New Everton Stadium

[TonyT65]

Dave has moved on, he wants to go full kopite and evict people from their homes so we can rebuild Goodison.

He can back track or side track all he wants.... The fact he's been wrong all along will still remain.

 

[davek]

Spurs took 12 years to build their stadium.
Arsenal took 9 years

Nice try tho Dave.

Announcement to scheme. That's where we're at. That's the comparison.

Spurs and Arsenal took years because that's what happens with plans that actually get PP and funding to off the drawing board...

 

[davek]

Get your spoon ready @davek, you'll be munching on that humble pie this summer.

Looking forward to it. PP should be forthcoming, getting past any opposition / getting funding is quite another thing.

 

[davek]

Long as we build it inside of 4 years we will have been quicker than Arsenal's total time taken.

That schedule is for the birds.

 

[TonyT65]

At this stage of the process it can only be choosing from the options re the funding. BK may have put an offer in for a house without having a job first but not these fellas. Relax. Its happening.

 

[Goat]

At this stage of the process it can only be choosing from the options re the funding. BK may have put an offer in for a house without having a job first but not these fellas. Relax. Its happening.

Imagine worrying about funding when our "owners" have 20billion.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

That schedule is for the birds.

In your opinion.

Which given that your opinion is that the entire scheme remains a fantasy that won’t happen, your view on the actual build schedule is surely moot?

 

[Dublin blue 75]

The pervasive negativity from certain quarters on this is tiresome.
It is happening.

 

[MikeH72]

The pervasive negativity from certain quarters on this is tiresome.
It is happening.

The thought of being wrong on the internet keeps some people awake at night.

 

[davek]

In your opinion.

Which given that your opinion is that the entire scheme remains a fantasy that won’t happen, your view on the actual build schedule is surely moot?

No. It's a general observation about any stadium build of this magnitude that it'd overshoot that schedule.

 

[Martin Alvito]

What confused gibberish that is.

Explain exactly how Moshiri is going to leverage a profit out of BMD while it simultaneously bankrupts the club?

Asset valuation and cashflow are not the same thing. There are ways to make an asset (in this case, Everton) worth more while causing it to generate less cash day-to-day.

Suppose that you take a piece of otherwise worthless land and invest to redevelop it. You borrow to do this. This causes the underlying land to become worth more, but costs you the price of servicing the debt. The value of the asset goes up, because the stadium is basically worth what you pay for it and the land value increase is more or less free since the dirt costs you nothing, but you're paying interest and generating less day-to-day cash to accomplish that.

Now suppose that the local government, in addition to giving you the worthless dirt to redevelop, hooks your asset up to a transit system. You get the spillover effects from this for free since the transit system is on the government's nickel, further increasing the value of your asset.

The net effect is that you have less to spend on players annually, because you're paying more in interest than you're getting back in new revenues from the project. (If you don't believe me, run the numbers on gate receipts from an increase in capacity yourself, and compare to the likely interest costs. Remember that you don't start getting the gate receipts until the project is done, but start paying interest right away.) However, you pocket both the increase in the value of the dirt and the transit system spillover effects when you sell the asset.

As long as the asset price increase is greater than the difference between your total interest costs and the total bump in gate receipts by the time you sell, you come out ahead on the deal.

If you screw this up really badly in terms of cost overruns, you bankrupt the club. That's a risk rather than a certainty, and Dave's not communicating that very well. A more realistic interpretation is that Moshiri comes out ahead and the fans lose until the debt is fully serviced, at which time the club's finances are probably better off than they were before. But you're probably looking at a decade on that, and we're not going to live forever.

 

[GwladysBlue]

11 weeks tomorrow until we should be hearing if planning permission has been granted or not.

 

[aglee]

11 weeks tomorrow until we should be hearing if planning permission has been granted or not.

On Easter Monday?

 

[LEONARD]

2-0 up against a crap team, and entering injury time.

Why should we worry that this will all come to fruition?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Asset valuation and cashflow are not the same thing. There are ways to make an asset (in this case, Everton) worth more while causing it to generate less cash day-to-day.

Suppose that you take a piece of otherwise worthless land and invest to redevelop it. You borrow to do this. This causes the underlying land to become worth more, but costs you the price of servicing the debt. The value of the asset goes up, because the stadium is basically worth what you pay for it and the land value increase is more or less free since the dirt costs you nothing, but you're paying interest and generating less day-to-day cash to accomplish that.

Now suppose that the local government, in addition to giving you the worthless dirt to redevelop, hooks your asset up to a transit system. You get the spillover effects from this for free since the transit system is on the government's nickel, further increasing the value of your asset.

The net effect is that you have less to spend on players annually, because you're paying more in interest than you're getting back in new revenues from the project. (If you don't believe me, run the numbers on gate receipts from an increase in capacity yourself, and compare to the likely interest costs. Remember that you don't start getting the gate receipts until the project is done, but start paying interest right away.) However, you pocket both the increase in the value of the dirt and the transit system spillover effects when you sell the asset.

As long as the asset price increase is greater than the difference between your total interest costs and the total bump in gate receipts by the time you sell, you come out ahead on the deal.

If you screw this up really badly in terms of cost overruns, you bankrupt the club. That's a risk rather than a certainty, and Dave's not communicating that very well. A more realistic interpretation is that Moshiri comes out ahead and the fans lose until the debt is fully serviced, at which time the club's finances are probably better off than they were before. But you're probably looking at a decade on that, and we're not going to live forever.

Errrrmm thanks for the cash flow / balance sheet lesson mate....

You’ve still not either answered my question or backed up his assertion. You’ve also overlooked a number of key aspects.

Dave took the position that Moshiri could bankrupt the club with BMD whilst simultaneously making a killing himself. This is completely impossible given he’s already put £350m onto the balance sheet in interest free Directors loans. It also makes the daft assumption that servicing the annual debt repayment on the stadium would somehow be large enough to cause the business a financial impact severe enough to somehow topple it, again this is absolute bobbins. As even if we got relegated at some point, the debt would simply be rescheduled.

No one has given us the land btw, we bought it from Peel for £30m. We’re selling the naming rights to USM and they’ve already stumped up £30m for the privilege of being at the front of a non existent queue. Given they’re already paying us £12m a year for naming rights to our training ground, it’s hardly a leap to suggest the annual charge of this for the ground will be at least double that and will likely cover the loan repayments on its own, irrespective of incremental revenue from the stadium. Which won’t merely be more ‘bums on seats’ on a match day, it’ll be the revenue generated from having a riverside stadium so close to the City, and the multi use options that’ll provide.

I’d refute the claim that the cost of the stadium automatically increases the value of the business by the same amount btw. As what use is the stadium to anyone other than the football club? The value of the tangible asset and therefore it’s balance sheet value is its commercial value of the land / building on the open market.