lorenzo71 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Howlin' Wilf said: Maybe you missed the point Moonster. Apart from the imperfect golden share, what protection has owning our stadium had for DFC? As for tenant farmers, if they have a lease they are secure. Unfortunately if the lease runs out that is a problem. That is why I'm suggesting a 99 year lease which is generally the longest lease granted. That is the deal Airdrie have i believe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin' Wilf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 The only advantage in owning a stadium is that you can borrow against the value. I think though that the golden share may have acted as an encumbrance in this respect. So if the club owned the stadium and could borrow against it, the bank could call in the loan at any time. What security does that give the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benito Robles Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Surely to goodness the redline here for Sons fans is stadium ownership? Peppercorn deals are all very well, but that situation won't be the same as actually owning the asset. Flowery language won't change the fact that the deeds to the house have to be owned by the club. As for the borrowing money argument, simple, just don't borrow. Who would get the all the revenues generated by the new stadium? The club or the stadium owners? Besides all of this, are Dumbarton supporters willing to trust these Brabco guys? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, Howlin' Wilf said: Maybe you missed the point Moonster. Apart from the imperfect golden share, what protection has owning our stadium had for DFC? As for tenant farmers, if they have a lease they are secure. Unfortunately if the lease runs out that is a problem. That is why I'm suggesting a 99 year lease which is generally the longest lease granted. We don't pay to play here. Brabco can't currently charge us to play here, no matter whether it's peppercorn or gold bullion we'd pay. At our current stadium, we don't have the potential for the stadium to be sold seperately from the club, do we? What happens to the club in 99 years when that lease runs out? Sure, we'll all likely be dead, but it's the long term future we're talking about here. Brabco's plan is to hold ownership of the stadium and facilities but the club takes all the running costs. How is a 99 year lease under those circumstances ideal? Why has the golden share prevented us from borrowing against it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin' Wilf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Guys there are many points being made here which have been discussed at length before. I'm not going to respond to them because there really is no point in sawing sawdust. Two main points though. The club owning the stadium means in fact that the owner of the club owns the stadium. The reason the golden share affects the borrowing is that the lender doesn't have complete security and control over the heritable asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallochSonsFan Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 A 99 year lease would seem like a watertight solution. The problem I have with that is linked to a recent court judgement involving the rights of tenant farmers to lifetime leases. It may be nothing to worry about, but the land owners who objected to the Scottish government policy regarding tenant farmer rights took their case to court and won. Those tenant farmers now face the prospect of increased rents or enforced eviction.It's a big concern that whomever buys from Brabco may see the opportunity to receive a regular income from the club. I don't want to be in a situation where the club pays a rent fee to any new owner. Tenancies are not watertight.We can't assume that we'll be properly protected or that a future owner will see things the same way as Brabco. There is absolutely no reason for Brabco to own the football stadium separately from their majority share holding. If they own the majority of the shares but the club owns the new stadium then it's the same overall effect for them - they still call the shots as majority shareholders - but the club owns the stadium without the need for a supposed watertight tenancy and the risks that being a tenant in the stadium may bring. That's the only way to protect the club from any future wrangling by Brabco or their eventual successor over the stadium. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 If a lease is to be drawn up between Brabco and Dumbarton Football Club that is in effect a lease between Brabco and Brabco.The same people will be instructing solicitors for both Landlord and Tenant.So who checks the terms of this 'watertight' lease on behalf of Dumbarton Football Club? Also the fact that Brabco intend to pocket the sale proceeds of the ground, which belong to Dumbarton Football Club ( a separate legal entity remember ), should set all sorts of alarm bells ringing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin' Wilf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Crikey. Just met a Sons fan who thinks that I'm in favour of the plan, simply because I've laid out possible scenarios here. I'm not in favour of it at all because I doubt that Brabco have the wherewithal to carry the plan through. I'd also be wary of a man like Ian Wilson, who by dint of his involvement in the Eclipse tax avoidance scheme seems to be a man who likes a get rich quick scheme. No, my reason for laying out scenarios is simply to play 'What would happen if?' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 5 hours ago, Howlin' Wilf said: Maybe you missed the point Moonster. Apart from the imperfect golden share, what protection has owning our stadium had for DFC? As for tenant farmers, if they have a lease they are secure. Unfortunately if the lease runs out that is a problem. That is why I'm suggesting a 99 year lease which is generally the longest lease granted. I've seen a 999 year lease. