Selling Villa Park?

[sidcow]

10 hours ago, PieFacE said:

I really do not see an issue with this. Maybe i'm just naive tho.

 

Yes, you are incredibly naive if you don't see any issue with this. 

[sidcow]

58 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

But why would they do that? Anyone who would want to buy the club would want the stadium too? It would be part of the negotiation process. I can't imagine anyone buying villa but not the stadium, that makes no sense to me at all. 

Hello, I am a Xia like chancer who can just about scrape enough together to buy Aston Villa.

I can't afford to buy the stadium but fortunately I don't need to because we only lease it off someone else anyway. 

12 months later.  Sorry stadium owner, my money has run out after signing a ton of players on huge contracts and we've got relegated and lost Premier League money so I can't afford to pay the rent anymore.

Don't worry though as I understand this is a very prime site for a Lidl so you can flog half of it it to them instead and build a few houses on the rest. You'll probably make a tidy profit to boot. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

Sounds to me it’s just ways around FFP and to be able to back the manager to get us automatic promotion next season if we don’t win a week on Monday. 

Im not too concerned yet.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[terrytini]

16 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I thought it was an Asset of Community Value, meaning if it's ever up for sale, they have to alert AVST and there's something like a 6 month moratorium, in which time fans could put in a bid? Obviously that's very unlikely to actually come to fruitition, but it means we'd at least know well in advance if they planned to sell it.

That is true, although if course they are under no obligation to accept the bid.

However.....A transfer between a group of Companies does not require Notice Of Sale to be given. So being an ACV is unlikely to be relevant.

Personally I’ve no problem with it. Who currently owns the ground ? A limited company in which they are the shareholders.Who will own the ground if they do this ? A limited company in which they are the shareholders.

[MikeMcKenna]

Sorry I didn’t post the details folks I was away and couldn’t quite remember how to do it!  

I am innately against this, but if we do not get promotion, I fear it will be at least a 12 point deduction. The squad will be decimated and we could easily end up in Div 1. in 2020/21

Doesnt matter how much dosh the owners have. Without some ‘legal’ creative accounting.... we would be b*ggered. 

The 27th May will be a critical day in the history of ‘our’ club in more ways than one. 

[terrytini]

31 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Hello, I am a Xia like chancer who can just about scrape enough together to buy Aston Villa.

I can't afford to buy the stadium but fortunately I don't need to because we only lease it off someone else anyway. 

12 months later.  Sorry stadium owner, my money has run out after signing a ton of players on huge contracts and we've got relegated and lost Premier League money so I can't afford to pay the rent anymore.

Don't worry though as I understand this is a very prime site for a Lidl so you can flog half of it it to them instead and build a few houses on the rest. You'll probably make a tidy profit to boot. 

The current owners would be the shareholders in the Company who own the ground who you say could sell to Lidl. 

The current owners are currently the shareholders in the Company who own the ground and could sell to Lidl.

What do you see as the difference ?

[sidcow]

27 minutes ago, terrytini said:

The current owners would be the shareholders in the Company who own the ground who you say could sell to Lidl. 

The current owners are currently the shareholders in the Company who own the ground and could sell to Lidl.

What do you see as the difference ?

I don't understand what's not to see.

The current owners could sell to Lidl yes, but they still own the club who play in the stadium and are getting their rent. 

If the club is sold to someone else and struggles they will no longer be getting their rent so they will look how to profit on their investment in other ways. 

I could draw a parellel with my own company who bought out another company from an owner who also owned their offices separately.  He signed them up to a long term lease just before the sale with a nice fat rent which we were committed to for years. 

The ownership of the company and their premises were separated and if we defaulted on our rent he would be free to do what he wanted with the offices. 

For all those who say why would they do that or it makes no sense, it's happened before as illustrated on page 2 of this thread with Crystal Palace.  People are always buying companies and renting their premises from someone else, most business people would see this as normal practice. 

Anyone who thinks Villa Park is worthless other than as a football stadium show me one of the many many old grounds recently closed with the Club moving to a new ground which is just left as a rotting relic. There is always money in large city plots. 

Coventry show that having no ownership of your own ground is a recipe for disaster. 

 

[brommy]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

But why would they do that? Anyone who would want to buy the club would want the stadium too? It would be part of the negotiation process. I can't imagine anyone buying villa but not the stadium, that makes no sense to me at all. 

To add to @blandy and @sidcow replies, my thoughts/fears from best to worst are:

1. It’s just BS paper talk and this thread is wasting our time.

2. The ‘sale’ of the ground is conditional in that it legally has to be purchased by any new club owner.

3. If 2 isn’t legally possible, the current owners have absolutely no intention of selling the club and leasing the stadium, even if that means they struggle to get a club buyer.

