oldweststander wrote:Such a morbid lot on here at times.
The Mansfield fans don't get on any players backs who give 100%, all footballers make mistakes, lower leagues more than most but it's a shame when supporters have digs at their own teams supporters.
Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
ParisStag wrote:Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
To be fair, it is a part of the local economy and a community hub, so it is exactly the kind of thing the council should be looking at. That said, I hope they don't succeed.
Amber Andy wrote:ParisStag wrote:Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
To be fair, it is a part of the local economy and a community hub, so it is exactly the kind of thing the council should be looking at. That said, I hope they don't succeed.
Surely that can't be a priority in times like these.
Folks using food banks, empty units on the high streets due to retailers not being able to afford the rates, vital services likely to be cut. The money is needed elsewhere.
And as Stagmanrob points out, how on earth will the loan be paid back, especially when gate money will be reduced due to necessary safety measures.
stagmanrob wrote:Apparently the loan request is to cover the income shortfall from no gate receipts and season ticket sales
I am Spartacus wrote:Amber Andy wrote:ParisStag wrote:Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
To be fair, it is a part of the local economy and a community hub, so it is exactly the kind of thing the council should be looking at. That said, I hope they don't succeed.
Surely that can't be a priority in times like these.
Folks using food banks, empty units on the high streets due to retailers not being able to afford the rates, vital services likely to be cut. The money is needed elsewhere.
And as Stagmanrob points out, how on earth will the loan be paid back, especially when gate money will be reduced due to necessary safety measures.
We have, in Mansfield, a parallel with the actions of our Mansfield DC. Mansfield DC own, in varying locations, various commercial properties such as hotels etc which were bought as a commercial investment with a fixed / guaranteed rate of return for the benefit of the people of Mansfield. When this became public there was uproar from various quarters regarding public money being invested out of the district when the district is in need of investment. Despite the investments being for long term benefit.
When the loan agreement is made public, which it will have to be for transparency purposes (The old chestnut of the loan being ‘commercially sensitive information’ will not sit well with the public in this case), the residents of ‘Church Bending Land’ will not be happy especially if they default on repayments or repayments cause the club financial hardship.
The loans may bring Chesterfield Borough Council more problems long term than it solves short term.
The alternative is, of course, a tax on sheep dip. Farmers get clean sheep, Spirietes get disease free women and the club gets a financial injection. A win win situation.
Dave Wayne wrote:I am Spartacus wrote:Amber Andy wrote:ParisStag wrote:Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
To be fair, it is a part of the local economy and a community hub, so it is exactly the kind of thing the council should be looking at. That said, I hope they don't succeed.
Surely that can't be a priority in times like these.
Folks using food banks, empty units on the high streets due to retailers not being able to afford the rates, vital services likely to be cut. The money is needed elsewhere.
And as Stagmanrob points out, how on earth will the loan be paid back, especially when gate money will be reduced due to necessary safety measures.
We have, in Mansfield, a parallel with the actions of our Mansfield DC. Mansfield DC own, in varying locations, various commercial properties such as hotels etc which were bought as a commercial investment with a fixed / guaranteed rate of return for the benefit of the people of Mansfield. When this became public there was uproar from various quarters regarding public money being invested out of the district when the district is in need of investment. Despite the investments being for long term benefit.
When the loan agreement is made public, which it will have to be for transparency purposes (The old chestnut of the loan being ‘commercially sensitive information’ will not sit well with the public in this case), the residents of ‘Church Bending Land’ will not be happy especially if they default on repayments or repayments cause the club financial hardship.
The loans may bring Chesterfield Borough Council more problems long term than it solves short term.
The alternative is, of course, a tax on sheep dip. Farmers get clean sheep, Spirietes get disease free women and the club gets a financial injection. A win win situation.
Two very different scenaris there when comparing the MDC investments to this loan.
All local authorities invest cash balances in order to generate income. Traditionally this was done with fixed term bank deposits but the financial crash of 2008 saw the investment rates plummet and income dropped to a tenth of what it was before the crash.
