New Stadium Details And Discussions

davidmatzdorf · Jun 17, 2019

'O Zio said:
Yeah I'm not in the least bit clued up on how all these valuations work. It just seems common sense that if they don't own the land/pitch that the stadium is worth less than if they did own everything. I was merely speculating that that could be one reason why their valuation is surprisingly low, but maybe it isn't factored into it.

Rateable value is a very artificial valuation method. I don't know the details, but it doesn't bear much relationship to market value.

If you think about it, if that kind of wheeze reduced the rateable value, a lot of landowners would do it to keep their business rates down. So the valuers would be bound to exclude that kind of thing from their valuation factors.

'O Zio · Jun 17, 2019

davidmatzdorf said:
I'm sure it's nothing to do with the Chelsea Pensioners, who are unconnected with the football club. They're war veterans who live in sheltered accommodation nearby.

I know, I was just joking that this anonymous group could be anyone for all we know

worcestersauce · Jun 17, 2019

davidmatzdorf said:
My memory is that the Chelsea Pitch Owners parcelled up the pitch into multiple ownership with the express intention of making it impossible to sell off the stadium for development. I don't think it raised any money - it was just a way to make it impossible to transfer the ownership of the land away from the club and its supporters.

It worked too.

Yid121 · Jun 17, 2019

davidmatzdorf said:
Rateable value is a very artificial valuation method. I don't know the details, but it doesn't bear much relationship to market value.

If you think about it, if that kind of wheeze reduced the rateable value, a lot of landowners would do it to keep their business rates down. So the valuers would be bound to exclude that kind of thing from their valuation factors.

It's very backwards. Seen your posts on development, also work in property and this is something I can actually shed light on :

Essentially the stadium will be valued on a DRC approach or profits approach. I suspect with no trading history it will be valued on the DRC approach which is essentially looking at how much it cost to build.

The key differentiator being that the rating system is so backwards and politically motivated, the valuation date only changes every 5 years or when the government plwases. Currently it is set to 1 April 2015 for property values (not relevant for a stadium) and 1 April 2017 for economic factors (relevant to a stadium build, costs appreciated/deprecated).

In terms of the Chelsea pitch issue, the occupier is liable and I suspect they will still be liable for it as a whole (not had experience of different ownership for different owners but I doubt rating law would allow this to split up and devalue a rates bill, the relevant law I'd seen was there had to be physical barriers in place, capable of separate occupation etc so I highly doubt it)

Our stadium would've been a fascinating case to work on, ie when did the stadium become capable of benificial occupation for them to start paying rates? but im sure they were well advised (I haven't touched rates work in 5 years!).

davidmatzdorf · Jun 17, 2019

Yid121 said:
It's very backwards. Seen your posts on development, also work in property and this is something I can actually shed light on :

Essentially the stadium will be valued on a DRC approach or profits approach. I suspect with no trading history it will be valued on the DRC approach which is essentially looking at how much it cost to build.

The key differentiator being that the rating system is so backwards and politically motivated, the valuation date only changes every 5 years or when the government plwases. Currently it is set to 1 April 2015 for property values (not relevant for a stadium) and 1 April 2017 for economic factors (relevant to a stadium build, costs appreciated/deprecated).

In terms of the Chelsea pitch issue, the occupier is liable and I suspect they will still be liable for it as a whole (not had experience of different ownership for different owners but I doubt rating law would allow this to split up and devalue a rates bill, the relevant law I'd seen was there had to be physical barriers in place, capable of separate occupation etc so I highly doubt it)

Our stadium would've been a fascinating case to work on, ie when did the stadium become capable of benificial occupation for them to start paying rates? but im sure they were well advised (I haven't touched rates work in 5 years!).