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 hours ago, The Moonster said: Why has the golden share prevented us from borrowing against it? Nobody is going to lend money against an asset that cannot be sold, presuming that is what the "Golden Share" actually means. You may as well lend against no asset at all in that case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarPost Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Howlin' Wilf said: If you check my posts after the last consultation, the plan always was that it would be a peppercorn rent. It was Gilbert himself who told me. The club subsequently denied that this was the case but I'm very clear what was said. The revelation on Thursday was that Wilson announced that Brabco intended to remain in charge of the club post project. I felt that bit was just made up in the heat of the moment. That wasn't what was said to me, as the representative of the trust, about that. There have been some mixed messages. It's something we need to clarify. As I commented from the chair at the meeting, the situation regarding a new stadium, its ownership and proceeds, is something that can be verified legally. The club ownership question after this project is still to be fully determined. There's been no indication that Brabco are currently planning to relinquish their majority holding, but not all the partners in Brabco need continue if they did. There's more to be discussed in terms of ownership as things move forward, I'm sure. Edited November 25, 2016 by TheFarPost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarPost Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, lorenzo71 said: Excuse my ignorance but is Youngs farm the ONLY feasible site for a new stadium??Who owns the land and how much will it cost to buy??Are there any cost effective alternatives?? A total of eighteen possible sites were looked at in all, with YF being regarded as the only viable one after investigation. Chivas own the land. The agreement and sale price is commercially confidential to the parties involved at present. Edited November 25, 2016 by TheFarPost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarPost Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 5 hours ago, Howlin' Wilf said: Guys there are many points being made here which have been discussed at length before. That's why, as I mentioned recently, the trust is working towards a Q&A. That will consolidate the information we have, and help to avoid repetition. In the meantime, there's a lot of feedback to go though (for which, thanks!) Simon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin' Wilf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said: I've seen a 999 year lease. Indeed. However they are not at all common. Nor are they likely ever to be honoured! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarPost Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 As promised, I have put up screenshots of the six display boards that comprised the relocation plan exhibition at the 11th November pre-planning consultation. These are posted on the trust website: https://sonstrust.wordpress.com/2016/11/25/dfc-relocation-plans/ (The images I have are lo-res. I hope sharper ones will be going up on the club website shortly.) You can leave comments and questions on this page of the trust site. My email address is also there. Or you can PM me here. Simon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 If brabco is liquidated which they appear to have a track record of doing in other ventures, we would surely find ourselves homeless or possibly paying stupid rental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 11 minutes ago, sons superhero said: If brabco is liquidated which they appear to have a track record of doing in other ventures, we would surely find ourselves homeless or possibly paying stupid rental. Brabco's liquidation is one of the many risks. Brabco buying the stadium and retaining ownership with us getting a long lease in perpetuity doesn't make sense. There must be a reason that Brabco wish to retain ownership of the stadium and it can only be to protect an asset. If Dumbarton Football Club have a watertight lease for a ridiculous number of years then that makes the stadium and land pretty much worthless to the landlord. Now why would Brabco wish to hold on to an asset that they couldn't sell or realise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, Nowhereman said: Brabco's liquidation is one of the many risks. Brabco buying the stadium and retaining ownership with us getting a long lease in perpetuity doesn't make sense. There must be a reason that Brabco wish to retain ownership of the stadium and it can only be to protect an asset. If Dumbarton Football Club have a watertight lease for a ridiculous number of years then that makes the stadium and land pretty much worthless to the landlord. Now why would Brabco wish to hold on to an asset that they couldn't sell or realise? Because they are businessmen and not philanthropists, and they wish to cover all their options. Added to which, Wednesday evening was probably the first time that anyone has even attempted to play Devil's Advocate about this proposal; other than the Trust Director I expect that it has bumbled along without much demur at the club, with this stadium ownership issue never having come to light. When everyone is in the same mindset all things are possible, at face value anyway; for example the unsubstantiated claim about 'bad neighbours' has been elevated into a mantra in DFC official circles. When I challenged them to provide any documentary evidence of this, answer there came none, other than Calum Hosie doing a fine impression of Father Jack in the corner. If the meeting told Brabco anything, it is that people are rightly sceptical about many elements of this plan; to quote another mantra, if it seems to good to be true it probably is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadwell Dog Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 I certainly wouldn't recommend moving to a new stadium that you don't own backed up by my own teams experience and that's with us still owning 50% of the current set up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howlin' Wilf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Because they are businessmen and not philanthropists, and they wish to cover all their options. Added to which, Wednesday evening was probably the first time that anyone has even attempted to play Devil's Advocate about this proposal; other than the Trust Director I expect that it has bumbled along without much demur at the club, with this stadium ownership issue never having come to light. When everyone is in the same mindset all things are possible, at face value anyway; for example the unsubstantiated claim about 'bad neighbours' has been elevated into a mantra in DFC official circles. When I challenged them to provide any documentary evidence of this, answer there came none, other than Calum Hosie doing a fine impression of Father Jack in the corner. If the meeting told Brabco anything, it is that people are rightly sceptical about many elements of this plan; to quote another mantra, if it seems to good to be true it probably is. There you go, floodlit pitches and football stadiums. Table 7. http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2007/03/29102736/11 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.