Community stadium costs revealed (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
York community stadium costs revealed
12:00pm Tuesday 29th May 2012 in News
Exclusive By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
CRUCIAL details about York’s £19 million community stadium project, which were kept secret by council chiefs, can today be revealed by The Press.
Information about the funding and expected benefits had been controversially hidden by council officials, despite calls for it to be made public.
This newspaper has now obtained a copy of City of York Council’s business case for the project, which also sets out the expected boosts for York City FC and York City Knights.
The £90 milllion plans by developer Oakgate for a 6,000-seat stadium and Marks & Spencer and John Lewis superstores at Monks Cross were approved by the council earlier this month.
Many of the financial aspects surrounding the stadium project were redacted in the report to the meeting, meaning they could not be seen by the public.
Coun Ian Gillies, leader of the council’s Conservative opposition, said too many figures were based on “presumptions”, but the council said the case was “robust”.
The report shows that:
• Estimated income from the new stadium is £335,000, with operating costs expected to be £321,000, leaving a £14,000 surplus. An £83,000 surplus is expected in the first year from the whole scheme, including community facilities such as York St John University’s Institute of Sport and a base for York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
• City would pay annual rent of £125,000 and the Knights £25,000, while stadium naming rights could bring in £50,000 a year and 3G pitch rental £28,000 a year. A further £52,000 a year is forecast from the hospital trust having “exclusive” use of the hospitality facilities on weekdays as a “training, development, conference and teaching centre”, allowing the sports clubs to use them in evenings and at weekends
• City’s Bootham Crescent home, which would be sold, has been independently valued at £4.5 million on the open market, with a net value of about £3.5 million once demolition and other matters are taken into account. The figures are based on the site becoming housing
• About £800,000 from Bootham Crescent’s sale would go towards the stadium scheme, after payments to various parties due money from the sale proceeds
• City’s overall annual income should rise by £278,000
• The Knights’ annual income is estimated to rise by £50,000.
The business case says Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL), the operator of the existing Huntington Stadium and other Monks Cross leisure facilities on the council’s behalf, is making “considerable losses” of about £300,000 a year.
When the report was written in February GLL had said at least £3 million would have to be invested in Huntington Stadium, Waterworld and Courtney’s gym if they were to remain competitive and of good quality in the future.
The firm said it would probably have to pull out of its contract if the stadium did not go ahead.
Coun Gillies, who previously criticised the business case and the decision to keep much of it confidential, said: “It contains far too many presumptions and forecasts for it to be treated as a serious business plan.” He said he was initially denied access to the information then, when shown it, “gagged” from discussing it with his own group.
He said: “Most of the content, in my opinion, should have been in the public domain, as the council appears to be subsidising the revenue side of the football club, taking the bulk of the future financial risk of the stadium’s running, assuring York City Knights there will be no reduction in income, and not quantifying the risk and future spend of public money.”
Coun Gillies said “professional advice” he had received about Bootham Crescent’s value suggested £4.5 million was “optimistic”.
He said “political and peer pressure” had guided the stadium issue and said he feared severe problems for both clubs in years to come.
Bill Woolley, the council’s director of city and environmental services, said: “We are confident the business case is robust and this view has been supported by an external audit.”
He said the council was now in detailed discussions about taking the project forward.
Mr Woolley said it was important to remember the business case stated the financial model was based on detailed “evidence-based assumptions” and provided “one potential scenario of how the stadium would operate.”
Comments(48)
paintitred
says...
12:21pm Tue 29 May 12
21 mins with no rant!!
lol
;-)
Even AndyD
says...
12:27pm Tue 29 May 12
Those figures seem okay to me - if all Gillies can say is a load if, buts and maybes, then I'd suggest he thinks so too.
Time to move on - planning granted, building next please.
The Mc
says...
12:59pm Tue 29 May 12
redbluelion
says...
1:14pm Tue 29 May 12
Torycouncil2015
says...
1:16pm Tue 29 May 12
redbluelion wrote:Any increased success would lead to higher income which would fund expansion. Simple business. Look at Darlington you can build a 20,000 seater but you'll never fill it!
Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..
The Legend Of Keith
says...
1:32pm Tue 29 May 12
Torycouncil2015 wrote:6,000 is a good starting point but a road map should be put in place for expansion up to between 10,000 and 12,000 should York maintain their football league presence. Neither football, rugby or athletics will not need larger than this.
redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..Any increased success would lead to higher income which would fund expansion. Simple business. Look at Darlington you can build a 20,000 seater but you'll never fill it!
There is the potential for a large touchline stand (two tier a la Mansfield perhaps) and then scope to fill the corners in.
Personally, I would like to see the corners filled in first with the corner between new Main Stand and Home End housing seating and the supporters club. Plenty of revenue generating can be done in the supporters club on match days due to the lack of public houses or eateries in the surrounding area.
COYR.
JC42
says...
1:35pm Tue 29 May 12
redbluelion wrote:dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..
York1900
says...
1:45pm Tue 29 May 12
It is like every thing else that when the council of any party gets involved in a building project
The developers seem to over price there work for the council and try to wiping up support for there development by offering a little bit for the local council tax payer
But when you get to brake down all the figures it shows the only one making and profit from it are the developers and the council tax payer picks up the bill
The developers have offered a small stadium that YCFC would out grow with in years or keep YCFC at the lower end of profitable as it will limit the number of away supporters that YCFC could have coming to games
-
Geoffers
says...
2:01pm Tue 29 May 12
TerryYork
says...
2:20pm Tue 29 May 12
JC42 wrote:Sorry, but this conversation is for York people, who pay York council tax, not you, so do one.
redbluelion wrote:dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..
redbluelion
says...
2:29pm Tue 29 May 12
roskoboskovic
says...
2:54pm Tue 29 May 12
Even AndyD
says...
2:59pm Tue 29 May 12
Torycouncil2015 wrote:Darlington was 25,000 - not 20,000. Its also a bad example - built as it was as an ego trip by convicted safe-breaker chairman. Always was too large - ridiculously expensive etc. But that doesn't mean the more modest stadia at the likes of Chesterfield, Burton, Scunthorpe, Shrewsbury, Rotherham and countless others have not been a complete success.
redbluelion wrote:Any increased success would lead to higher income which would fund expansion. Simple business. Look at Darlington you can build a 20,000 seater but you'll never fill it!
Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..
1968expat
says...
3:16pm Tue 29 May 12
JC42 wrote:Obviously then you were not in the thousands of people celebrating with the rest of York, ie not really interested in the City of York, York voted with their feet that day mate, get a life!!
redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
speaks99
says...
3:28pm Tue 29 May 12
roskoboskovic wrote:I don't think you can justify building a large stadium on the chance that once every few years you'll pull a big draw in the FA Cup. You've got to look at what you're average fan base is likely to be.
very short sighted to build a 6000 seater stadium.with a modicum of success we could be getting 4-5000 and with this present manager and squad talk of promotion within 3/4 seasons is not unrealistic.there is also the chance of an fa cup draw against a top side which could fill a 10-12000 ground easily.i know this may all be pie in the sky but surely a 10000 seater would make more sense.
6000 would be fine were we still in the conference, but I would like to see an increase now we are in the football league, whether that be to 7000 or 8000 maximum.
1968expat
says...
3:44pm Tue 29 May 12
speaks99 wrote:speaks99
roskoboskovic wrote: very short sighted to build a 6000 seater stadium.with a modicum of success we could be getting 4-5000 and with this present manager and squad talk of promotion within 3/4 seasons is not unrealistic.there is also the chance of an fa cup draw against a top side which could fill a 10-12000 ground easily.i know this may all be pie in the sky but surely a 10000 seater would make more sense.I don't think you can justify building a large stadium on the chance that once every few years you'll pull a big draw in the FA Cup. You've got to look at what you're average fan base is likely to be. 6000 would be fine were we still in the conference, but I would like to see an increase now we are in the football league, whether that be to 7000 or 8000 maximum.
