beats1
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2010
- 30,030
- 29,612
I think the issue there is not the car park but the water table underneath the stadium
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
I think the issue there is not the car park but the water table underneath the stadium
StartingPrice
Chief Sardonicus Hyperlip
- Feb 13, 2004
- 32,568
- 10,280
Yup...it's the seepage, right :shrug: All that weeping, that Vale-of-Tears, there has to be a recompense...that is it.
tototoner
Staying Alert
- Mar 21, 2004
- 29,402
- 34,111
L.A. Yiddo
Not in L.A.
- Apr 12, 2007
- 5,640
- 8,053
Super Tottenham
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2010
- 2,654
- 2,270
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...on-raising-funds-from-American-investors.html
Liverpool and Tottenham's new stadium plans hinge on raising funds from American investors
Both clubs are looking to kick-start stadium developments this year, but the global economic climate and the reluctance of banks to issue huge loans for major capital projects has led them to focus their fund-raising efforts in the US.
Telegraph Sport understands that both clubs are examining a range of debt-financing options with American investors, including ‘private placements’, a method of raising funds by selling bonds to private investors.
Under a private placement, investors would buy bonds in the club at a fixed rate of interest, which they would receive at set periods throughout the term of the deal. At its conclusion the initial investment would be repaid.
Manchester United refinanced more than £500 million of bank loans in 2009 by issuing corporate bonds in the club on the UK and American markets.
It was considered a success after it attracted significant take up from investors and allowed the Glazers to maintain their debt-financed ownership of the club, albeit at the cost of annual interest repayments of around £40 million.
Tottenham and Liverpool are understood to be less likely to issue corporate bonds that could be publicly traded, preferring to target private investors for the specific purpose of financing new grounds.
Arsenal successfully employed this model to finance the Emirates.
The fund-raising plans at both clubs are running alongside the search for naming-rights sponsors, a market that promises to be crowded in 2012, with Chelsea and the Olympic Park also seeking stadium partners.
Both Spurs and Liverpool would hope to raise at least £150 million over 10 years from a sponsor, with Tottenham targeting closer to £200 million. Spurs are expected to attract interest from Chinese sponsors and have been linked with Qatar Airways.
The clubs could borrow against a naming rights deal to allow them to kick-start construction work, with the balance of the total cost coming from investors.
Tottenham have estimated that their new stadium development at Northumberland Park, adjacent to White Hart Lane, will require around £300 million in funding, which UK banks are highly unlikely to consider in the current climate.
There would be competition among banks to handle a private placement in the US, however, particularly given the involvement of the club’s ultimate backer, the billionaire financier Joe Lewis.
Lewis is a key player in Tottenham’s expansion plans but so far he has maintained his policy of allowing the club to stand on its own resources, rather than dipping into his own fortune to boost spending on players and facilities.
His wealth could be a significant factor in a successful fund-raising however, particularly if he agreed to underwrite or act as a guarantor in the process.
The search for private investment is understood to have been a factor in Tottenham’s decision to delist the club from the London stock exchange, a move agreed by the club’s shareholders last month. The move means the club is now privately owned, with the vast majority of shares held by Joe Lewis’s ENIC.
Liverpool’s planned new stadium in Stanley Park is expected to cost a similar amount to Tottenham’s new ground, with the club’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, naturally examining fund-raising options at home as well as in the UK.
Officially the club are still considering the option of redeveloping Anfield, but their interest in financing options suggests that a new ground is the more likely option.
Liverpool and Tottenham's new stadium plans hinge on raising funds from American investors
Both clubs are looking to kick-start stadium developments this year, but the global economic climate and the reluctance of banks to issue huge loans for major capital projects has led them to focus their fund-raising efforts in the US.
Telegraph Sport understands that both clubs are examining a range of debt-financing options with American investors, including ‘private placements’, a method of raising funds by selling bonds to private investors.
Under a private placement, investors would buy bonds in the club at a fixed rate of interest, which they would receive at set periods throughout the term of the deal. At its conclusion the initial investment would be repaid.
Manchester United refinanced more than £500 million of bank loans in 2009 by issuing corporate bonds in the club on the UK and American markets.
