Onwards Evertonians
Player Valuation: £8m
They've already agreed the spv a while back so surely if this didn't go through then they'd revert back to that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The change is because the LCC can earn more money without increased risk.
But if this plan is superior why does it feel like a Plan B? Surely it would've been the Plan A if it had more advantages and no more risk.
More money, fine. Good reason. I'm not convinced there's less risk in actually lending the money, however.
I still think it's odd that the change has happened.
Weirdly, at face value, it points to one of two extremes - either the club is doing such a bad job getting Plan A to work they've asked for a council loan in desperation, or they're doing such a good job that the council have asked to take on more risk to get more reward from the scheme. So....I guess the question surely is, who initiated this change?
But if this plan is superior why does it feel like a Plan B? Surely it would've been the Plan A if it had more advantages and no more risk.
More money, fine. Good reason. I'm not convinced there's less risk in actually lending the money, however.
I still think it's odd that the change has happened.
Weirdly, at face value, it points to one of two extremes - either the club is doing such a bad job getting Plan A to work they've asked for a council loan in desperation, or they're doing such a good job that the council have asked to take on more risk to get more reward from the scheme. So....I guess the question surely is, who initiated this change?
Terrible news if it's true.Joe is struggling to get Council buy in. Members are taking a lot of heat from residents, especially those in lower income areas. He’s going with the “if it doesn’t benefit the city then we won’t go with it”
It’s on a knife edge at the minute
Where is this from?Joe is struggling to get Council buy in. Members are taking a lot of heat from residents, especially those in lower income areas. He’s going with the “if it doesn’t benefit the city then we won’t go with it”
It’s on a knife edge at the minute
Terrible news if it's true.
Whether you have ownership of the loan or you are a guarantor the exact same risk applies.
You have a point between plan A and plan B though, if we were going to borrow using the council as a backer before and then pay 4 million, how is it a better deal if we now need to pay 7 million? Could the interest rates change that much when they are in theory both council accessed loans? Or perhaps the lender won't accept the us as the principle borrowers and it has to be in the councils name to get access to lower rates forcing the change in tack.
The change is because the LCC can earn more money without increased risk.
Is that part not because it's gone from paying it off over 40 years as opposed to the 25 years it's now changed to?
Apparently this is the part the council scoops off us so repaying the loan quicker should in theory create a smaller payment as you are not exposing them to a longer period of risk.
Man city do not seem to have suffered from having dodgy owners.
But as for your other point a new stadium is the key not just for us but for the north dock project as a whole.
Where is this from?