I agree with you 8000 would be ideal, surely it would not cost a great deal more than 6000
JC42
says...
3:55pm Tue 29 May 12
TerryYork wrote:TerryYork i pay my Council tax to the City of York Council for your information . You Do one oh and for the record I live in York but dont support your silly little team .....
JC42 wrote:Sorry, but this conversation is for York people, who pay York council tax, not you, so do one.redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
JC42
says...
3:59pm Tue 29 May 12
1968expat wrote:no i was not , thats why i have got a life. I saw the pictures on look north and what did i see loads of glory supporters jumping on yout tiny bandwagon, I wonder were they have been hinding for the last 8 years ??????
JC42 wrote:Obviously then you were not in the thousands of people celebrating with the rest of York, ie not really interested in the City of York, York voted with their feet that day mate, get a life!!redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:09pm Tue 29 May 12
"City’s Bootham Crescent home, which would be sold, has been independently valued at £4.5 million on the open market, with a net value of about £3.5 million once demolition and other matters are taken into account. The figures are based on the site becoming housing "
Clearly the valuation was done by an agent/surveyor who has not read, or taken into account the land values that CoYC's AHVS is based on.
Mr Woolley said it was important to remember the business case stated the financial model was based on detailed “evidence-based assumptions” and provided “one potential scenario of how the stadium would operate.”
Shame that Mr Woolley conveniently forgot that CoYC's AHVS does not use evidence-based land values, and that these very much apply to the value of BC. But, hey, why let facts get in the way - it didn't stop the Council giving MX2 the go ahead even when the application went against the Core Strategy that has been left in tatters by the decision.
Exit Woolley at the end of the week..... ? !!!!
paintitred
says...
4:09pm Tue 29 May 12
Septimius Severus
says...
4:29pm Tue 29 May 12
The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts.
The report doesn't tell you the whole story.
I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.
TerryYork
says...
4:40pm Tue 29 May 12
JC42 wrote:Yet you clicked on this article and decided to give us the benefit of your "I have no loyalty to this city" comment. I assume you moved here from some crappy town and came here for the gift shops.
TerryYork wrote:TerryYork i pay my Council tax to the City of York Council for your information . You Do one oh and for the record I live in York but dont support your silly little team .....
JC42 wrote:Sorry, but this conversation is for York people, who pay York council tax, not you, so do one.redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
You're a walking, talking example of one of outsiders we are sick of here. I bet you cringed at the photos of all of York turning up for the victory parade.
Even AndyD
says...
4:43pm Tue 29 May 12
And why maintain the stadium is just about YCFC when time and again it has been demonstrated that that is not the case. Including representations made by NHS staff. Presumably they don't come under your 'commercially sensitive' jibe?
jimmy120883
says...
4:46pm Tue 29 May 12
Septimius Severus wrote:The £2m loan/grant has been spent on buying back Bc from Dougie Craig and his cronies but his company Bootham cresent holdings and perssimmon homes still own a % of Bc. So when the ground is sould they still get a share, Mcgills take back there loans and whats left is X.
Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:49pm Tue 29 May 12
Based on CoYC's AHVS, BC's value could be less than £1m, as things stand.
It's unbelievable that Bill Woolley ignores his own policies, by not acknowledging that the AHVS uses land values of £250,000/acre to justify 25% AH, and that this applies to BC. No wonder he is doing a runner at the end of the week ;-)
jgycfc
says...
5:01pm Tue 29 May 12
Or just here to wind people up, which (s)he's doing a good job at.
I still think the "Profits" are a bit minimal... Don't the M&S's or Waitrose's not pay in every year too? What about that announcement on the day of deciding for the stadium, which meant York Council would benefit to about £3m a year? Or was that associated with the selling of pasties at above ambient temperature, and so has since been scrapped?
speaks99
says...
5:30pm Tue 29 May 12
jgycfc wrote:I think this is referring to the business case for just the stadium, and has left out the benefits for the JL and M&S.
I suspect JC42 is from a horrible little town in Bedford? :D
Or just here to wind people up, which (s)he's doing a good job at.
