Page 2 of 7
Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:06 pm
by Mally
"Ancient Colin" wrote:"GodalmingYellow" wrote:
The rent is commercially low for Kassam in my view, given the cost of borrowing to build the stadium.
Sunk costs are sunk. The size of the loan and the cost of the stadium shouldn't have any impact on the (market) rent since those are historic decisions ... other than in the limited sense of the more that was spent, the better quality the building and hence, in principle, the higher the rent that could be obtained.
In theory across a whole market yes, but in this case if the single owner of the single facility wishes to recover his sunk costs they are very much on the surface hence the price tag to purchase the stadium.
Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:17 pm
by Mally
"Peña Oxford United" wrote:My view is that if Kassam has set the rent at a level which the club find difficult to meet, he has therefore put in peril the future of the club regardless of whether or not it is "fair"
No he hasn't. It was set at a rate that the club could meet for the 5 years previous to WPL's takeover. It was also set at a level for a League 2 club. Merry's mismanagement of the finances and Jim Smith's mismanagement of the team are the main reasons that the club is in the financial position it finds itself in. The rent is only held up us a major issue because it enables people to blame directly or indirectly Kasam for the club's current financial situation. Which is exactly what you are doing.
If the club had bought the stadium for say, £8 million, the interest payments would be more than the rent is now - would it be Kassam's fault then?
The club is in a financial mess because its directors allowed it to happen - nobody else's fault.
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:26 pm
by Kernow Yellow
It was agreed to by both parties, so how can it not be fair? Things are generally worth what people are prepared to pay for them...
Re:
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:34 pm
by Ancient Colin
"Mally" wrote: In theory across a whole market yes, but in this case if the single owner of the single facility wishes to recover his sunk costs they are very much on the surface hence the price tag to purchase the stadium.
Well, it
might make sense to set a rent that might be too high for the "only available tenant" - but only in so far as the financial failure of that tenant might permit a change of use that might be a positive net present value project for the landlord. Alternatively, the failure of said tenant might lead to a long void period while protracted negotiations are carried out with - for example - the local planning authority and others to permit that change of use, with no guarantee of success ... The decision has to set the risks of the loss of cashflow from the void against the higher rent that they are currently receiving.
The real point is that if Firoka are taking business decisions that are financially sound then they will set a rent that maximises their return, and they shoyld make that decision looking forward, starting today. What the building costs were should not be relevant to that decision.
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:59 am
by newhinkseyyellow
Just some clarification for 'Snake'.
Just because I refuse to be a Kassam apologist, doesn't mean I have heroes from Woodstock and Wigan. In the interests of the truth, I will confess that I voted for Winston Churchill in that BBC poll about people from the 20th Century and cheered as Trent Barrett scored a try against the Catalan Dragons - hope that is OK.
If you really want to ponder about who has benefited the most from Oxford's demise, I would suggest you sit at the back of the East Stand, look over the wooden fence towards the commercial enterprises beyond - it may save you the cost of making a pilgrimage to Heythrop Park, although blind faith sometimes doesn't recognise any boundaries.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:19 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
"Snake" wrote:Anyway, what does that say about your heroes from Woodstock and Wigan who agreed and signed the agreement?
I have a couple of useful rules of thumb regarding internet discussions. One is that you'll never see an amusing posting with the term LOL in it. Another is that whenever somebody refers to somebody else's "heroes", they're deliberately misrepresenting somebody else's opinions.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:30 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
"Mally" wrote:"Peña Oxford United" wrote:My view is that if Kassam has set the rent at a level which the club find difficult to meet, he has therefore put in peril the future of the club regardless of whether or not it is "fair"
No he hasn't. It was set at a rate that the club could meet for the 5 years previous to WPL's takeover. It was also set at a level for a League 2 club. Merry's mismanagement of the finances and Jim Smith's mismanagement of the team are the main reasons that the club is in the financial position it finds itself in. The rent is only held up us a major issue because it enables people to blame directly or indirectly Kasam for the club's current financial situation. Which is exactly what you are doing.
If the club had bought the stadium for say, £8 million, the interest payments would be more than the rent is now - would it be Kassam's fault then?
The club is in a financial mess because its directors allowed it to happen - nobody else's fault.
Well, some people can't help sticking their heads up Firoz Kassam's arse, can they?
Firstly, as you know very well, I've blamed other people than Firoz Kassam for the club's financial position.
Secondly, as you know very well, if the club was paying internest on a stadium in had bought, it would own that stadium, which is a different situation entirely. It would make a huge difference to the club's stability and security. As you know very well.
