Saints new Training base to now be at Seaford!!!!!!

[n1ck]

So in other words, settle for second best.

We couldnt come to an agreement with the council over Frankston Oval, so they offer us Belvedere Park... second best.

[Pilgram]

the best deal was frankston park.

[Pilgram]

So in other words, settle for second best.

We couldnt come to an agreement with the council over Frankston Oval, so they offer us Belvedere Park... second best.

true,
it would have been nice if someone showed some brains and built a big PHUK-OFF facility overlooking the bay.
still,
if only anyone had the brains and the vision to have built the thing at frankston park.

[GrumpyOne]

As long as we can be assured that they ahve done their due diligence and this is the best option we can get, I see no reason to hold off waiting for a possible better one in teh future.

Is anyone sure after the previous premature Frankston Oval announcement that due diligence has now been done?

After all, consider:

Blowout of construction costs at Frankston,

Discovery of sewerage pipes under the oval?

Insufficient room for proposed development,

No parking available,

"Gifting" a block of land that we cannot build on for heritage reasons.


Given the Club's past record on due diligence, I would not be at all surprised if an Aboriginal Sacred Site, an active volcano, or the breeding grounds of the endangered Cold Blue Tit, or all three emerge at the site.

[n1ck]

Maybe John Safran can come down to cleanse the area before we build?

[Mr Magic]

So in other words, settle for second best.

We couldnt come to an agreement with the council over Frankston Oval, so they offer us Belvedere Park... second best.

I suppose it all depends on what criteria you rate the 2 propositions.

If we accept the word of the Club, there was a $5 million blowout on Frankston Park, therefore I would be weighing up the 2 proposals as follows:-

Frankston Park, with whatever facilities are built there for a total cost of $16 million, including Saints debt of $6 million. (plus an asset of $1-2 million)

Belvedere Park, with whatever facilities are built there for a total cost of $11.5 million, including Saints debt of $1.5 to 2 million (no asset)

If the facilities are similar (does anybody actually know?) then the Belvedere Park proposal would be $4 to 4.5 million dollars better off (less the valus of any asset).

On the other hand, Frankston Park is in a much more 'cosmopolitan' area than Belvedere Park - is this an issue? If so, is it worth approx $3 million dollars (the savings less the value of the asset)?

I would think that in a tough economic environment, the dollars not being spent would outweigh the 'ambience factor' of any proposed facilities.

Maybe if we were a Club with millions of dollars in the bank, then we would be looking at this differently.

If Visy wasn't tipping in, would Carlscum be spending the money it is in upgrading City of Melbourne assets?
Or would they be doning what we've been doing? Courting various councils to get the best deal they can?

On a side note, and without wanting to get into a flame war over it, I reckon some belated thanks should go to the previous administration for getting us into a financial position whereby we can entertain the notion of investing in a training facility. If they hadn't repaid our previous debt we wouldn't be in this position of looking to upgrade. We just wouldn't be financially able to.

[n1ck]

On a side note, and without wanting to get into a flame war over it, I reckon some belated thanks should go to the previous administration for getting us into a financial position whereby we can entertain the notion of investing in a training facility. If they hadn't repaid our previous debt we wouldn't be in this position of looking to upgrade. We just wouldn't be financially able to.

Without a doubt - no arguments from me here.

Without Butterss, Thomas and Waldron, we wouldnt be in a position to even make decisions such as these.

[Mr Magic]

On a side note, and without wanting to get into a flame war over it, I reckon some belated thanks should go to the previous administration for getting us into a financial position whereby we can entertain the notion of investing in a training facility. If they hadn't repaid our previous debt we wouldn't be in this position of looking to upgrade. We just wouldn't be financially able to.

Without a doubt - no arguments from me here.

Without Butterss, Thomas and Waldron, we wouldnt be in a position to even make decisions such as these.

Spot on Nick.
Sometimes we forget about the positive things done and concentrate solely on the negatives.

As I've said previously, by all means castigate them for the mistakes but also laud them for teh good decisoins.

[GrumpyOne]

On a side note, and without wanting to get into a flame war over it, I reckon some belated thanks should go to the previous administration for getting us into a financial position whereby we can entertain the notion of investing in a training facility. If they hadn't repaid our previous debt we wouldn't be in this position of looking to upgrade. We just wouldn't be financially able to.

Without a doubt - no arguments from me here.

Without Butterss, Thomas and Waldron, we wouldnt be in a position to even make decisions such as these.

