Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 401 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, full colour, in-depth coverage from the grassroots through to the international game.
Click here for the digital edition or just download the Rugby League World app from Apple Newsstand or Google Play now.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 401
/ View a Gallery of all our previous 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 401
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Nahaboo


  • Please log in to reply
252 replies to this topic

#61 rovers

rovers
  • Players
  • 66 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 07:59 PM

may be he is very rich, may be can afford to put money into something he can make a success off ,and be very proud of his achievement, i hope so, good luck with your rugby league ambition at featherstone Mr Nahaboo, i for one am glad your on board many thanks



#62 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 05:00 PM

 

TBH Colin there is a lot of speculation in what you've posted.
 
Planning permission and land reclassification is never "easy-peasy". If it was so desirable as building land how come nobody has ever made a move on it? Nobody has ever offered ROvers money for it?
 
People are dubious about Feisal. Fair do's. But a man who has made his money from tax and investment now wants to build houses in Fev on brown belt land? And the best way to get that land is to buy rugby league players for the club? Seems very far-fetched.
 
If (and its a huge if) the land was developed for property, how would the club retain ownership of the land? Paying a construction company to build the houses, then rent them out? So the club would become a property developer? Really?

 
Look up 'Passive Income' Mark. Overlooked opportunity, those who want, and those who have. Then take my cut. Passive Income earners don't do the work they pass on opportunites to speculators. Your second point. Lots of land is leasehold. We enter an agreement with a builder on the basis that they are given a long term lease to build on our land and we share the income. Nothing is as far fetched as someone investing money in any org and not expecting a return. Perhaps you would like to explain that.

#63 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,379 posts

Posted 26 June 2014 - 07:20 PM

 
 
Look up 'Passive Income' Mark. Overlooked opportunity, those who want, and those who have. Then take my cut. Passive Income earners don't do the work they pass on opportunites to speculators. Your second point. Lots of land is leasehold. We enter an agreement with a builder on the basis that they are given a long term lease to build on our land and we share the income. Nothing is as far fetched as someone investing money in any org and not expecting a return. Perhaps you would like to explain that.

 

I don't need to look it up, I understood exactly what you were suggesting and counter-suggest that it's not likely. There is no planning permission for building, no real need for the housing. Im really not sure if the club has the will, expertise or necessity to beome a property developer.

 

FN has his motives of course, which none of us are privy to. There is plenty of speculation out there which suggests that why he's investing is much more to do with enhancing what is his core business, which would make sense.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#64 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:53 AM

Your point about why didn't they just bid for the land. They would have to pay the full price in the open market. Control the club and get it at a discount. I never suggested Rovers should become a property developer but to lease the land instead of selling it. You're wrong about the housing the allotments alongside the ground have already been sold to a builder and around 250 houses and buildings are in the pipeline. Our land, as I have already said our land is alongside. There could even be a scenario where we are told to sell the land or the investment dries up. God forbid but all I want to do is to warn the 'A' shareholders of the possible pitfalls and not get carried away with sprats to catch a mackrel. The other point was why hasn't it been sold before or suggested. As I have already said it was brown land with NCB owned bore holes on it seaching for coal seams. Now no mining or NCB that hurdle is easily overcome. The development of the allotments eases the planning permission on ourland. I hope that clears up the points youmade. Of course this is still not certain, but something is happening and we must be prepared. I could envisage a future with a minimalamount of capital, no land and expenditure more than income if we don't tread carefully. Cheers

#65 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 08:57 AM

My apologies for the poor typing. Still recovering from the eye op.

#66 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,379 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 09:56 AM

Your point about why didn't they just bid for the land. They would have to pay the full price in the open market. Control the club and get it at a discount. I never suggested Rovers should become a property developer but to lease the land instead of selling it. You're wrong about the housing the allotments alongside the ground have already been sold to a builder and around 250 houses and buildings are in the pipeline. Our land, as I have already said our land is alongside. There could even be a scenario where we are told to sell the land or the investment dries up. God forbid but all I want to do is to warn the 'A' shareholders of the possible pitfalls and not get carried away with sprats to catch a mackrel. The other point was why hasn't it been sold before or suggested. As I have already said it was brown land with NCB owned bore holes on it seaching for coal seams. Now no mining or NCB that hurdle is easily overcome. The development of the allotments eases the planning permission on ourland. I hope that clears up the points youmade. Of course this is still not certain, but something is happening and we must be prepared. I could envisage a future with a minimalamount of capital, no land and expenditure more than income if we don't tread carefully. Cheers

 

Fair play Colin, I take what you're saying and accept your call for vigilance.

 

I hadn't heard about the 250 house development that is already taking place, so as you say, possibilities must be there.

 

With regard to lease-holding rather than free-holding, I'm not sure how common that is with modern developments. Would the small annual leasehold payments really be better than what would be a large lump sum for building land?

 

Im not sure how the scenario where A shareholders are forced to sell the land cheap occurs. Presumably the club would be strapped for cash and then what? Sell the land to the very same person/people responsible for putting the club in that state? The club could just apply for planning permission and put it for sale on the open market, should the need arise, could  they not?