I still think the "Profits" are a bit minimal... Don't the M&S's or Waitrose's not pay in every year too? What about that announcement on the day of deciding for the stadium, which meant York Council would benefit to about £3m a year? Or was that associated with the selling of pasties at above ambient temperature, and so has since been scrapped?
JL and M&S wont be paying anything into the stadium, but will pay rent to Oakgate and a proportion of rates to CoYC (I assume) - the £3m benefit, which is part of the shopping development. But I agree that it is right to mention that the council will benefit thanks to this decision.
monkeyhanger
says...
8:03pm Tue 29 May 12
llions on this and millions on that.None of it essential.Though we are told of the need to cut many valuable basic services and increase council tax.I curse these mountebanks and their political chicanery.
Tug job
says...
9:55pm Tue 29 May 12
JC42 wrote:No we got back into the Football League by outplaying Luton Town in the play off final as the Luton manager has acknowledged; the match officials gave two decisions in our favour, but gave four decisions aginst us; but, despite these four decisions going in Luton's favour we still managed to win; oh, and we outsang the 30,000 Luton fans, too.
redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
severon78
says...
7:33am Wed 30 May 12
TerryYork wrote:Glad to see TerryYork rolling out his traditional "if you don't agree with me, then......erm......y
JC42 wrote:Yet you clicked on this article and decided to give us the benefit of your "I have no loyalty to this city" comment. I assume you moved here from some crappy town and came here for the gift shops.
TerryYork wrote:TerryYork i pay my Council tax to the City of York Council for your information . You Do one oh and for the record I live in York but dont support your silly little team .....
JC42 wrote:Sorry, but this conversation is for York people, who pay York council tax, not you, so do one.redbluelion wrote: Still think this stadium should be 12000 if we have another successful season and go up a 6.000 stadium will be too small.. i also think last season success are going to put crowds up for the new season..dream on mate that is not going to happen now is it ??? Remind me again how you got back in to the football League again !!!!!! oh yes through the back door
You're a walking, talking example of one of outsiders we are sick of here. I bet you cringed at the photos of all of York turning up for the victory parade.
ou only moved here for the gift shops" argument. Beats reasoned debate any day.
meme
says...
9:38am Wed 30 May 12
I expect within 24 months everything is running at a deficit and we the York taxpayers will be making up the difference but our leaders such as Alexander will have moved on and Wooley will have retired leaving us all to pick up York City FC's financial rescue package
Septimius Severus
says...
10:15am Wed 30 May 12
meme wrote:Yep. Valuation rubbish.
and some flew over the cuckoos nest! This appraisal is a load of cobblers. Bootham Crescent is not worth the money stated and has been massaged to make the figures stack up
I expect within 24 months everything is running at a deficit and we the York taxpayers will be making up the difference but our leaders such as Alexander will have moved on and Wooley will have retired leaving us all to pick up York City FC's financial rescue package
Yep. A history of gambling the finances at YCFC by the 'board' doesn't bode well.
Yep. Alexander will be preparing to become an MP
Yep. Woolley will be long forgotten.
You missed Kersten England. She will also have gone.
That will teach the 'community' what happens when you vote Labour.
chunkyyorkie
says...
1:24pm Wed 30 May 12
Pleased to say they lose any credibility when resorting to behaviour that stoops lower than a snakes belly in a vain attempt to get over a point of view. Its comedy gold!!
"With great power comes great responsibility"
I can’t help wondering why so many comments on this site which are quite undoubtedly ‘slanderous, defamatory and libellous’ which are all mentioned in the Press T&C’s for their site…so why are the comments even displayed? If someone cannot keep a comment or make an argument without resorting to poor behaviour then they should be removed. So what are the Press playing at allowing lies etc to be displayed?
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:55pm Wed 30 May 12
meme wrote:Yes, and we have too many cuckoo's in CoYC's nest;
and some flew over the cuckoos nest! This appraisal is a load of cobblers. Bootham Crescent is not worth the money stated and has been massaged to make the figures stack up I expect within 24 months everything is running at a deficit and we the York taxpayers will be making up the difference but our leaders such as Alexander will have moved on and Wooley will have retired leaving us all to pick up York City FC's financial rescue package
Alexander, England, Woolley, Merrett and Simpson-Laing to name but a few.
