Would the repayments be less than the rent? And would we be able to raise further funds if we'd maxed out our borrowing facility on buying the ground now, when we can do that at some future time, with Sky TV cash?
This way KB can refurb the stand and build his exec boxes now rather than later. I didn't suggest the Ridsdale route was acceptable! Merely that it might be how the money is being raised. In any case, we're talking 5mil of building works with a business plan that shows a quick return (sale of boxes, banqueting etc). That's a long way from Ridsdalenomics. The figure of 38 percent of t/o for player costs this season was quoted recently - these figures relate to last year - hence my 30-40 percent level. Are you saying Grayson should not have been sacked? I don't think overspending was the only problem. And NW has given us a better chance of reaching the playoffs than we had under SG. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: "Paul Cundell" <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:17:46 To: <[email protected]>; Leeds List<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LU] What does this all mean? Mark B wrote: > The stadium buy-back clause is valid for many years, at a fixed price. My > guess is the buy-back won't happen until we're in the prem again. At which > point we won't have to refurb the stand as we've already done it.< That obviously makes sense to you but its a bit cart before the horse to me. If we bought the ground today we would be paying repayments instead of rent. It's also possible that if the windfall of promotion ever occurs that improvements could be made without borrowing at all. As it stands we are now paying repayments and rent which is obviously a strain on cash flow. > We don't know the source of the "facility". It's possible it's secured > against future revenues from the improved ground. It could just be an > overdraft. Or it could be a private non-bank loan. < All are debts, incur interest and need repaying - the idea that you would consider future revenue deals ala Ridsdale and Rangers acceptable is disturbing to say the least. > As for player wages, I don't buy the logic at this level that spending more > equals better quality. Wages could have fallen through getting high earners > off the books. Spending between 30 and 40 percent of t/o (or 100 percent of > turnstile revenue) on playing staff is sensible, surely.< 9m from 32m is 28%, 11m from 32m is 34% - where did 40% come from? I would agree that a budget of 40% would be sensible. I would not agree that a budget of 25% is either sensible or sustainable. I would accept sacking a failing manager who had overspent his 40% budget, I don't see why I should accept sacking a manager for overspending a 25% budget whilst still having a chance of promotion. Cheers Paul _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
