Jump to content

Tribunal Update


Shipley Ram

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

The £40m or the £80m?
And how was the ‘other’ figure determined?

The £80m. 

The £40m (ish) was the value per the accounts.

In 2013 the ground was revalued revalued to £52m (from memory) and had been depreciated over the years down to circa £40m.

When you consider all of the ground improvements since 2013 plus the planning permission re the extension and roof, I dont think £80m sounds massively unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Carnero said:

Or Forest, again, should they happen to decide to "sell" any unwanted players to their owner's Greek club for potentially inflated fees.

But they are not breaking any rules by having an owner of a club in another country,any transaction between the clubs is nothing to do with the EFL,as much as some people wish it was

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The £80m. 

The £40m (ish) was the value per the accounts.

In 2013 the ground was revalued revalued to £52m (from memory) and had been depreciated over the years down to circa £40m.

When you consider all of the ground improvements since 2013 plus the planning permission re the extension and roof, I dont think £80m sounds massively unrealistic.

It will all come out very rosy then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It will all come out very rosy then. 

As has been repeated many times, the EFL only question the value set by the independent valuers. 
If it was worth £52m in 2013, based purely on inflation, that was equivalent to £60-65m when the sale went through. This is roughly in line with the value the EFL’s valuers put on the stadium. 
However, a lot has changed since 2013. The value of the land would probably have increased due to development in the surrounding area (such as the velodrome). Developments to the stadium itself (concourse heating), would increase the value, so too would increase advertising and the restaurant development. And to that the possibility of adding the roof and increased revenue as a result then £81.1m doesn’t actually sound too unreasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

As has been repeated many times, the EFL only question the value set by the independent valuers. 
If it was worth £52m in 2013, based purely on inflation, that was equivalent to £60-65m when the sale went through. This is roughly in line with the value the EFL’s valuers put on the stadium. 
However, a lot has changed since 2013. The value of the land would probably have increased due to development in the surrounding area (such as the velodrome). Developments to the stadium itself (concourse heating), would increase the value, so too would increase advertising and the restaurant development. And to that the possibility of adding the roof and increased revenue as a result then £81.1m doesn’t actually sound too unreasonable. 

It will all come out very rosy then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just caught up with the last few days' postings on this thread, I thought I would add my tuppence worth. Much has been made of whether or not a related party transaction is a "genuine" transaction and whether a profit can be made on it. The reason that Financial Reporting Standards require related party transactions to be disclosed is because these are sometimes effected at a value other than "arm's length" value. The FFP rules deal with this by requiring related party transactions to be adjusted to market value for the purpose of their calculations where this was not originally the case. This is done to remove any artificiality in the transaction, meaning that, after any necessary adjustment, only genuine profits and losses will remain. If the property was independently valued and for £80m and this valuation was accepted with only a minor adjustment by the EFL, the sale price being adjusted accordingly, then the difference between that adjusted valuation and the property's previous carrying value in the accounts (£40m?) is a genuine profit for both accounting and FFP purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly it appears the build cost for Brentford’s new stadium, with around 20,000 seats, is quoted as £71m and being underwritten by the clubs owner. I wonder if this value will taken into consideration as Pride Park has a 33,000 capacity 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rsmini said:

Interestingly it appears the build cost for Brentford’s new stadium, with around 20,000 seats, is quoted as £71m and being underwritten by the clubs owner. I wonder if this value will taken into consideration as Pride Park has a 33,000 capacity 

But that’s London and included residential accommodation, if I remember correctly 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

But that’s London and included residential accommodation, if I remember correctly 

Their build cost does not include the commercial development. In fact it is the other way round really as the commercial development is helping to underpin some of the stadium costs, including the land acquisition.

I visited the development site for a work meeting last year and it is incredible what they are fitting on a small parcel of land.

Also incredible how much the flats that overlook a football stadium on one side  and a railway line on the other were going for too! Not much change from £1m for a two-bedroomed pad. A car parking spot was a £60,000 add-on.

Glad I live in thrifty North Yorkshire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StarterForTen said:

Their build cost does not include the commercial development. In fact it is the other way round really as the commercial development is helping to underpin some of the stadium costs, including the land acquisition.

I visited the development site for a work meeting last year and it is incredible what they are fitting on a small parcel of land.

Also incredible how much the flats that overlook a football stadium on one side  and a railway line on the other were going for too! Not much change from £1m for a two-bedroomed pad. A car parking spot was a £60,000 add-on.

Glad I live in thrifty North Yorkshire.

I once worked with a guy who built a few "luxury" apartments near Ipswich's ground hoping the players would buy them. I always thought it was a terrible decision given that Ipswich aren't exactly Manchester City when it comes to player wages - not sure what he expected really.

Seems to be a lot of London clubs building fancy new stadiums atm. Fulham renovating and expanding into the Thames, Brentford new stadium, Spurs new stadium, Millwall new stadium, Wimbledon new stadium, Crystal Palace stadium redevelopment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Seems to be a lot of London clubs building fancy new stadiums atm. Fulham renovating and expanding into the Thames, Brentford new stadium, Spurs new stadium, Millwall new stadium, Wimbledon new stadium, Crystal Palace stadium redevelopment.

The money don't launder itself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OohMartWright said:

Having just caught up with the last few days' postings on this thread, I thought I would add my tuppence worth. Much has been made of whether or not a related party transaction is a "genuine" transaction and whether a profit can be made on it. The reason that Financial Reporting Standards require related party transactions to be disclosed is because these are sometimes effected at a value other than "arm's length" value. The FFP rules deal with this by requiring related party transactions to be adjusted to market value for the purpose of their calculations where this was not originally the case. This is done to remove any artificiality in the transaction, meaning that, after any necessary adjustment, only genuine profits and losses will remain. If the property was independently valued and for £80m and this valuation was accepted with only a minor adjustment by the EFL, the sale price being adjusted accordingly, then the difference between that adjusted valuation and the property's previous carrying value in the accounts (£40m?) is a genuine profit for both accounting and FFP purposes.

My head hurts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2020 at 11:42, Ghost of Clough said:

As has been repeated many times, the EFL only question the value set by the independent valuers. 
If it was worth £52m in 2013, based purely on inflation, that was equivalent to £60-65m when the sale went through. This is roughly in line with the value the EFL’s valuers put on the stadium. 
However, a lot has changed since 2013. The value of the land would probably have increased due to development in the surrounding area (such as the velodrome). Developments to the stadium itself (concourse heating), would increase the value, so too would increase advertising and the restaurant development. And to that the possibility of adding the roof and increased revenue as a result then £81.1m doesn’t actually sound too unreasonable. 

Also adding on the planning permission for the extension of the East Stand food court thing as well, as @G STAR RAM has said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...