All feathering their nests, and alll in cloud cuckoo land !!!
Mr Crabtree
says...
2:00pm Wed 30 May 12
Dr Brian
says...
2:22pm Wed 30 May 12
Also why do York City, who are actually putting money into the project, have to pay 5 times more rent than the Knights?
Tug job
says...
11:02pm Wed 30 May 12
Dr Brian wrote:Sport hasn't relied on finance from people who pay on the turnstile for a couple of decades, Dr Brian, when did you last go to a sportin event. Most money comes from broadcast rights and various forms of corporate sponsorship; just look at how the current goverment has betrayed the health and well-being of people to sell Olympic franchises to the highest bidders - in the world of mass corporate catering the big players in town are Cocal Cola and MacDonalds - despite the poor nutritional value of the comsetibles they offer.
Can anybody tell me - will revenue from the advertising boards around the perimeter of the pitch go to the stadium owners (The Council?) or be shared between all parties - the Council/ Football and rugby teams? Who will get the revenue from the bar and hospitality rooms? The FC?RL or the Council? Because I cannot see how York City and the Knights will raise money if they are going to just rely on who pays at the turnstyle? Also why do York City, who are actually putting money into the project, have to pay 5 times more rent than the Knights?
Tug job
says...
11:03pm Wed 30 May 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:Sir, I believe you to be Paul Cordock and I claim my £5!
To see where Kersten England's political allegiances lie, look at who she follows on her twitter page !
Mr Crabtree
says...
1:23am Thu 31 May 12
Tug job wrote:Like I told you on the other thread, I'm Mr Crabtree.
Mr Crabtree wrote: To see where Kersten England's political allegiances lie, look at who she follows on her twitter page !Sir, I believe you to be Paul Cordock and I claim my £5!
Now go and tell the councillor or officer who has put you up to this, that, unlike Citizen Chauvelin, you failed to discover my true identity.
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:03pm Thu 31 May 12
Tug job wrote:Who won the bet that I am not who you think I am ?
Mr Crabtree wrote: To see where Kersten England's political allegiances lie, look at who she follows on her twitter page !Sir, I believe you to be Paul Cordock and I claim my £5!
SpudYCFC
says...
12:14pm Fri 1 Jun 12
Septimius Severus wrote:if the mcgills didnt make £300k pa losses we won't have the team, the management, the youth team, the facilities, and two wembley trophies we have now.
Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.
we would be stuck playing the likes of histon. the Mcgills have saved this club and payed a lot of money to do that
Mr Crabtree
says...
12:46pm Fri 1 Jun 12
SpudYCFC wrote:Money that they loaned and will be repaid, and the losses used to offset against JMP's profits, thereby avoiding paying tax. It was a business deal, and more an act of egoism, than altruism. Hardly a gift or an act of charity ?
Septimius Severus wrote: Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.if the mcgills didnt make £300k pa losses we won't have the team, the management, the youth team, the facilities, and two wembley trophies we have now. we would be stuck playing the likes of histon. the Mcgills have saved this club and payed a lot of money to do that
SpudYCFC
says...
2:20pm Fri 1 Jun 12
Mr Crabtree wrote:if the money was gonna be loaned, how was it going to be repaid, over the years we've had to sell key players for high sales, be lucky enough to have long cup runs, ultimately leading to gambling on promotion. they didnt have to use their own profits to help the club, i see that as a gift, far better then what douglas craig might have done
SpudYCFC wrote:Money that they loaned and will be repaid, and the losses used to offset against JMP's profits, thereby avoiding paying tax. It was a business deal, and more an act of egoism, than altruism. Hardly a gift or an act of charity ?Septimius Severus wrote: Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.if the mcgills didnt make £300k pa losses we won't have the team, the management, the youth team, the facilities, and two wembley trophies we have now. we would be stuck playing the likes of histon. the Mcgills have saved this club and payed a lot of money to do that
SpudYCFC
says...