It was considered a success after it attracted significant take up from investors and allowed the Glazers to maintain their debt-financed ownership of the club, albeit at the cost of annual interest repayments of around £40 million.
Tottenham and Liverpool are understood to be less likely to issue corporate bonds that could be publicly traded, preferring to target private investors for the specific purpose of financing new grounds.
Arsenal successfully employed this model to finance the Emirates.
The fund-raising plans at both clubs are running alongside the search for naming-rights sponsors, a market that promises to be crowded in 2012, with Chelsea and the Olympic Park also seeking stadium partners.
Both Spurs and Liverpool would hope to raise at least £150 million over 10 years from a sponsor, with Tottenham targeting closer to £200 million. Spurs are expected to attract interest from Chinese sponsors and have been linked with Qatar Airways.
The clubs could borrow against a naming rights deal to allow them to kick-start construction work, with the balance of the total cost coming from investors.
Tottenham have estimated that their new stadium development at Northumberland Park, adjacent to White Hart Lane, will require around £300 million in funding, which UK banks are highly unlikely to consider in the current climate.
There would be competition among banks to handle a private placement in the US, however, particularly given the involvement of the club’s ultimate backer, the billionaire financier Joe Lewis.
Lewis is a key player in Tottenham’s expansion plans but so far he has maintained his policy of allowing the club to stand on its own resources, rather than dipping into his own fortune to boost spending on players and facilities.
His wealth could be a significant factor in a successful fund-raising however, particularly if he agreed to underwrite or act as a guarantor in the process.
The search for private investment is understood to have been a factor in Tottenham’s decision to delist the club from the London stock exchange, a move agreed by the club’s shareholders last month. The move means the club is now privately owned, with the vast majority of shares held by Joe Lewis’s ENIC.
Liverpool’s planned new stadium in Stanley Park is expected to cost a similar amount to Tottenham’s new ground, with the club’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, naturally examining fund-raising options at home as well as in the UK.
Officially the club are still considering the option of redeveloping Anfield, but their interest in financing options suggests that a new ground is the more likely option.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
http://www.telegraph.co.uk said:
This is not exactly true, it's just that up until now Lewis has pumped money into the club through share issues, admittedly not on the same scale as Man City or Chelsea, but he hasn't exactly let the club 'stand on its own resources'. Since the club has been delisted he can't do this anymore and any money he puts in from now will be viewed in the same was as the money 'invested' by Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour.
Real_madyidd
The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
- Oct 25, 2004
- 18,797
- 12,454
You have corrected the statement with an incorrect statement. "pumping money in" is not buying shares in a traded company, he has not "pumped money in" at all, he has taken the option to but new shares, which had he declined would have been offered to ther share holders.
I own shares in lloyds, I have not "pumped money in" just because I own a few shares.
Dinghy
Well-Known Member
- Jun 22, 2005
- 6,326
- 15,561
Sorry, got to go with bt on this one. He(/Enic) didn't 'take the option' to buy new shares. He gave others the option to put more money into the club by the issuance of new shares. These new shares do 'give' money to the club at the cost of devaluing current (at the time) shares. If the share holders, at the time, didn't want to take up the option to invest further into the club, he(/Enic) guaranteed the cash injection required. As few did indeed take up this option, their shares were devalued a little whilst Lewis/Enic both increased their own share-holdings and "pumped money in" to the club. If he had wanted to have just increased his share-holdings, he could have gone into the market and bought off of someone else.
Did you buy your shares in Lloyds from someone else or from a share issuance? If you bought them from someone else then no, you are correct it wasn't a cash injection to the company.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
As Dinghy says, buying shares from the market is different from buying shares from a share issue, the latter generates cash for the company. In theory the shares shouldn't be devalued in monetary terms as the cash is for investment or for paying down debt which would be factored into the current share price, in practice though it doesn't really work like that.