4. Any new owner comfortably buys both club and stadium.

5. The new owner can afford the stadium but the previous owner wants to lease the stadium as regular source of income but also doesn’t  exponentially increase the rent in the event of club success..

6. As 5 but the new owner can’t initially afford to buy the stadium.

7. As 5 but the rent is increased on success of the club, stunting growth somewhat.

8. As 6 plus the rent is increased on success of the club, stunting growth considerably because the club owner is near skint.

9. The stadium rent remains high despite the club struggling on the pitch - the club owner can afford it but it impacts on improving the squad to turn things around.

10. The stadium rent remains high despite the club struggling on the pitch - the club owners are a chancer like Xia or a consortium who just about got the cash together to buy the club and can no longer afford to pay the stadium rent. Club administraton follows and the ground is sold for development.

1 to 4 are very little to worry about, 5 to 7 aren’t good. 8 and 9 are very poor and 10 is a disaster.

 

 

[terrytini]

8 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I don't understand what's not to see.

The current owners could sell to Lidl yes, but they still own the club who play in the stadium and are getting their rent. 

If the club is sold to someone else and struggles they will no longer be getting their rent so they will look how to profit on their investment in other ways. 

I could draw a parellel with my own company who bought out another company from an owner who also owned their offices separately.  He signed them up to a long term lease just before the sale with a nice fat rent which we were committed to for years. 

The ownership of the company and their premises were separated and if we defaulted on our rent he would be free to do what he wanted with the offices. 

For all those who say why would they do that or it makes no sense, it's happened before as illustrated on page 2 of this thread with Crystal Palace.  People are always buying companies and renting their premises from someone else, most business people would see this as normal practice. 

Anyone who thinks Villa Park is worthless other than as a football stadium show me one of the many many old grounds recently closed with the Club moving to a new ground which is just left as a rotting relic. There is always money in large city plots. 

Coventry show that having no ownership of your own ground is a recipe for disaster. 

 

I’m sorry I don’t follow you.

” No ownership of your own ground “......

Im pretty sure our ground is currently owned by Aston Villa Limited. Although it may be AVFC Limited, ( or of course by any of the other 8 or 9 Companies of which Edens And Sawaris are the shareholders).

I don’t know for sure which one it is. Do you ? ( genuine question).

As we know, when they took control, ES declared that in their view the ultimate parent Company changed from being Recon Investment Co Ltd, to NSWE SCS in Luxembourg.

Each of the Companies mentioned above are ‘owned’ by ES.

So is NSWE Ltd, and this shares the parent Company of NSWE SCS.

So, I repeat, what is it that you would find troubling about NSWE Ltd owning the ground rather than AVFC Ltd, or any of the other Companies ?

As things stand they could do whatever they like. In the future they could do whatever they like. 

Im not being funny, but I don’t see an issue.

Who are you saying will not own their own ground ?

[terrytini]

At the moment all the arguments I see for this being a problem relate to them selling to someone else.

If they sell to someone else in the future then of course - whatever form it takes - that could cause problems, or not.

The current owners could sell the Club ‘tomorrow’ and have it concreted over and turned into a Car Park.

Our “Club” is already composed of 9 or 10 different Limited companies, and subject to holding/ parenting by others.

The current owners AVFC Ltd , controlling shareholders ES, selling to AVFB Ltd, BVFC ltd, XYZ Ltd, controlling shareholders ES, changes nothing.

If, IF, it were the case as it was years ago, that there was one “ Aston Villa” which owned everything, and a part was sold to a totally different person ( which is a little more like the Derby case) then I’d understand concerns.

But for me, the concerns being spoken of here are a ship which has long since sailed.

Happy to hear why I’m wrong ( if it’s polite lol !)

[terrytini]

33 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I don't understand what's not to see.

The current owners could sell to Lidl yes, but they still own the club who play in the stadium and are getting their rent. 

If the club is sold to someone else and struggles they will no longer be getting their rent so they will look how to profit on their investment in other ways. 

I could draw a parellel with my own company who bought out another company from an owner who also owned their offices separately.  He signed them up to a long term lease just before the sale with a nice fat rent which we were committed to for years. 

The ownership of the company and their premises were separated and if we defaulted on our rent he would be free to do what he wanted with the offices. 

For all those who say why would they do that or it makes no sense, it's happened before as illustrated on page 2 of this thread with Crystal Palace.  People are always buying companies and renting their premises from someone else, most business people would see this as normal practice. 

Anyone who thinks Villa Park is worthless other than as a football stadium show me one of the many many old grounds recently closed with the Club moving to a new ground which is just left as a rotting relic. There is always money in large city plots. 

Coventry show that having no ownership of your own ground is a recipe for disaster. 