2:21pm Fri 1 Jun 12
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:02pm Fri 1 Jun 12
SpudYCFC wrote:They loan was in return for equity in the club and it's underwritten by a charge on the ground. They sell BC, to pay off their loan to the club, and still end up owning 75% costing them nothing. They have also saved loads of tax. It was a business deal/investment, not a charitable act. Nothing wrong with that, but, it doesn't qualify for a sainthood.
Mr Crabtree wrote:if the money was gonna be loaned, how was it going to be repaid, over the years we've had to sell key players for high sales, be lucky enough to have long cup runs, ultimately leading to gambling on promotion. they didnt have to use their own profits to help the club, i see that as a gift, far better then what douglas craig might have doneSpudYCFC wrote:Money that they loaned and will be repaid, and the losses used to offset against JMP's profits, thereby avoiding paying tax. It was a business deal, and more an act of egoism, than altruism. Hardly a gift or an act of charity ?Septimius Severus wrote: Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.if the mcgills didnt make £300k pa losses we won't have the team, the management, the youth team, the facilities, and two wembley trophies we have now. we would be stuck playing the likes of histon. the Mcgills have saved this club and payed a lot of money to do that
Mr Crabtree
says...
4:02pm Fri 1 Jun 12
SpudYCFC wrote:They loan was in return for equity in the club and it's underwritten by a charge on the ground. They sell BC, to pay off their loan to the club, and still end up owning 75% costing them nothing. They have also saved loads of tax. It was a business deal/investment, not a charitable act. Nothing wrong with that, but, it doesn't qualify for a sainthood.
Mr Crabtree wrote:if the money was gonna be loaned, how was it going to be repaid, over the years we've had to sell key players for high sales, be lucky enough to have long cup runs, ultimately leading to gambling on promotion. they didnt have to use their own profits to help the club, i see that as a gift, far better then what douglas craig might have doneSpudYCFC wrote:Money that they loaned and will be repaid, and the losses used to offset against JMP's profits, thereby avoiding paying tax. It was a business deal, and more an act of egoism, than altruism. Hardly a gift or an act of charity ?Septimius Severus wrote: Crabtree is right. Land is overvalued hence the reason that after the charges on the property have been dispersed (£2.7m not mentioned by the press) there will probably only be £350,000 left. The £800,000 mentioned above is a 'possibility' unlikely to be met. Coincidently this £350,000 is the same figure that YCFC have guaranteed of the £2m loan/grant from FSIF. The £1.65M that remains of the FSIF money could have been added to the capital available to make the stadium £1.65m better but the McGills are instead allowing the shortfall to be paid off in gate receipts. The report doesn't tell you the whole story. I expect this comment to be deleted as the commercially sensitive McGills have led the club to debts c£4M and have lost £300k pa in last few years. But luckily their gambling with promotion came off and the coffers will be full so how about they stump up the shortfall and if it is to be built build the best that can be afforded.if the mcgills didnt make £300k pa losses we won't have the team, the management, the youth team, the facilities, and two wembley trophies we have now. we would be stuck playing the likes of histon. the Mcgills have saved this club and payed a lot of money to do that
Septimius Severus
says...
4:43pm Fri 1 Jun 12
They gambled like lots of club owners. But unlike many club owners they didn't use their own money.
They've been gambling at no cost to their pocket for 5 years.
They were lucky and it worked out in the end. The club could be solvent for a year or two thanks to promotion.
Except in the mean time - while they were building equity they weren't refurbishing the ground.
The £1.5M they loaned the club against it's asset could have been spent improving facilities.
But they used the cash to buy up control and then controlled the cash.
They realised at the end of the day the ground soon isn't going to be worth what they loaned - so made up a woe is me bs story to frighten the supporters and blame the council if they had to go semi pro.
They are clever and manipulative. Supporters were fooled. The council was fooled.
The supporters trust had no say...
Torycouncil2015 says...
12:10pm Tue 29 May 12