Take your Lloyds' shares, when the government pumped £22.5bn into Lloyds they were issued with new shares that gave them a 43% stake in the business, thus devaluing the percentage of the company you and all other existing share holders own. In theory your shares shouldn't have been devalued in monetary terms as Lloyds now has £22.5bn of new money sitting on their books, thus increasing the value of the company, but in reality the need for new money shows a company's weakness and inability to raise money through the financial markets, so often leads to the devaluation of shares.
You could say that Lewis is the government and THFC are Lloyds, and I don't think you'll find many people who believe that the government didn't pump money into Lloyds to bail them out.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
BT and Dinghy are correct, however money hasn't be pumped into the club for player purchases, but for specific purposes, such as building the new training ground or to cover the expensive stadium design and planning process. And the Rights Issues were heavily discounted so that for providing the cash ENIC (Levy and Lewis), cheaply increased their stake in the company.
When BT pretends we've been bankrolled he's being disingenuous, Levy and Lewis invest expecting to make a return on that investment. The owners of Chelsea and City invest because it's a vanity thing, they know they'll never make a return, the just want they kudos and fun of owning a successful football club.
When BT pretends we've been bankrolled he's being disingenuous, Levy and Lewis invest expecting to make a return on that investment. The owners of Chelsea and City invest because it's a vanity thing, they know they'll never make a return, the just want they kudos and fun of owning a successful football club.
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
I quite agree with your appraisal of Lewis and Levy being investors rather than in it purely as a billionaire's plaything. However, the money was pumped into the club, and regardless of what it's announced purpose was, it has relieved pressure on other budgets such as playing staff. If the money hadn't been put into the club then the budget available for the players' wages and transfers would have been much reduced as the money would have been needed elsewhere.
It's a bit like saying Abramovich only puts money into Chelsea to run the stadium, buy the merchandise, pay the back room staff and plan for a new stadium, but all the money for players comes from gate receipts, merchandise sales, TV rights, etc.
sloth
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2005
- 9,018
- 6,900
I think you'd be right if the projects were due to go ahead even without the extra money being pumped in, in those circumstances the money would have had to be found from the general budget.
But there were Rights Issues specifically to fund the new projects.
In another circumstance, if general operating costs had spiralled for some reason and THFC Plc had had a Rights Issue to cover the extra exposure then that would have been pumping money in to cover our over expenditure and would have been akin to what Abramovich, Fenway, Ashley and Mansour have done at their clubs.
But as I say, in our case THFC Plc has gone to its shareholders and said we've got these expansion plans, we think by investing in a new training facility and exploring the option of a new stadium we can grow by x amount, saving costs over the medium to long term of y and increasing revenue in the same period by z. The risks are this, the benefits that, our recommendation is to go for it and to fund it we're going to issue new shares at this discount.
The offer went out, the shareholders considered it and bought or declined to buy accordingly and presumably had the RI not been a success they'd have had to think again.
At no point was our day to day operating budget (including transfer dealings and the like) going to be used for the new projects.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
Drayton Park Station is well beneath the level of the Immigrants.
SpurSince57
Well-Known Member
- Jan 20, 2006
- 45,213
- 8,229
I'm told we should hear something to our advantage on either the 13th or 18th of next month. The club has put in revised applications for the supermarket and housing. Construction of the fomer could begin quite soon.
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Cheers SS. Is this on time for the original schedule of works or are we a few months behind?
bigturnip
Tottenham till I die, Stratford over my dead body
- Oct 8, 2004
- 1,640
- 49
I think we're already about a year behind the original schedule. Construction will most likely start on the northern section of the site (the supermarket and offices) quite quickly, once the revised planning permission goes through, as they are not dependent on finding a large external backer and they don't fall within the footprint of the existing stadium. The bit that we're all concerned about, the stadium, will only be started once a backer is found, and we currently don't have more than rumours and speculation about how far away that might be.
L.A. Yiddo
Not in L.A.
- Apr 12, 2007
- 5,640
- 8,053
Oh yeah, the supermarket looks much bigger. Has that Sky Bar that was on top of it vanished?
The 'exceptional public realm' has gone from the previous design.
ohwhenthespurs
Well-Known Member
- Jan 3, 2009
- 1,773
- 3,018
Those new apartments look less like apartments and more like a block of council flats as we used to call them when I was a lad.