 

So you bought a Company who had an existing commitment to another Company which you have to honour.  Ok. 

The ownership of the Company and their premises were separated. Ok. That’s usually the case yes ? It’s rare for Companies to own their own premises, especially offices.

If you default on rent, the landlord can take action, again, yes, that’s standard yes ?

Surely all that means is that if, in the future, someone wants to buy the club, they should make sure they know what they are buying, as they would ideally own the ground, to prevent being in the situation you are in ?

But ES aren’t doing that ......the correct parallel would be that the guy you bought the office off originally had one company, then created another one which bought the physical offices off the original company. He’d still be there, everything would appear the same, but the business,  and the premises, would be different people. Nothing bad would’ve happened at all. Then, when he comes to sell, he either offers them both together, or sells one, or whatever he likes.

What would be the jeopardy?

 

[limpid]

15 hours ago, lp_villa830 said:

Well in that case why do we bother debating about potential signings, matches, sponsors, contracts, kits etc.

We have no input into any of them either.

But we are definitely going to make signings, play matches, have sponsors, sign contracts and wear kits.

We have no idea whether we are going to sell Villa Park. Currently it's just off-season bollocks in a Murdoch rag.

[OutByEaster?]

I think one of the important things to notice is that this is another instance that exposes just how ridiculous the rules that clubs are (not) trying to adhere to are.

We're talking about arcane financial instruments that involve selling something essentially to yourself for the benefit of a balance sheet and we're unable to decide whether that's a good or bad thing for the future whilst ignoring that it's a great big lie designed to allow us to meet the requirements of a rule that knows it's a great big lie and that no one actually intends to meet the requirements of anyway.

EFL Championship clubs are allowed to lose an average of £13m a year over a three year period. Last season after all of the accounts (except Sheffield Wednesday's) were released, the average loss of each team in the Championship was £23.3m - that's the average, not the losses of the teams at the top, that's the average across everyone in the division. Last year, the three promoted teams lost over £110m between them in a single season, almost triple the allowed losses - those teams were successful.

The chances are that over the next three accounted seasons, we'll be lucky if more than two or three teams in the Championship pass these FFP rules and in the meantime, they're selling their own assets to themselves in an attempt to remain competitive. It's a shambles.

The rules are supposed to protect teams, to prevent them Boltoning - they don't do that because turnover isn't a great method of determining overall financial health.

If the rules are supposed to ensure the ongoing financial health and security of teams, if they're designed to force upon them the long term security of existence - then those rules forcing them into a position where they need to break up their own assets in order to compete is a laughable irony.

I don't want us to sell our ground to ourselves, I'd like our future to be simple rather than complicated - if we have to do it because being more complicated and having a future that's less secure is the only way to meet the requirements of a rule designed to ensure a secure future then so be it - but I'd prefer we spent our money getting rid of the worst set of football regulations I can remember.

 

 

 

[brommy]

11 minutes ago, terrytini said:

At the moment all the arguments I see for this being a problem relate to them selling to someone else.

If they sell to someone else in the future then of course - whatever form it takes - that could cause problems, or not.

The current owners could sell the Club ‘tomorrow’ and have it concreted over and turned into a Car Park.

On your 1st line - correct. How the club currently structures itself and whether the owners rent the stadium back to themselves matters very little.

On your 2nd line - note that ‘if’ should be ‘when’. The current owners will sell at some point. The issue arises if they decide to keep the stadium for lease income and the potential conflict of interest that could arise (see 7 to 10 on my previous post).

On your 3rd line - I have recommended it as a brilliant idea to the b-lose owners, they would make a fortune on match days.

[terrytini]

30 minutes ago, brommy said:

On your 1st line - correct. How the club currently structures itself and whether the owners rent the stadium back to themselves matters very little.

On your 2nd line - note that ‘if’ should be ‘when’. The current owners will sell at some point. The issue arises if they decide to keep the stadium for lease income and the potential conflict of interest that could arise (see 7 to 10 on my previous post).

On your 3rd line - I have recommended it as a brilliant idea to the b-lose owners, they would make a fortune on match days.

Yep, agree with all that....

[PieFacE]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

Hello, I am a Xia like chancer who can just about scrape enough together to buy Aston Villa.

I can't afford to buy the stadium but fortunately I don't need to because we only lease it off someone else anyway. 

12 months later.  Sorry stadium owner, my money has run out after signing a ton of players on huge contracts and we've got relegated and lost Premier League money so I can't afford to pay the rent anymore.

Don't worry though as I understand this is a very prime site for a Lidl so you can flog half of it it to them instead and build a few houses on the rest. You'll probably make a tidy profit to boot. 

You're making an assumption that our owners would facilitate a sale of the club that doesn't also include the purchasing of the stadium. I guess I'm making an assumption that they wouldn't.

