating that funding a new stadium through debt would be problematic etc, and our new stadium isn't going to benefit from anywhere near 75% public money funding. I'm starting to think that our debt will increase dramatically under this consortium.

Debt isn't bad in and of itself, especially when it's incurred from something you expect to raise revenues. My mortgage on my house meant I had to incur a lot of debt, but in 15 years I'll be much better off having taken on that debt than if I'd spent 15 years just paying rent on an apartment.

There are two different views on a debt funded stadium - the shareholder's view and the supporter's view.

From a shareholder perspective, a stadium funded by debt, as long as the debt repayments are servicable is a pretty good thing - if the asset value increases then the shareholder benefits enormously (in the same way as someone with a mortgage benefits from rising house prices as long as they can afford the mortgage).

However from a fan's point of view, what is the point of moving to a new, inevitably more expensive (for the fan) stadium if it does not benefit the team - ie the expectation is that the extra cash generated goes into the playing squad rather than the lender's pockets?

At the moment we are in the realms of speculation as the offer should it arise only focuses on the price offered to existing shareholders. We know nothing of the plans of the prospective owners. Only when they disclose what their plans are and how they will fund them can we make a judgement. However based on their track records and modus operandi I suspect shareholder profit is the primary motive - the hope is that they (or someone else) will provide the investment in one form or another that meets both the fans' and the shareholders' expectations - they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[mlyons]

There are two different views on a debt funded stadium - the shareholder's view and the supporter's view.

From a shareholder perspective, a stadium funded by debt, as long as the debt repayments are servicable is a pretty good thing - if the asset value increases then the shareholder benefits enormously (in the same way as someone with a mortgage benefits from rising house prices as long as they can afford the mortgage).

However from a fan's point of view, what is the point of moving to a new, inevitably more expensive (for the fan) stadium if it does not benefit the team - ie the expectation is that the extra cash generated goes into the playing squad rather than the lender's pockets?

At the moment we are in the realms of speculation as the offer should it arise only focuses on the price offered to existing shareholders. We know nothing of the plans of the prospective owners. Only when they disclose what their plans are and how they will fund them can we make a judgement. However based on their track records and modus operandi I suspect shareholder profit is the primary motive - the hope is that they (or someone else) will provide the investment in one form or another that meets both the fans' and the shareholders' expectations - they're not mutually exclusive.

Well, from the fan's point of view, the expectation is that it will benefit the team. A new stadium means more revenue in almost every case. While that will be offset by the cost of paying off the stadium in the short term, in the long term it should result in a higher operating budget than would have been the case otherwise. Again, Arsenal's the example. It took a fair amount of time before the playing squad was able to reap the benefits of the Emirates, but in the last few years they've been able to throw around money at the same level as all of the other big boys. I don't think they would have been able to afford talents like Özil and Alexis if they were still at Highbury.

 

[The Esk]

Well, from the fan's point of view, the expectation is that it will benefit the team. A new stadium means more revenue in almost every case. While that will be offset by the cost of paying off the stadium in the short term, in the long term it should result in a higher operating budget than would have been the case otherwise. Again, Arsenal's the example. It took a fair amount of time before the playing squad was able to reap the benefits of the Emirates, but in the last few years they've been able to throw around money at the same level as all of the other big boys. I don't think they would have been able to afford talents like Özil and Alexis if they were still at Highbury.

Arsenal is an entirely different situation though mate - they had an operating profit and the receipts from the Highbury development to pay down debt, which they have done successfully - we are in an entirely different situation - a stadium largely funded by debt will at best benefit the shareholders, at worst be detrimental to shareholder value and transfer budgets.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Arsenal is an entirely different situation though mate - they had an operating profit and the receipts from the Highbury development to pay down debt, which they have done successfully - we are in an entirely different situation - a stadium largely funded by debt will at best benefit the shareholders, at worst be detrimental to shareholder value and transfer budgets.

So in an ideal world we're after a 100% takeover, followed by a share issue to at least partly fund the building of a new stadium and relatively low ( 50% or less) debt for the club's contribution to the stadium cost.
As you say all speculation, but do you think the above satisfy both supporters and shareholders?
Edit. WIth any short term return on capital by way of dividends when permissible.

 

[The Esk]

So in an ideal world we're after a 100% takeover, followed by a share issue to at least partly fund the building of a new stadium and relatively low ( 50% or less) debt for the club's contribution to the stadium cost.
As you say all speculation, but do you think the above satisfy both supporters and shareholders?

Ideal world seeing it is still Christmas:

100% takeover
Redevelopment of Goodison
Additional capital to improve squad
Working capital to improve commercial and global marketing performance
Funded by equity not debt

What's satisfactory below those ambitions? Have to wait and see.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Ideal world seeing it is still Christmas:

100% takeover
Redevelopment of Goodison
Additional capital to improve squad
Working capital to improve commercial and global marketing performance
Funded by equity not debt

What's satisfactory below those ambitions? Have to wait and see.

Made no secret that I don't do Christmas so that excludes me from making wishes.

 

[mlyons]

Arsenal is an entirely different situation though mate - they had an operating profit and the receipts from the Highbury development to pay down debt, which they have done successfully - we are in an entirely different situation - a stadium largely funded by debt will at best benefit the shareholders, at worst be detrimental to shareholder value and transfer budgets.

Not necessarily. A poorly thought out deal would, obviously, but I'd like to think that any consortium of investors willing to put the time and effort into putting together a £200 million deal to purchase a football club would also put in the effort to investigate how to build a stadium without crippling the club. If it's not feasible, it won't happen.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that it's next to impossible for an investor to make any money off of this club without the club benefiting as well.

 

[The Esk]

If an investor is going to go public, or allow others to disclose their position I'd much rather that investor say it's a £400 million investment (or whatever the figure is) which includes (for example) £200 million to existing shareholders.

Can't help but think having decided to allow this to go public, they've missed a trick here. If you're going to go public you want the supporters onside from day one, not speculating on how poor the deal may be for the team. Unless of course the limit of their investment is to buy existing shareholders out and (mistakenly in my opinion) believe that the rising tide of premiership revenues raises each boat equally - if they believe that they're in for a surprise.

 

[ijjysmith]

If an investor is going to go public, or allow others to disclose their position I'd much rather that investor say it's a £400 million investment (or whatever the figure is) which includes (for example) £200 million to existing shareholders.

Can't help but think having decided to allow this to go public, they've missed a trick here. If you're going to go public you want the supporters onside from day one, not speculating on how poor the deal may be for the team. Unless of course the limit of their investment is to buy existing shareholders out and (mistakenly in my opinion) believe that the rising tide of premiership revenues raises each boat equally - if they believe that they're in for a surprise.

Would it not raise expectations of insane signings if they did that?

 

[The Esk]

Would it not raise expectations of insane signings if they did that?

No - because you'd explain exactly where the money was going - £200 million to shareholders, £150 million to a new stadium, £50 million squad enhancement etc etc (figures used as an example not anticipated amounts)

 

[ijjysmith]

No - because you'd explain exactly where the money was going - £200 million to shareholders, £150 million to a new stadium, £50 million squad enhancement etc etc (figures used as an example not anticipated amounts)

Makes sense to me.

Maybe that'd put pressure on them actually delivering that though? And if they didn't for whatever reason they'd have the supporters on their back?