MDC invested in existing properties with a guaranteed rental return from major established businesses to generate income which could be spent on delivering local services. If suitable properties were available within the district they would have been purchased. People said MDC should have spent the money locally, but if you don't get the desired return on the investment the money is lost and you can only spend it once. A good annual return pays for services year after year.
If CBC choose to lend money to the Cheats it is a massive gamble with public money as although it is an established business, it has been losing money every year for quite some time. If they aren't making profit then they won't be able to service the loan debt and the council are short of cash in their balanced budget. Yes they could secure the loan against the ground, but imagine the local uproar if the council evicted the football club !!
Dave Wayne wrote:There is no parallel.
Irrespective of public perception, MDC made investments with a guaranteed annual return which could then be used to deliver local services.
CBC are considering loaning money to an organisation planning to purchase a business that has been haemorrhaging cash for years. There is a high risk of default.
CIPFA Codes of Practice specify the priorities of investments to be security, liquidity, and yield, in that order. They would find it difficult to justify this loan to any scrutiny panel or auditor.
yorkshire stag wrote:oh how absolutely sad would it be if it all went wrong ?
Mwahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Due to covid 19 the income from such properties are likely to be lower. A report in the National Press indicates it could lead to cuts in services.Dave Wayne wrote:I am Spartacus wrote:Amber Andy wrote:ParisStag wrote:Amber Andy wrote:A council should not be loaning money to an organisation trying to purchase a football club.
The money should be used to rebuild the local economy following the pandemic.
To be fair, it is a part of the local economy and a community hub, so it is exactly the kind of thing the council should be looking at. That said, I hope they don't succeed.
Surely that can't be a priority in times like these.
Folks using food banks, empty units on the high streets due to retailers not being able to afford the rates, vital services likely to be cut. The money is needed elsewhere.
And as Stagmanrob points out, how on earth will the loan be paid back, especially when gate money will be reduced due to necessary safety measures.
We have, in Mansfield, a parallel with the actions of our Mansfield DC. Mansfield DC own, in varying locations, various commercial properties such as hotels etc which were bought as a commercial investment with a fixed / guaranteed rate of return for the benefit of the people of Mansfield. When this became public there was uproar from various quarters regarding public money being invested out of the district when the district is in need of investment. Despite the investments being for long term benefit.
When the loan agreement is made public, which it will have to be for transparency purposes (The old chestnut of the loan being ‘commercially sensitive information’ will not sit well with the public in this case), the residents of ‘Church Bending Land’ will not be happy especially if they default on repayments or repayments cause the club financial hardship.
The loans may bring Chesterfield Borough Council more problems long term than it solves short term.
The alternative is, of course, a tax on sheep dip. Farmers get clean sheep, Spirietes get disease free women and the club gets a financial injection. A win win situation.
Two very different scenaris there when comparing the MDC investments to this loan.
All local authorities invest cash balances in order to generate income. Traditionally this was done with fixed term bank deposits but the financial crash of 2008 saw the investment rates plummet and income dropped to a tenth of what it was before the crash.
MDC invested in existing properties with a guaranteed rental return from major established businesses to generate income which could be spent on delivering local services. If suitable properties were available within the district they would have been purchased. People said MDC should have spent the money locally, but if you don't get the desired return on the investment the money is lost and you can only spend it once. A good annual return pays for services year after year.
If CBC choose to lend money to the Cheats it is a massive gamble with public money as although it is an established business, it has been losing money every year for quite some time. If they aren't making profit then they won't be able to service the loan debt and the council are short of cash in their balanced budget. Yes they could secure the loan against the ground, but imagine the local uproar if the council evicted the football club !!
oldweststander wrote:Take it from Dave Wayne, he is a rarity on here in financial terms, he knows what he's writing about.
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: arsene wengers coat, awalkinthepark, Bing [Bot], bluenyellow, bob ledgers barber, grufti, mans_field, Martin Shaw, MTFC Man, MTFCMusings, Scothie the Stag, smulls and 158 guests