 

I still don't see planning permission as ever that easy. There are always hudles to overcome. A covenant on the land may be just one thing.

Im not going to disagree with you when you say the club should be careful with what they do.

 

Have you seen the current value of the land as a written down asset in the club's accounts?


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#67 oldrover

oldrover
  • Coach
  • 6,000 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 10:16 AM

Col, i am useless when it comes to financial matters, but like Mark, i agree we need to be vigilant. but at the moment we have people who are willing to invest in our club, and we desperately need that investment, so we have to proceed with caution, but can we really turn those investors away.? i think not.


joe mullaney is a god
the only good tiger is a stuffed tiger

Posted Image

#68 plug

plug
  • Coach
  • 293 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:08 AM

If our land has NCB bore holes scatterd around it let's just sink a new shaft and open it up as a new pit we'v got enough ex miners as fans to run it

#69 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:38 AM

 

Fair play Colin, I take what you're saying and accept your call for vigilance.
 
I hadn't heard about the 250 house development that is already taking place, so as you say, possibilities must be there.
 
With regard to lease-holding rather than free-holding, I'm not sure how common that is with modern developments. Would the small annual leasehold payments really be better than what would be a large lump sum for building land?
 
Im not sure how the scenario where A shareholders are forced to sell the land cheap occurs. Presumably the club would be strapped for cash and then what? Sell the land to the very same person/people responsible for putting the club in that state? The club could just apply for planning permission and put it for sale on the open market, should the need arise, could  they not?
 
I still don't see planning permission as ever that easy. There are always hudles to overcome. A covenant on the land may be just one thing.
Im not going to disagree with you when you say the club should be careful with what they do.
 
Have you seen the current value of the land as a written down asset in the club's accounts?

 The way I see it Mark is that in leasehold the land is still ours and the value will increase over time. The lease payments would be continual and the land is still ours. A lump sum is ok but if expenditure exceeds income it slowly disappears and then you have no land. We could sell the land as a club for the true sum provided the 'A' share holders don't pass a resolution selling it at less than market price, hence the plea for caution. The figure in the balance sheet will be the historical one. I reckon 17 acres of the land with planning will be around £15million. The danger is to sell cheap without planning at what looks like a reasonable figure. Time will tell. I followed on from Rovers Forever's remarks. With 40 years commercial experience 20 of which was in Leeds I have seen such pitfalls. These words are only cautionary ones for 'A' shareholders who may not have such experience. I say this as a Fev lad with Rovers interests at heart. My caution arose recently when I read that Mark was no longer in overall control. We don't know these anonymous investors so treading carefully is the orderof the day. We have also to keep in mind Capital Gains. Keep smiling

#70 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:41 AM

 

If our land has NCB bore holes scatterd around it let's just sink a new shaft and open it up as a new pit we'v got enough ex miners as fans to run it

 Your on the first shift. It is afternoons 2 to ten pm. No leisure time for you.

#71 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:46 AM

 

Col, i am useless when it comes to financial matters, but like Mark, i agree we need to be vigilant. but at the moment we have people who are willing to invest in our club, and we desperately need that investment, so we have to proceed with caution, but can we really turn those investors away.? i think not.

 I am not thinking of turning investors away OR. I am saying let's be cautious and not be taken in. If the land goes cheap the investors have spent nothing. Now that Mark is not in control I am just saying don't just take the options offered without looking deaply into any alterations. Especially keep in mind we are dealing with ananonymous people.

#72 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 11:47 AM

Spelling and typing rubbish seeing double from time to time. See you. Col

#73 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,379 posts

Posted 27 June 2014 - 06:37 PM

 
 The way I see it Mark is that in leasehold the land is still ours and the value will increase over time. The lease payments would be continual and the land is still ours. A lump sum is ok but if expenditure exceeds income it slowly disappears and then you have no land. We could sell the land as a club for the true sum provided the 'A' share holders don't pass a resolution selling it at less than market price, hence the plea for caution. The figure in the balance sheet will be the historical one. I reckon 17 acres of the land with planning will be around £15million. The danger is to sell cheap without planning at what looks like a reasonable figure. Time will tell. I followed on from Rovers Forever's remarks. With 40 years commercial experience 20 of which was in Leeds I have seen such pitfalls. These words are only cautionary ones for 'A' shareholders who may not have such experience. I say this as a Fev lad with Rovers interests at heart. My caution arose recently when I read that Mark was no longer in overall control. We don't know these anonymous investors so treading carefully is the orderof the day. We have also to keep in mind Capital Gains. Keep smiling

 

The major problem would be that as leaseholder the club would have a whole range of obligations towards the upkeep of all properties, and that the money from such leases generally isn't that much. I honestly thought lease-holdings were much more common in central london on properties built on the price of Wales or Duke of Gloucester's land with 100 year renerwable leases to home owners. It's an archairc system which more or less works there, but Im sceptical how the club would make that work for new-build property in Fev.

 

Selling without planning on land that emminently could have planning would be a very poor piece of business, but again I don't really see how or why the club would particularly decide to do that now.