And perhaps if they were still there, the right decision would have been made ages ago.

[St Fidelius]

So in other words, settle for second best.

We couldnt come to an agreement with the council over Frankston Oval, so they offer us Belvedere Park... second best.

the best deal was frankston park.

I would have preferred Moorabbin, but I would also prefer having facilities that we don't have to share with another VFL side...

To me the Frankston option, was the worst of the 3

[st.byron]

......or the breeding grounds of the endangered Cold Blue Tit emerge at the site.

unlikely to be an issue as I work with some Cold Blue Tits currently. It's about time they were pensioned off but they're not in danger of becoming extinct.

[RBnW]

is there anyone on here who really gets what the footy club has just done
they have won $10,000,000 in funding to build an $11,400,000 training base and we only have to put in $1,400,000 of our own money....
on the asset.....
the club will own the buliding when it is built worth $11,400.000 as part of the deal....last time I looked that would be an asset which will be on our books....
the land the asset is built on is being leased for 50 years at $1 a year....not a bad lease deal for 50 years thats $50

So from what I can read this is an amazing deal....an asset on the books of $11,400,000 within 2 years...... that we put in only $1,400,000 of our money into and
a lease for 50 years at $1 a year.....
and an G sized ground maintained for the club by the council......there must be a big saving with this too.....
and we dont have to be in debt to do this.....

and the club will move to an area that can only grow our supporter base over the next 10 years....

sack the lot of them.....how dare they do such a great deal for the club

[GrumpyOne]

the club will own the buliding when it is built worth $11,400.000 as part of the deal....last time I looked that would be an asset which will be on our books....

What exactly is the value of a building when you don't own the land?

It's not as if the building will be portable.

And what is your source that says we will own the building?

[RBnW]

the club will own the buliding when it is built worth $11,400.000 as part of the deal....last time I looked that would be an asset which will be on our books....

What exactly is the value of a building when you don't own the land?

It's not as if the building will be portable.

And what is your source that says we will own the building?

There are lots of buildings on leased land that are still assets....the value is $11,400,000 whatever way you cut it its an Asset on our books...

[Mr Magic]

RBnW,
Do they in fact own the building?
Or does the $1pa rent cover the total facilities?

If it is the second scenario then the asset that the Club owns is in fact the 'lease'.
What that is worth depends on the clauses contained within:-
Is the Club entitled to 'sub-lease'?
Can it on-sell the 'lease'?
etc.

In essence the Club appears to have paid $1.4 million for a 50 year lease of the facilities. That's about $28,000 pa for each year of the lease.

What we haven't seen yet is who will foot the bills for the upkeep and running costs of the facilities.

Given that the facilities will be available for communal use for at least part of the time, Council must surely be paying some/most/all of the on-going costs (upkeep of the ovals, etc)

We will probably have to wait for annual accounts after we've moved in to tell how much of the other running costs (electricity etc) we have to pay.

[RBnW]

RBnW,
Do they in fact own the building?
Or does the $1pa rent cover the total facilities?

If it is the second scenario then the asset that the Club owns is in fact the 'lease'.
What that is worth depends on the clauses contained within:-
Is the Club entitled to 'sub-lease'?
Can it on-sell the 'lease'?
etc.

In essence the Club appears to have paid $1.4 million for a 50 year lease of the facilities. That's about $28,000 pa for each year of the lease.

What we haven't seen yet is who will foot the bills for the upkeep and running costs of the facilities.

Given that the facilities will be available for communal use for at least part of the time, Council must surely be paying some/most/all of the on-going costs (upkeep of the ovals, etc)

We will probably have to wait for annual accounts after we've moved in to tell how much of the other running costs (electricity etc) we have to pay.

from what I understand the $1 lease is for the land.....the building is the clubs and is an asset on the books......oval is maintained by the council

[GrumpyOne]

the club will own the buliding when it is built worth $11,400.000 as part of the deal....last time I looked that would be an asset which will be on our books....

What exactly is the value of a building when you don't own the land?

It's not as if the building will be portable.

And what is your source that says we will own the building?

There are lots of buildings on leased land that are still assets....the value is $11,400,000 whatever way you cut it its an Asset on our books...

Cut it this way....... buildings depreciate, land increases in value. (Unless of course if it is on the Brookland Greens Estate!)

[GrumpyOne]

RBnW,
Do they in fact own the building?
Or does the $1pa rent cover the total facilities?

