Grounds for Concern

[Rev]

6 minutes ago, tinman said:

The whole article is Based on Keiran maguires moaning again. He’s very anti Derby. 

I've always found his stuff pretty even handed and useful.

[tinman]

7 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I've always found his stuff pretty even handed and useful.

He used to be but recently he’s become all a bit holier than thou

[Rev]

10 minutes ago, tinman said:

He used to be but recently he’s become all a bit holier than thou

He does seem to have become the go to footie finance expert for the media, maybe that has something to do with it?

 

[Redlandram]

I am truly sorry for the poor quality of my IT skills which gave you all neck ache, but hope nonetheless the article was of interest and clearly more easily legible for our Antipodean brethren.  I think we can characterise it as an Apple/Microsoft interface issue - my pictures always come out upside down.  I am indebted to RAM for the legible right way up version and Land Registry extract.  I think the crux of the issue is that Mel must have had a valuation undertaken by a reputable firm of Chartered Surveyors with a big professional indemnity insurance policy.  Somebody will have franked this so hopefully Mel will be able to say he was just following advice .....as vendor and purchaser.  It does still look like a pretty big number.

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Such a bizarre article.

It is comparing Pride Park, an active football ground that gets 25,000 fans, generating income every game, to an empty bit of land in London, how can that compare?

The valuation wouldn't just be based on the stadium, it would also include the planning permission for the potential fan zone, plus any plans Mel has drawn up to turn the stadium into a performance venue.

 

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Such a bizarre article.

It is comparing Pride Park, an active football ground that gets 25,000 fans, generating income every game, to an empty bit of land in London, how can that compare?

The valuation wouldn't just be based on the stadium, it would also include the planning permission for the potential fan zone, plus any plans Mel has drawn up to turn the stadium into a performance venue.

Bizarre? Its trash.

An argument they put forward is a football ground would be worty more if it's on a retail park.

I mean what is the logic behind that? Do people often go out shopping and then while there think 'I know I will go and watch a football match' or 'might just nip in and get a season ticket while I'm doing my grocery shop'.

The article states by saying Wembley was valued at £600m but it should have been closer to £1bn, so I would love to hear their logic behind that when arguing that Pride Park is overvalued at £80m.

[Mihangel]

1 hour ago, tinman said:

The whole article is Based on Keiran maguires moaning again. He’s very anti Derby. 

He's quite funny really, he has zero insight, just offers opinions on publicly available figures based on guesswork. And then draws a graph. He knows no more than you or I but will often imply that he does....

[Redlandram]

The point is that IF football ceased to be played at Pride Park (not in the Rowett way that football ceased being played at pride Park) then what would be the most likely alternative use with a market value and that would be as a retail park or similar so that is what the valuer has to fall back on.  Housing could be possible or an industrial estate but they would probably command no more than say £1 million per acre.  My guess is that Pride Park stadium would stand on 10 acres.  For accounts a football stadium would be valued differently because it has no open market value so might be valued on depreciated replacement cost - which would provide a higher result but it is not what the open market would pay.   Hopefully my logic would baffle Mr Gibson etc.

[RamNut]

48 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Bizarre? Its trash.

An argument they put forward is a football ground would be worty more if it's on a retail park.

I mean what is the logic behind that? Do people often go out shopping and then while there think 'I know I will go and watch a football match' or 'might just nip in and get a season ticket while I'm doing my grocery shop'.

The article states by saying Wembley was valued at £600m but it should have been closer to £1bn, so I would love to hear their logic behind that when arguing that Pride Park is overvalued at £80m.

Oops. gave you a like instead of a quote

I think it’s Simply that Commercial land is worth more per acre than industrial land

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Oops. gave you a like instead of a quote

I think it’s Simply that Commercial land is worth more per acre than industrial land

Maybe true, but given Pride Park is directly opposite Commercial land in the form of DW Sports, Frankie and Benny's, Subway on one side, and car dealerships on the other, it's misleading to say it's in the middle of an industrial estate.