 

If the land really is worth 15 million and planning is easy peasy, why don't we sell? No need of outside investment. Take a look at the club's accounts. These are certified annually updated documents listing the club's assets. Whilst I appreciate the huge difference in value between brownbelt and urban land, surely the accounts would reflect this potential value to some extent. The accounts show that the club and all it owns really isn't worth that much money at all.

 

There are also around 400,000 pounds worth of the original share issue of the club left unsold.  Room for manouvre in terms of who controls power if there really is money to be made by someone.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#74 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:43 PM

I've made my points to put 'A' shareholders on alert Mark. As already said any sale would be with the 'A' shareholders permission. I just want it to be right for the club.
We will see in due course which option is taken-if any.

#75 ROVERS FOREVER

ROVERS FOREVER
  • Coach
  • 204 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:48 PM

I've made my points to put 'A' shareholders on alert Mark. As already said any sale would be with the 'A' shareholders permission. I just want it to be right for the club.
We will see in due course which option is taken-if any.

Hope it's for the benefit of the club, it better be. :D



#76 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 05:31 PM

 

The major problem would be that as leaseholder the club would have a whole range of obligations towards the upkeep of all properties, and that the money from such leases generally isn't that much. I honestly thought lease-holdings were much more common in central london on properties built on the price of Wales or Duke of Gloucester's land with 100 year renerwable leases to home owners. It's an archairc system which more or less works there, but Im sceptical how the club would make that work for new-build property in Fev.
 
Selling without planning on land that emminently could have planning would be a very poor piece of business, but again I don't really see how or why the club would particularly decide to do that now.
 
If the land really is worth 15 million and planning is easy peasy, why don't we sell? No need of outside investment. Take a look at the club's accounts. These are certified annually updated documents listing the club's assets. Whilst I appreciate the huge difference in value between brownbelt and urban land, surely the accounts would reflect this potential value to some extent. The accounts show that the club and all it owns really isn't worth that much money at all.
 
There are also around 400,000 pounds worth of the original share issue of the club left unsold.  Room for manouvre in terms of who controls power if there really is money to be made by someone.

 Sorry Mark didn't reply fully. With regard to Leasehold I was meaning leasing it to b uliders, not tenants. THEY would have responsibility for any buildings they put up. It all depends on the terms of the lease. Returns for leased land can be very lucrative. With regard to the other points it is all down to what the 'A' shareholders wish when answering the boards proposals. Something is happening, we may well find out next Wednesday. Cheers.

#77 jamescolin

jamescolin
  • Coach
  • 3,143 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 05:35 PM

 

Sorry Mark didn't reply fully. With regard to Leasehold I was meaning leasing it to b uliders, not tenants. THEY would have responsibility for any buildings they put up. It all depends on the terms of the lease. Returns for leased land can be very lucrative. With regard to the other points it is all down to what the 'A' shareholders wish when answering the boards proposals. Something is happening, we may well find out next Wednesday. Cheers.

  

Sorry Mark didn't reply fully. With regard to Leasehold I was meaning leasing it to b uliders, not tenants. THEY would have responsibility for any buildings they put up. It all depends on the terms of the lease. Returns for leased land can be very lucrative. With regard to the other points it is all down to what the 'A' shareholders wish when answering the boards proposals. Something is happening, we may well find out next Wednesday. Cheers.

 Your other point was covered earlier. The value of the land as it stands now is not reflected in the accounts.

#78 Andrew Vause

Andrew Vause
  • Coach
  • 2,305 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 06:14 PM

Much as I can't get enough of lease holders, land, profits, returns and b stakeholders on a Rugby forum there is a feeling deep in my urethra that the talk may be academic, shame really as it is really stimulating.

#79 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,379 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 07:49 PM

 
  
 Your other point was covered earlier. The value of the land as it stands now is not reflected in the accounts.

 

Well, the value of the land IS reflected in the accounts. Its real value today. What's not reflected is its potential value in the future if it was reclassified. It would be an astonishing jump to anywhere near 15m.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 


#80 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,379 posts

Posted 28 June 2014 - 07:56 PM

 
 Sorry Mark didn't reply fully. With regard to Leasehold I was meaning leasing it to b uliders, not tenants. THEY would have responsibility for any buildings they put up. It all depends on the terms of the lease. Returns for leased land can be very lucrative. With regard to the other points it is all down to what the 'A' shareholders wish when answering the boards proposals. Something is happening, we may well find out next Wednesday. Cheers.

 

Now Im confused. What is your plan? Lease the land to a construction company? Surely you're talking about the club becoming a property developer? If the club retains leasehold on the land, when the construction company sells the houses to the public, it is the club that is then resposnible for upkeep and maintenance, not the constructor. There are big companies dedicated solely to this type of thing, and is far from a simple sideline for a rugby club to run, regardless of the possible income. Leasehold properties are of course much less attractive than freehold for the buying public.

 

Or are you suggesting the club pays for all the houses to be built then rents them out? Massive unworkable task.

 

If, and it's still a huge if for me, the land can be reclassified as buildable, get that done and get it sold to the highest bidder, using the income to safeguard the medium/long term future of the club.


 

You Can't Buy Team Spirit

 

 

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users