New Everton Stadium

Eggs said:
….they are a business playing to the market. If Everton are a successful team the Blue flags and banners will go up. When they play at home the city is full of fans from across Europe, that situation doesn’t apply to us. I’ve always said we need to be the best team in the City, the rest will look after itself.
Click to expand...
This
 
Tom Hughes said:
You're describing a catch 22. The stadium is part of that potential for meltdown. If the banks release the cash for the shortfall, then stadium will be completed. So the bank's problem isn't really about completion, but the risk to them if the club cannot then afford to pay it back. In the case of Spurs and Arsenal, they clearly demonstrated that viability. We haven't been able to do that and the banks prefer that risk shared hence the reason for the MSP loan.
Click to expand...

How is it catch 22? Banks do the exact same thing for people buying a house. You might be able to afford the repayments on a house but they want a bigger deposit or renegotiate terms to limit the risk.

As I said in my post the banks will only release the funds when the amount they are willing to loan the club directly equals or greater than the amount to finish the stadium. That obviously hasn't gotten to that point yet.

The stadium in an unfinished state is by far the biggest risk to bank, if it's not complete it doesn't generate any revenue so their avenue to get back the hundreds of millions loaned out is pretty slim. Do they then have to stump up cash to finish it to then sell? So to say this is a bit of a mistake:
So the bank's problem isn't really about completion
Click to expand...

I think it's very much in their interest that the funds essentially guarantee the build's completion.

It's no good pointing at other builds as they are not comparable, Arsenal's stadium costs were nowhere near as large and a lot of that could be paid back by redevelopment of Highbury. A large portion of Spurs' loans have been probably underwritten by their owner, the exact same method that you've derided but isn't now an option due to Usmanov's persona non grata status.
 
The binman chronicles said:
How is it catch 22? Banks do the exact same thing for people buying a house. You might be able to afford the repayments on a house but they want a bigger deposit or renegotiate terms to limit the risk.

As I said in my post the banks will only release the funds when the amount they are willing to loan the club directly equals or greater than the amount to finish the stadium. That obviously hasn't gotten to that point yet.

The stadium in an unfinished state is by far the biggest risk to bank, if it's not complete it doesn't generate any revenue so their avenue to get back the hundreds of millions loaned out is pretty slim. Do they then have to stump up cash to finish it to then sell? So to say this is a bit of a mistake:


I think it's very much in their interest that the funds essentially guarantee the build's completion.

It's no good pointing at other builds as they are not comparable, Arsenal's stadium costs were nowhere near as large and a lot of that could be paid back by redevelopment of Highbury. A large portion of Spurs' loans have been probably underwritten by their owner, the exact same method that you've derided but isn't now an option due to Usmanov's persona non grata status.
Click to expand...

No bank is going to currently touch us with a bargepole
 
Moomin said:
No bank is going to currently touch us with a bargepole
Click to expand...

Depends what the terms of securing the loan are. If they are deemed as the first legal charge then likely any underwriter would deem it a comfortable risk with the numbers that are being banded around.

At worst we may be forced to take a less than ideal naming sponsor in advance to help prove affordability. The sponsor gets their name on it for a discount and won't have to stump cash up until it has been completed so it's win/win for them and the bank will have more faith along with the premium seat sales figures of those already signed up that the extra income does cover the repayments.

That means that MSP or anyone else offering loans have to be happy as a secondary legal charge, but if they aren't then there is a good chance we go to the wall and they get not a lot back. We know the vibrac equivalent is secured on the TV money so that shouldn't come into play.
 

The binman chronicles said:
How is it catch 22? Banks do the exact same thing for people buying a house. You might be able to afford the repayments on a house but they want a bigger deposit or renegotiate terms to limit the risk.

As I said in my post the banks will only release the funds when the amount they are willing to loan the club directly equals or greater than the amount to finish the stadium. That obviously hasn't gotten to that point yet.

The stadium in an unfinished state is by far the biggest risk to bank, if it's not complete it doesn't generate any revenue so their avenue to get back the hundreds of millions loaned out is pretty slim. Do they then have to stump up cash to finish it to then sell? So to say this is a bit of a mistake:


I think it's very much in their interest that the funds essentially guarantee the build's completion.

It's no good pointing at other builds as they are not comparable, Arsenal's stadium costs were nowhere near as large and a lot of that could be paid back by redevelopment of Highbury. A large portion of Spurs' loans have been probably underwritten by their owner, the exact same method that you've derided but isn't now an option due to Usmanov's persona non grata status.
Click to expand...

Arsenal's stadium would cost more than BMD if it was built now (it cost almost £400m nearly 20yrs ago). A bigger and structurally more complex stadium. They and Spurs were fully funded by finance and investment bond schemes supported by far higher projected income levels. I haven't derided their or our approach.... just mentioned the difference in terms of financial sustainability, which is now eminently clear.
 

Tom Hughes said:
Arsenal's stadium would cost more than BMD if it was built now (it cost almost £400m nearly 20yrs ago). A bigger and structurally more complex stadium. They and Spurs were fully funded by finance and investment bond schemes supported by far higher projected income levels. I haven't derided their or our approach.... just mentioned the difference in terms of financial sustainability, which is now eminently clear.
Click to expand...
what do you think will end up happening with this staduim ?
 
tommye said:
Someone posted the other day that one of the terms of the leasehold off Peel is that Everton Football Club must remain as owners of the stadium. So, you want the stadium, you buy the club first.
Click to expand...
I thought the stadium had been separated from the club, i.e the Everton stadium company was a separate entity. Which made sense to me in terms of asset protection?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top