I haven't done rates valuations, but I have had discussions and negotiations, when completing residential and mixed-use developments, as well as when discussing badly dilapidated listed buildings awaiting renovation, about when they are or are not capable of beneficial occupation. In this case, I would think that the stadium was only capable of beneficial occupation when its primary purpose and primary generator of income had been approved, i.e., when the safety certificates had been signed off and the stadium was ready to host a professional football match. That would have been a matter of days before the Crystal Palace match.

NB for others: DRC is "depreciated replacement cost" - how much it would cost to replace the stadium, allowing for depreciation of the value over time.

Krule · Jun 17, 2019

davidmatzdorf said:
I haven't done rates valuations, but I have had discussions and negotiations, when completing residential and mixed-use developments, as well as when discussing badly dilapidated listed buildings awaiting renovation, about when they are or are not capable of beneficial occupation. In this case, I would think that the stadium was only capable of beneficial occupation when its primary purpose and primary generator of income had been approved, i.e., when the safety certificates had been signed off and the stadium was ready to host a professional football match. That would have been a matter of days before the Crystal Palace match.

NB for others: DRC is "depreciated replacement cost" - how much it would cost to replace the stadium, allowing for depreciation of the value over time.

I always find the word to describe your posts begins with an 'e'....entertaining or educational...10/10 keep it up !

...

Wick3d · Jun 18, 2019

Saw that they are ripping up the pitch at the stadium, the old grass is now in one huge pile at the back! Good thing they are replacing it, far too many players slipping on the pitch.

irradiation · Jun 18, 2019

Wick3d said:
Saw that they are ripping up the pitch at the stadium, the old grass is now in one huge pile at the back! Good thing they are replacing it, far too many players slipping on the pitch.

I wonder if they’ll be tweaking the soil and the trays underneath too. If I remember correctly from the SSC discussions, our pitch was designed to drain through instead of directing water to the side (also the reason why our pitch has no camber), and a possible insufficiency of drainage may be causing the slipping issues.

'O Zio · Jun 18, 2019

Wick3d said:
Saw that they are ripping up the pitch at the stadium, the old grass is now in one huge pile at the back! Good thing they are replacing it, far too many players slipping on the pitch.

Yeah it certainly didn't look right in the handful of games we played there. Got very easily churned up and as you say the slipping was really noticable in certain games. I assumed this was just a case of some sort of bedding in period for the new turf but if they're ripping it up already then I guess it must be a bigger issue. Hopefully they can sort it out for next season.

longtimespur · Jun 18, 2019

Seem to remember somebody on here posting that the groundsman was aware of some problem with the pitch and it would be taken up during the close season.
So congrats to whomever that was. (y)

ComfortablyNumb · Jun 18, 2019

It’s a black art, even with the semi-artificial technologies. Might not even get it right second time around.

Bulletspur · Jun 18, 2019

coys200 said:
Yup here’s article we have to pay £3.7m a year. West Ham Bill is £1.6m but the tax payer will pay £1.3m of that what a joke.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/busine...spurs-new-stadium-tops-business-rates-league/

A joke indeed. A bigger stadium without having to pay for it, hardly paying any rates. Its a far reach but how does this not breach the financial fair play by default?

longtimespur said:
Seem to remember somebody on here posting that the groundsman was aware of some problem with the pitch and it would be taken up during the close season.
So congrats to whomever that was.

Yes, this was mentioned in the commentary during one of our first home games at the stadium.

coyspurs18 · Jun 18, 2019

longtimespur said:
Seem to remember somebody on here posting that the groundsman was aware of some problem with the pitch and it would be taken up during the close season.
So congrats to whomever that was.

