KenH wrote:The book value of the assets are £1.2 million, presumably the land, buildings, pitches etc. The secured debts (to the banks etc) are around £700k. The administrators have to find the best deal for all involved, i.e. staff, shareholders, creditors, banks etc. The biggest creditors, the banks, would be unlikely to accept a huge loss, so would probably block any deal where they don't get the lion's share of their money back. Especially if the land/buildings have a high development value for housing etc - if so, the banks would expect the land to be sold for such to get their money back, even if it meant redundancies and bulldozing the facilities. It's all a matter of compromise and it all depends on the development value of the land and the likelihood of selling it for development. All parties will want a quick resolution.
Millwall fans are opposing it but it is still going to happenPosh wrote:KenH wrote:The book value of the assets are £1.2 million, presumably the land, buildings, pitches etc. The secured debts (to the banks etc) are around £700k. The administrators have to find the best deal for all involved, i.e. staff, shareholders, creditors, banks etc. The biggest creditors, the banks, would be unlikely to accept a huge loss, so would probably block any deal where they don't get the lion's share of their money back. Especially if the land/buildings have a high development value for housing etc - if so, the banks would expect the land to be sold for such to get their money back, even if it meant redundancies and bulldozing the facilities. It's all a matter of compromise and it all depends on the development value of the land and the likelihood of selling it for development. All parties will want a quick resolution.
The book value is nonsense though if it's value can't be realised. If someone bought it for property, how likely is planning permission if everyone opposed it?
halftimeresults wrote: Millwall fans are opposing it but it is still going to happen
Posh wrote:The book value is nonsense though if it's value can't be realised. If someone bought it for property, how likely is planning permission if everyone opposed it?
John L wrote:Straying slightly off topic, why was the Hurley Flyer land sold to Marstons rather than leased? Surely the latter would've ensured an ongoing income...?
KenH wrote:John L wrote:Straying slightly off topic, why was the Hurley Flyer land sold to Marstons rather than leased? Surely the latter would've ensured an ongoing income...?
Presumably needed the cash flow of a couple of hundred thousand for the sale rather than a couple of tens of thousands every year. When the club is losing half a million on average each year, it needs big inflows of cash. In a perfect world with smaller losses, keeping the land and renting it out would be better, but needs must to plug such a huge black hole every year.
marky No.1 wrote:Anyone only has so much family silver to sell, so unless you are royalty, the Forestry Commission or the family of the Duke of Westminster, you will soon have a black hole with nothing to fill it with.
Very short sighted IMO, to sell your prime piece of roadside land when we had Directors who had brewery connections and one who has since invested ££££££££££'s in local pubs, houses and restaurants.
KenH wrote:marky No.1 wrote:Anyone only has so much family silver to sell, so unless you are royalty, the Forestry Commission or the family of the Duke of Westminster, you will soon have a black hole with nothing to fill it with.
Very short sighted IMO, to sell your prime piece of roadside land when we had Directors who had brewery connections and one who has since invested ££££££££££'s in local pubs, houses and restaurants.
I fully agree - should never have got into such a bad situation that they had to start selling off the assets, and yes, sooner or later, there are no assets left to sell off as you say. It's as if the Board/PMG were just hoping something would come along to stem the losses - perhaps it's been for sale a lot longer than we know about (maybe they assumed a buyer would be put off if someone else had a 5 year sponsorship deal). After all, 3 years ago, the Board said they had a 3 year plan for the club to break even, but nothing actually changed, so what was their plan, other than to sell it?
marky No.1 wrote:KenH wrote:John L wrote:Straying slightly off topic, why was the Hurley Flyer land sold to Marstons rather than leased? Surely the latter would've ensured an ongoing income...?
Presumably needed the cash flow of a couple of hundred thousand for the sale rather than a couple of tens of thousands every year. When the club is losing half a million on average each year, it needs big inflows of cash. In a perfect world with smaller losses, keeping the land and renting it out would be better, but needs must to plug such a huge black hole every year.
Anyone only has so much family silver to sell, so unless you are royalty, the Forestry Commission or the family of the Duke of Westminster, you will soon have a black hole with nothing to fill it with.
Very short sighted IMO, to sell your prime piece of roadside land when we had Directors who had brewery connections and one who has since invested ££££££££££'s in local pubs, houses and restaurants.
The house outside, looks like it's going to overshadow the main stand when it is finished. Any potential investor will now be looking thinking what is there actually left to invest in
P/T Indie wrote:Next you will have Lloydie on about the strip of land between the pub and the housing estate it drives him mad, what can anyone do with that why didn't the pub just build up to the edge?
KenH wrote: After all, 3 years ago, the Board said they had a 3 year plan for the club to break even, but nothing actually changed, so what was their plan, other than to sell it?
Christies Child wrote:For me the reason why the extra facilities that the development provided has failed is due to the lack of marketing by people who understand the entire process of promoting and marketing an outdoor facility.
It has been left to individuals with no experience in knowing how to attract a public wanting to make use of outdoor facilities. I don't accept that its location has stopped custom after all the majority of users elsewhere in the area have to access similar facilites by car not public transport.
The initial idea was excellent but a complete lack of promition has resulted in its decline and it is hard to see how a change in ownership without extensive and costly marketing will improve an already dire situation.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 41 guests