The LiverpoolFC Forum > The Stadium Debate

Who benefits?

(1/4) > >>

Abrak:
I am not accusing anyone of anything here just making a theoretical point.

If we paid our owners 20m in dividends each year there would be a riot.

But if the new stadium is financed entirely out of our cashflows we may pay say 30m each year for 10 years to pay down the debt at which point they own the stadium. Clearly the business is worth a lot more with a bigger stadium debt free than without. I dont know if there will be equity involved.

It is just that I look at Arsenal that has paid no dividends but created huge amounts of shareholder value by getting their supporters to pay down the debt on the stadium. Someone has to pay for it. But a stadium to me is a very good way of getting a dividend out of supporters without them realizing it.

And my point is not that I think it is a rip off but that we are in fact doing something we wouldnt normally do without realizing it.

CraigDS:
You really think Arsenal fans haven't realised they have been paying for it? I'd argue otherwise.

JackBauer:

--- Quote from: Abrak on February 20, 2012, 07:28:00 AM ---But a stadium to me is a very good way of getting a dividend out of supporters without them realizing it.

--- End quote ---

Don't understand this bit. A dividend is cash coming out of the company into the pockets of the shareholders.

Cash coming out of the company to pay down stadium debt is just like you making a mortgage repayment. You're financing the acquisition of an asset over time.

Peter McGurk:

--- Quote from: JackBauer on March 22, 2012, 05:20:36 PM ---Don't understand this bit. A dividend is cash coming out of the company into the pockets of the shareholders.

Cash coming out of the company to pay down stadium debt is just like you making a mortgage repayment. You're financing the acquisition of an asset over time.

--- End quote ---

Indeed, all dividends come from earnings of one sort or another.

But the value of this asset is not how much it costs - it's how much it makes. A small error H&G can tell us all about. If some dumb-ass wants to spend £450m on an asset that generates £260m (pick a number) in value or pretend it's worth £450m when it's worth £260m, I guess they don't do so well.

Mamma! That man swindled me! Where's my billion?!!! Where's the value of my (unbuilt) stadium?!!!

.

ultimatewarrior:
FSG's plan is to live within its means. Until the the next set of figures come out we wont know how much of their own cash they have invested. They have said they will invest the profits back into the club but there havent been signs that the will invest anythig extra themselves.
 It seems that unless FFP was introduced, FSG wouldnt have bothered with us. If every penny brought in by the club is reinvested thats great ,but for the first 5 years of the FFP owners are allowed invest an extra 180m of their own money "to break even". Will we see this amount invested in the squad where its accounted for or in stadium , acadamy etc...?
 I understand football is a difficult business to make money in, and in most cases it costs a lot of money to achieve success. So in theory if FSG have a long term plan to benefit in some way. Do they want to build the clubs finances in order to sell it on at and make massive return on their investment? If so, wouldn't the a new stadium add huge value to the club rather than passing the club with the stadium problem(it is a problem) still to be solved.
Either way the club that invests the most in their acadamy and other infrastructure are going to see better results in the long run than the clubs who spend fuck all. As i said its great if we spend every penny of profit on the first team but i'd like to see FSG spend their own money in the areas the FFP ignore.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page