If it is the second scenario then the asset that the Club owns is in fact the 'lease'.
What that is worth depends on the clauses contained within:-
Is the Club entitled to 'sub-lease'?
Can it on-sell the 'lease'?
etc.

In essence the Club appears to have paid $1.4 million for a 50 year lease of the facilities. That's about $28,000 pa for each year of the lease.

What we haven't seen yet is who will foot the bills for the upkeep and running costs of the facilities.

Given that the facilities will be available for communal use for at least part of the time, Council must surely be paying some/most/all of the on-going costs (upkeep of the ovals, etc)

We will probably have to wait for annual accounts after we've moved in to tell how much of the other running costs (electricity etc) we have to pay.

from what I understand the $1 lease is for the land.....the building is the clubs and is an asset on the books......oval is maintained by the council

Source?

[ausfatcat]

anyone have pictures of those designs they were showing at the press confrence?

[n1ck]

I believe RBnW knows what he is talking about.

I would hope that what he is saying is true.

[GrumpyOne]

I believe RBnW knows what he is talking about.

I would hope that what he is saying is true.

Archie's and the rest of the Boards' testicles if he doesn't.

[n1ck]

Very true, GO, very true.

[RBnW]

RBnW,
Do they in fact own the building?
Or does the $1pa rent cover the total facilities?

If it is the second scenario then the asset that the Club owns is in fact the 'lease'.
What that is worth depends on the clauses contained within:-
Is the Club entitled to 'sub-lease'?
Can it on-sell the 'lease'?
etc.

In essence the Club appears to have paid $1.4 million for a 50 year lease of the facilities. That's about $28,000 pa for each year of the lease.

What we haven't seen yet is who will foot the bills for the upkeep and running costs of the facilities.

Given that the facilities will be available for communal use for at least part of the time, Council must surely be paying some/most/all of the on-going costs (upkeep of the ovals, etc)

We will probably have to wait for annual accounts after we've moved in to tell how much of the other running costs (electricity etc) we have to pay.

from what I understand the $1 lease is for the land.....the building is the clubs and is an asset on the books......oval is maintained by the council

Source?

council and afl insider...
this is a very good deal for the club
even if its an asset worth $11,400,000 on the books and it does depreciate....the club is only depreciating there cost of $1,400,000 over the 50 years....

[joffaboy]

is there anyone on here who really gets what the footy club has just done
they have won $10,000,000 in funding to build an $11,400,000 training base and we only have to put in $1,400,000 of our own money....
on the asset.....
the club will own the buliding when it is built worth $11,400.000 as part of the deal....last time I looked that would be an asset which will be on our books....
the land the asset is built on is being leased for 50 years at $1 a year....not a bad lease deal for 50 years thats $50

So from what I can read this is an amazing deal....an asset on the books of $11,400,000 within 2 years...... that we put in only $1,400,000 of our money into and
a lease for 50 years at $1 a year.....
and an G sized ground maintained for the club by the council......there must be a big saving with this too.....
and we dont have to be in debt to do this.....

and the club will move to an area that can only grow our supporter base over the next 10 years....

sack the lot of them.....how dare they do such a great deal for the club

oh no look out. Someone actually making a smidgeon of Accounting sense.

Fair Dinkum never in the history of SS have I read such emotional, economically ludicrious, and wholesale ignorant arguments on a particular topic.

Freehold land - pfft Some of you dont even know the definition of an asset. FFS it has been embarrassing reading some of the posts in this thread.

And if you want to talk economics, an "asset" like land is worth three fifths of FA when it comes the economic health of an entity. How liquid do you people think freehold land with a dwelling on it is? You think you can utilise the asset and not affect the operations of the club?

Unbelievable Balance Sheets are important, but it is the P&L and CF that is the priority of an entity that is backed up by a parent (the AFL), not some NCA that can never be sold anyway.

Cant you people understand that our CF's are greatly improved and CL's are significantly decreased because we have (and correct me if I am wrong) we only have to finance 1.4 mill of the 11.4 mill cost?

Do you people understand the prevailing economic conditions? Dont you people understand that there is a credit squeeze and it is difficult to raise funds, especially for an entity such as a football club.

Goodness me, argue on the location. But to carp and moan and critisise the financial arrangements is incredibly ignorant and really quite silly.

[SENsei]

And if you want to talk economics, an "asset" like land is worth three fifths of FA when it comes the economic health of an entity. How liquid do you people think freehold land with a dwelling on it is? You think you can utilise the asset and not affect the operations of the club?

*cough* AIG *cough cough*