Pretty sure @coys200 was twittering with him or something

coys200 · Jun 18, 2019

Yup Darren said weren’t happy but know what the problem is and should be fine. Also interestingly said a new pitch will be relayed every summer as part of the business plan. Which I took to mean they expect the stadium to be busy with concerts all summer. And the pitch can only remain under the stand for short periods. Also of interest we will holding the elite groundsman conference next year.

https://sglsystem.com/EN/news/972/spurs-official-host-masterclass-2020

Wick3d · Jun 18, 2019

coys200 said:
Yup Darren said weren’t happy but know what the problem is and should be fine. Also interestingly said a new pitch will be relayed every summer as part of the business plan. Which I took to mean they expect the stadium to be busy with concerts all summer. And the pitch can only remain under the stand for short periods. Also of interest we will holding the elite groundsman conference next year.

https://sglsystem.com/EN/news/972/spurs-official-host-masterclass-2020

They have already started laying this years pitch. Not sure why they will keep doing it every year, wouldn't we use the artifical turf for concerts, etc?

coys200 · Jun 18, 2019

Wick3d said:
They have already started laying this years pitch. Not sure why they will keep doing it every year, wouldn't we use the artifical turf for concerts, etc?

Because the pitch won’t survive under the stand for extended periods. If there’s 4 or 5 concerts in a summer plus the preparation time setting up stages. They can’t keep wheeling it in out. It’s fine like for the NFL they can wheel it away for 2 or 3 days. But it just won’t survive being wheeled in and out every five minutes. He said Madrid relay the pitch every summer and it’s not an issue. I know I kind of thought it defeats the purpose of the retractable pitch. But it still allows us to host events during the season in one off situations like one a month or fortnight. It’s in the summer when you have back to back events it becomes pointless wheeling it in and out.

jyoshinmonchris · Jun 18, 2019

coys200 said:
Yup Darren said weren’t happy but know what the problem is and should be fine. Also interestingly said a new pitch will be relayed every summer as part of the business plan. Which I took to mean they expect the stadium to be busy with concerts all summer. And the pitch can only remain under the stand for short periods. Also of interest we will holding the elite groundsman conference next year.

https://sglsystem.com/EN/news/972/spurs-official-host-masterclass-2020

Thanks for that link. Not sure if I just missed it previously but there's some pics of the grass when it's under the stand http://sglsystem.com/case/integratedsystem.php

And a video of the lighting system coming out of storage under the north stand:

davidmatzdorf · Jun 19, 2019

Bulletspur said:
A joke indeed. A bigger stadium without having to pay for it, hardly paying any rates. Its a far reach but how does this not breach the financial fair play by default?

I can't see any way that West Ham's skill [fortune] at securing an inexpensive rented stadium would contravene FFP regulations. All it does is to reduce their running costs, which makes them more viable by FFP standards, not less.

The downside for them is that they have no asset. They don't own anything that is worth money. Tottenham has a huge pile of borrowing to pay off, but once we've done that, assisted by the receipts from the residential development, one hopes, we'll have a property worth millions, along with many other property assets in the neighbourhood that are worth further millions. West Ham just have an ever-depreciating lease.

It's a contrast between short-term money-saving and long-term investment.

Bulletspur · Jun 19, 2019

davidmatzdorf said:
I can't see any way that West Ham's skill [fortune] at securing an inexpensive rented stadium would contravene FFP regulations. All it does is to reduce their running costs, which makes them more viable by FFP standards, not less.

I know, that is why I said "a far reach". I was also questioning or alluding to the word "Fair" in FFP, where surely having everything being paid for you results in an "unfair" advantage therefore FFP should apply. I know you are right, just wishful thinking

DukeUSA · Jun 19, 2019

Bulletspur said:
\. Its a far reach but how does this not breach the financial fair play by default?
.

The Olympic Stadium deal does not violate financial fair play as they have not received an undue infusion from their ownership which is what FFP deals with. What the deal does violate however is UEFAs prohibition against state aide. As a quasi government agency the olympic group has given WHU an undue or unearned benefit and this is in violation of UEFA rules. I dont read enough of them to know the penalty though.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Front Page Gadfly

Well-Known Member

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope

Well-Known Member

Front Page Gadfly

Carpe Diem

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Reasonable Advocate

Mistakes were made

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Front Page Gadfly

The Reasonable Advocate

Active Member

Similar threads