Thirdly, as you know very well, at the point when the club was sold, it was heading very swiftly for the Conference, which makes it very misleading for talk of "set at a level for a League 2 club" - even if that meant more than it actually does, which is not very much.
The club was a footballing disaster under Firoz Kassam - which is a major cause of falling attendances and hence an inability to meet financial commitments. The people who pop up on here to defend Ksaam to the hilt are, to my mind, among the people who, on the fringes, can be held responsible for the club's position. They have played "kiss up, kick down" for Firoz Kassam, just as they played it for Keith Cox, because it makes them feel important. But they're not important. Just abject.
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:57 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
It's worth remembering what a shambles it was in 2005/6, since some people are a damned sight too fond of putting it about that Kassam left the club in a healthy situation.
The club had fallen two divisions since his involvement began, and was about to fall another. He had systematically alienated pretty much everybody he had come into contact with (which is everybody apart from his admirers on here, it would be fair to say - I'm not kidding) and made a series of bad, mad and cheapskate appointments. (Kemp! Wright! Rix! Díaz!) There was panic as it became clear what the likely outcome was going to be.
He stabilised the finances, but he didn't stabilise the club. Very much the opposite. The course which the club subsequently took was a course which he embarked on.
Now I can't do anything about people wanting to play court-flatterer to Firoz Kassam, but I remember that the same people were prepared to play the same role for Keith Cox, to carry out the same whitewashing, the same seeing-only-what-they-want -to-see. The same people want us to be believe it's all WPL's fault. Well, perhaps the real difference is that this time, they're not inside the camp. Had they been invited to play the same role for Nick and Ian and Kelvin, I wonder if we wouldn't be hearing a very different story.
Oh yeah, meant to say. When Firoz Kassam - or Keith Cox - wanted this or that off the council, these people used to argue, vehemently, that he ought to get it, because it was for the good of the footbal lclub. Cinema, private hospital, what you will. If the council had other prioorities, other responsbilities? No, not important. What's good for the football club came a long way first.
But if it turns out that now, that Firoz Kassam wants something that is in conflict with what's good for the football club? Sorry, football club, it's just too bad.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:55 am
by Mally
"Peña Oxford United" wrote: It's worth remembering what a shambles it was in 2005/6, since some people are a damned sight too fond of putting it about that Kassam left the club in a healthy situation.
The club had fallen two divisions since his involvement began, and was about to fall another. He had systematically alienated pretty much everybody he had come into contact with (which is everybody apart from his admirers on here, it would be fair to say - I'm not kidding) and made a series of bad, mad and cheapskate appointments. (Kemp! Wright! Rix! Díaz!) There was panic as it became clear what the likely outcome was going to be.
He stabilised the finances, but he didn't stabilise the club. Very much the opposite. The course which the club subsequently took was a course which he embarked on.
Now I can't do anything about people wanting to play court-flatterer to Firoz Kassam, but I remember that the same people were prepared to play the same role for Keith Cox, to carry out the same whitewashing, the same seeing-only-what-they-want -to-see. The same people want us to be believe it's all WPL's fault. Well, perhaps the real difference is that this time, they're not inside the camp. Had they been invited to play the same role for Nick and Ian and Kelvin, I wonder if we wouldn't be hearing a very different story.
Oh yeah, meant to say. When Firoz Kassam - or Keith Cox - wanted this or that off the council, these people used to argue, vehemently, that he ought to get it, because it was for the good of the footbal lclub. Cinema, private hospital, what you will. If the council had other prioorities, other responsbilities? No, not important. What's good for the football club came a long way first.
But if it turns out that now, that Firoz Kassam wants something that is in conflict with what's good for the football club? Sorry, football club, it's just too bad.
I agree with pretty much all of that except for the comment abbout the private hospital. I can't recall any Oxford fans and certainly not FOUL ever commenting or lobbying in relation to the hospital. That was a matter for a Firoka company not associated with Oxford United.
As for the following:
"Peña Oxford United" wrote:The people who pop up on here to defend Ksaam to the hilt are, to my mind, among the people who, on the fringes, can be held responsible for the club's position. They have played "kiss up, kick down" for Firoz Kassam, just as they played it for Keith Cox, because it makes them feel important. But they're not important. Just abject
I totally disagree with this assertion and find it extremely offensive. Firstly it's plain wrong. Nobody (and certainly not me) has "defended Kassam to ther hilt" Secondly any dealings with Keith Cox and Firoz Kassam that I and people I know have had were nothing to do with making anybody feel important but were about ensuring the survival of the club. We have no way of knowing for sure what would have happened in the late 90's if FOUL hadn't been formed and dealt with Cox, Kassam, The Council etc. but I firmly believe that the most likely outcome would have been the end of Oxford United. That's something in itself that is important and I'm proud of the part I played in it.
