TonyT65
Player Valuation: £2.5m
He can back track or side track all he wants.... The fact he's been wrong all along will still remain.
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.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
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
Player Valuation: £150m
Looking forward to it. PP should be forthcoming, getting past any opposition / getting funding is quite another thing.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
That schedule is for the birds.
Imagine worrying about funding when our "owners" have 20billion.
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
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
Player Valuation: £50m
The pervasive negativity from certain quarters on this is tiresome.
It is happening.
It is happening.
MikeH72
Player Valuation: £100m
The thought of being wrong on the internet keeps some people awake at night.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
No. It's a general observation about any stadium build of this magnitude that it'd overshoot that schedule.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
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
Player Valuation: £70m
11 weeks tomorrow until we should be hearing if planning permission has been granted or not.
aglee
Player Valuation: £8m
On Easter Monday?
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
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.