Surely if someone owned Aston Villa with huge financial issues, they could move the ground to a different company (like NSWE are rumoured to be doing) and sell it to Lidl anyway? 

Unless I'm wrong here (which I'm happy to be)

Edited May 18, 2019 by PieFacE

[PieFacE]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Hello, my name is P. Developer. I have a plan,  I want to build a multi purpose sports/casino/music venue by the NEC. so I need a sports franchise to make it work, financially - I’m taking a big gamble with my finances with this venue. So anyway I want to buy the AV franchise and play it’s games at my sports dome. Personally I don’t follow football, but I heard Villa is a historied franchise.

what could possibly go wrong?

But again, surely the issue with this scenario is that we've got a shit owner, rather than the ground has been sold to a different company? What am I missing? 

Surely if the ground was still an asset of Aston Villa a shit owner could do the exact same thing and use the ground for entertainment purposes and have football as a secondary concern.

Edited May 18, 2019 by PieFacE

[blandy]

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

But again, surely the issue with this scenario is that we've got a shit owner, rather than the ground has been sold to a different company? What am I missing? 

Surely if the ground was still an asset of Aston Villa a shit owner could do the exact same thing and use the ground for entertainment purposes and have football as a secondary concern.

What I’m trying to demonstrate is that if Wes and Nas split the ground from the club, and then decide they’ve lost interest in villa, the club could be bought by someone with mad plans for his new NEC  mega bowl (say) so he doesn’t want to buy the ground, only the club. Wes and Nas sell him the club, he has us playing at his new dome, it goes wrong, it’s not viable and there’s a broke club that doesn’t even own its own stadium. There are sadly many examples of clubs selling or not owning their grounds and then being in deep poo. Coventry, Brighton and others. As an idea it’s got huge drawbacks. It’s not guaranteed to go wrong, but it’s a risk. Not right now, not with good owners of good intent, but unfortunately these things can change over time. It’s far from risk free, i was trying to demonstrate one scenario to illustrate that.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

What I’m trying to demonstrate is that if Wes and Nas split the ground from the club, and then decide they’ve lost interest in villa, the club could be bought by someone with mad plans for his new NEC  mega bowl (say) so he doesn’t want to buy the ground, only the club. Wes and Nas sell him the club, he has us playing at his new dome, it goes wrong, it’s not viable and there’s a broke club that doesn’t even own its own stadium. There are sadly many examples of clubs selling or not owning their grounds and then being in deep poo. Coventry, Brighton and others. As an idea it’s got huge drawbacks. It’s not guaranteed to go wrong, but it’s a risk. Not right now, not with good owners of good intent, but unfortunately these things can change over time. It’s far from risk free, i was trying to demonstrate one scenario to illustrate that.

That's all true, and will remain so - but I'm not sure a sale today really affects it.

If the owners decide today to separate the ground from the club, then it opens us up to them profiteering on the ground when they sell - but if they don't sell the ground to themselves today, then they can still make that decision on the day they sell. The thing here is that they're not really selling the ground to anyone else - nothing changes in terms of the likelihood of the above if they do it today or on the day they sell. They can do the bad thing whenever they like - the only reason for doing it now is FFP.

It's like having a plate of steak and chips and some broccoli. You can have the broccoli served to you on a separate plate if you like, but ultimately it's still up to you whether or not you eat it - it's still your broccoli. 

 

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

That's all true, and will remain so - but I'm not sure a sale today really affects it.

If the owners decide today to separate the ground from the club, then it opens us up to them profiteering on the ground when they sell - but if they don't sell the ground to themselves today, then they can still make that decision on the day they sell. The thing here is that they're not really selling the ground to anyone else - nothing changes in terms of the likelihood of the above if they do it today or on the day they sell. They can do the bad thing whenever they like - the only reason for doing it now is FFP.

It's like having a plate of steak and chips and some broccoli. You can have the broccoli served to you on a separate plate if you like, but ultimately it's still up to you whether or not you eat it - it's still your broccoli. 

Yes, all of that is true. The issue isn’t the accounting ruse, or the behaviour of the current owners. The issue for me is the possibility, or risk, of future ownership behaviour. An accounting ruse to get round having broken FFP rules is one thing, I’m really talking about separating the assets of the club from the club. That then almost invites trouble down the line. If our owners transfer the ownership between their various companies and later, following rule changes, or promotion, or increased revenues buy it back, re-transfer it back to being part of the football club business then fine. Were being, apparently, forced to do that because of our (allleged) breaking of sustainability rules. Derby did it, others have or will, now it’s the latest get out of FFP rule breaking jail ruse. It’s almost nailed on that one or more clubs will suffer unforeseen consequences for doing it. It’ll destroy at least one club, I’d wager.