To describe the people who were involved in that as abject (
1. extremely unpleasant and degrading. 2. completely without pride or dignity.
is just about the most offensive thing you've ever said on here. Any future comments you may have simply aren't worth replying to.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:12 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
"Mally" wrote:I totally disagree with this assertion and find it extremely offensive.
I couldn't, in the circumstances, care less. God knows you've been prepared to make enough assertions about other people in your time. About their motives, as often as not.
"Mally" wrote:Nobody (and certainly not me) has "defended Kassam to the hilt"
Yes you have, and yes you do. Even now you cannot ascribe
any blame to Kassam at all and you cannot accept anybody else doing so.
You've always gone
way beyond what was necessary not just in supporting Cox and Kassam but in kicking out at their critics: and you've always given yourself the alibi of this being what's necessary to save the club.
Other people, of course, are not allowed that alibi. It's always been one rule for you, one rule for everybody else, and that's always been self-important and objectionable.
You don't like that?
Good.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:29 am
by Snake
"newhinkseyyellow" wrote:Just some clarification for 'Snake'.
If you really want to ponder about who has benefited the most from Oxford's demise, I would suggest you sit at the back of the East Stand, look over the wooden fence towards the commercial enterprises beyond - it may save you the cost of making a pilgrimage to Heythrop Park, although blind faith sometimes doesn't recognise any boundaries.
I can see those facilities equally clearly from my perch at the back of the North Stand, thank you.
Lots of other people have benefited as well as Firoz Kassam, given the number of people from the Leys and beyond who use those excellent leisure facilities.
And if you are a resident of Oxford City then this also includes you, as the Council now collects £720,000 a year in business rates from the Minchery Farm site with no more effort than trotting off to the bank to cash the cheque, so I’d call that a decent deal for the community.
Now tell me, what have WPL done in the last two and a half years for Oxford in general and Oxford United in particular?
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:32 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
"Snake" wrote:Now tell me, what have WPL done in the last two and a half years for Oxford in general and Oxford United in particular?
They might say, "funded a loss-making sporting facility".
I wouldn't much agree with it, but I wouldn't much agree with some other things too.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:38 am
by Snake
"Peña Oxford United" wrote:"Snake" wrote:Now tell me, what have WPL done in the last two and a half years for Oxford in general and Oxford United in particular?
They might say, "funded a loss-making sporting facility".
I wouldn't much agree with it, but I wouldn't much agree with some other things too.
Good point.
Another is they have rented a training ground at Milton, and put an off-the-shelf garden object on a sponsored plaque (when pursued through Council legal action).
Any more?
I'm just trying to be subjective here.
Re:
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:43 am
by Pe├▒a Oxford United
"Snake" wrote:Any more?
No idea.
Ask Ian Lenagan, if you can find him.
He doesn't get the criticism that the pig's head did, but it's surely his hand at the other end of the stick.
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:44 am
by slappy
I haven't been able to find too much about what comparable rents would be.
However, the club is playing in a 12,000 all seated all covered stadium, almost certainly the highest standard stadium in this league, and well up in league 2 as well. The stadium IS a £10m all seater stadium, like it or not, whereas Burton's is a £5m 6,000 capacity stadium, part terracing. Stadco can't unbuild the 2 tier South stand and all seater North Stand, and replace them with 2 terraces more suitable to current attendances, so the club is stuck with rattling around in a big half full stadium.
For what Firoka receives as a rent cost of approx £300K and overheads of £125K, I would say that the majority represents a fixed cost and doesn't really vary with what league we play in or what attendances are. I can see that in the Championship with consistently higher attendances at 9-12K there will be more wear and tear / adverse effect on Ozone if the car parks are all full, and FK can justify asking for higher rent. But when we went down to the conference, did the cost of running the stadium go down? Only if we moth-balled the North Stand and sections of the South Stand to save on costs.
The things which KT could be doing is appealing to Firoka for a rent freeze/ discount / deferment until such time as the club is back in league 2. There is no reason for Firoka to agree, but if not and he busts the club he is then left with an empty stadium with no contribution to the costs from OUFC. It is in his interests for the club to be successful paying his rent on time and for 12,000 fans to be spending money in the concourses and Ozone.