[G STAR RAM]

41 minutes ago, Redlandram said:

The point is that IF football ceased to be played at Pride Park (not in the Rowett way that football ceased being played at pride Park) then what would be the most likely alternative use with a market value and that would be as a retail park or similar so that is what the valuer has to fall back on.  Housing could be possible or an industrial estate but they would probably command no more than say £1 million per acre.  My guess is that Pride Park stadium would stand on 10 acres.  For accounts a football stadium would be valued differently because it has no open market value so might be valued on depreciated replacement cost - which would provide a higher result but it is not what the open market would pay.   Hopefully my logic would baffle Mr Gibson etc.

Surely it has been valued on an existing use basis, with regard to planning potential?

If it were based on football no longer being played there it would have very little value as the ground would have to be dismantled and the land made good for something else.

Based on that why are they suggesting Wembley is worth £1bn?

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Oops. gave you a like instead of a quote

I think it’s Simply that Commercial land is worth more per acre than industrial land

In this instance surely the ground is more valuable than the land that it stands on?

[Stagtime]

9 hours ago, Mick Brolly said:

Are you in Australia?

Nah, can't read it here either.

[Redlandram]

I think the whole article was saying it is hard to value them but ours looks high compared to Hillsbrorough, Villa Park and Reading.   

[Brammie Steve]

From what I've always been led to believe the land under an 8ft by 6ft shed inside the M25 London area is valued at more than my bungalow in inner Birmingham.

I fail to see how the area of a football pitch on an East Midlands retail Park has a comparable value to the lawn where Her Majesty holds her garden parties.

Whatever some of these 'valuers' are taking must be more powerful than magic mushrooms IMHO.

[Rev]

32 minutes ago, Brummie Steve said:

From what I've always been led to believe the land under an 8ft by 6ft shed inside the M25 London area is valued at more than my bungalow in inner Birmingham.

I fail to see how the area of a football pitch on an East Midlands retail Park has a comparable value to the lawn where Her Majesty holds her garden parties.

Whatever some of these 'valuers' are taking must be more powerful than magic mushrooms IMHO.

Nail on the head, maybe inadvertently.

Mel puts a roof on, use's the existing hydroponics to full effect, hey presto an industrial scale cannabis operation which achieves the valuation needed.

[i-Ram]

24 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Nail on the head, maybe inadvertently.

Mel puts a roof on, use's the existing hydroponics to full effect, hey presto an industrial scale cannabis operation which achieves the valuation needed.

Given the amount of poo that has been on that pitch over the years, there should be no need for a roof and lights to grow good grass.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Redlandram said:

I think the whole article was saying it is hard to value them but ours looks high compared to Hillsbrorough, Villa Park and Reading.   

Which is a valid point to make if all of the comparables are known.

Having been to Villa Park and Hillsborough I know that both are old, outdated in need of repair and have no potential for expansion, they are therefore more of a liability than an asset.

Reading is obviously a different case but we have no idea what basis that was valued on, nor the reasons behind the transaction.

[BathRam72]

11 hours ago, Redlandram said:

I am truly sorry for the poor quality of my IT skills which gave you all neck ache, but hope nonetheless the article was of interest and clearly more easily legible for our Antipodean brethren.  I think we can characterise it as an Apple/Microsoft interface issue - my pictures always come out upside down.  I am indebted to RAM for the legible right way up version and Land Registry extract.  I think the crux of the issue is that Mel must have had a valuation undertaken by a reputable firm of Chartered Surveyors with a big professional indemnity insurance policy.  Somebody will have franked this so hopefully Mel will be able to say he was just following advice .....as vendor and purchaser.  It does still look like a pretty big number.

 

Apology accepted.

Try this tip - take your photo upside down and when you post it, it will come out the right way up!!!!!!!

Glad to be of help ?

[BathRam72]

16 hours ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

To quote the great Brian Clough, if god wanted us to play football in the clouds he'd have put grass up there. BC was right, he just did.

Never get the two mixed up, because lets face it, God would never have been able to achieve what Brian Clough did.