[Wheels]

Re: Stadium Developments : Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:43 pm  

littlerich wrote:

I hope you don't experience "The Thrum Hall" factor. Hundreds of little terraced houses surrounding the ground supplying walk-up fans, then too lazy to get themselves to The Shay after the move. The first two years will be critical. Salford need to make sure that the usual regular fans catch the bug and continue to follow their club in this "out of town" stadium. (ie, anything not on their doorstep is out of town to some fickle fans).

That happened at York too, just 20 years ago Huntington was considered way out of town and they lost a shedload of fans.

Fast forward to now and Huntington is very much a part of the City, and the football club will do anything to get there ASAP, even kill off the rugby club if needs be...

It's a funny old game, this stadium building lark.

Re: Stadium Developments : Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:57 pm  

Badwanger wrote:

Errr, no!

Saints own the Stadium, it is theirs and their alone, however, what they do have is LOAN secured on the property. If they default on the LOAN, then, and ONLY then, can the Bank/BS seek to get their money back. The same applies to you, me and anyone else who may have a loan secured on property be that a house, car or ancient artifact!

As has been pointed out - that's why it's called RE-possession.

You're both half right. The Title Deeds at the Land Registry (which is what matters) will say who the owner is and it will also say which lenders have a charge on the property & how much it is for.

The owner of the property can't do much with it without ensuring that they have the lender's permission and if they don't get permission when needed it's likely to be an "event of default" as would not making the necessary repayments.

If you want to be pedantic, then repossession is probably the wrong word for the whole process as it implies that the lender had possession of the property in the first place! It's really the owner forfeiting their rights to the property in favour of the lender.

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Developments : Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:00 pm  

RDM wrote:

You're both half right. The Title Deeds at the Land Registry (which is what matters) will say who the owner is and it will also say which lenders have a charge on the property & how much it is for.

The owner of the property can't do much with it without ensuring that they have the lender's permission and if they don't get permission when needed it's likely to be an "event of default" as would not making the necessary repayments.

If you want to be pedantic, then repossession is probably the wrong word for the whole process as it implies that the lender had possession of the property in the first place! It's really the owner forfeiting their rights to the property in favour of the lender.

Again, i'll say this, in Saints case is the charge on the property? or is it a loan to the company?

Re: Stadium Developments : Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:30 pm  

Sadfish wrote:

Again, i'll say this, in Saints case is the charge on the property? or is it a loan to the company?

I can't be bothered to go through all 50-odd pages to see who's said what & when, but if Saints own the property (rather than a community trust or the council or A N Other) then it's probably the case that they've borrowed money from a bank to make sure the overall cost of the property fits better with their business cash flow.

If that's the case then the bank lending them the money will have registered a charge on the property. Basically, this prevents the owner (i.e. Saints) selling the ground to a third party or securing a new loan against it with another lender without the first charge being satisfied (i.e. repaid).

If, for whatever reason, Saints don't make the repayments as required in the loan agreement then the bank could ultimately repossess the ground. Given that the bank wouldn't really want to go to the additional expense of sorting the planning permission out for an alternative use, they'd still need a suitable tenant for the stadium. Unless Saints financial position had deteriorated so far that they've been liquidated, then I think you'd find Saints would be the preferred tenant.

Re: Stadium Developments : Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:19 pm  

RDM wrote:

I can't be bothered to go through all 50-odd pages to see who's said what & when, but if Saints own the property (rather than a community trust or the council or A N Other) then it's probably the case that they've borrowed money from a bank to make sure the overall cost of the property fits better with their business cash flow.

Saints funded the stadium by the sale of Knowsley Road and directors loans. The club do not have any bank loans at all, that was made quite clear by the Chairman in his recent statement. The club has taken out a private loan with a friend of the Chairman to the tune of £3 million along with converting directors loans into shares. But there is no bank debt whatsoever.

There is no trust. The Council did not put any money towards the stadium (only the infrastructure on the site and the total cost of the bridge). Nobody is in partnership with Saints in the purchase of the stadium.

Re: Stadium Developments : Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:04 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Saints funded the stadium by the sale of Knowsley Road and directors loans. The club do not have any bank loans at all, that was made quite clear by the Chairman in his recent statement. The club has taken out a private loan with a friend of the Chairman to the tune of £3 million along with converting directors loans into shares. But there is no bank debt whatsoever.

There is no trust. The Council did not put any money towards the stadium (only the infrastructure on the site and the total cost of the bridge). Nobody is in partnership with Saints in the purchase of the stadium.

Sounds like a very reasonable deal to me.

Re: Stadium Developments : Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:54 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Saints funded the stadium by the sale of Knowsley Road and directors loans. The club do not have any bank loans at all, that was made quite clear by the Chairman in his recent statement. The club has taken out a private loan with a friend of the Chairman to the tune of £3 million along with converting directors loans into shares. But there is no bank debt whatsoever.

There is no trust. The Council did not put any money towards the stadium (only the infrastructure on the site and the total cost of the bridge). Nobody is in partnership with Saints in the purchase of the stadium.

So the Directors and the friend of the Chairman will have a charge against the ground in much the same way as a bank would in RDMs explanation.

The only difference being the Directors and said friend might be a bit more sympathetic to Saints in any given adverse situation.

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Developments : Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:46 am  

Sesquipedalian wrote:

So the Directors and the friend of the Chairman will have a charge against the ground in much the same way as a bank would in RDMs explanation.

The only difference being the Directors and said friend might be a bit more sympathetic to Saints in any given adverse situation.

speculation again though, no one knows if the deal is with the company or a charge on the ground and Mike Coleman who has loaned the club is already a director.

Re: Stadium Developments : Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:26 am  

Iain wrote:

I've now had a couple of visits to Salford's ground. First impressions are that it's a world away from the Willows in terms of quality, but doesn't yet feel like home. The West Stand is magnificent, and the conferencing/banqueting facilities are up there with anything I've seen at Old Trafford or Etihad Stadiums - this will no doubt help the club in terms of the corporate income. The downside is that the remaining three stands are pretty bog standard, and not particularly high for viewing. It will take a bit of time to get used to travel arrangements and locations for pre/post match drinks, but the facility should help the club kick on IF they manage the process effectively.

STAGGERING... "Does not feel like home"... Give it a bloody chance!!!!

Re: Stadium Developments : Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:04 am  

As far as Saints are concered ' technically ' who owns what or who is owed what is irrelivant , there is only 1 local club that would need a stadium in St Helens, the issue is that Saints are running the stadium and will have control of income, as Salford are discovering with the car parking issue, council management isnt ideal