|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Sept 7, 2015 9:34:57 GMT 1
In fact the more I keep reading it.... So Canalside isn't a HTAFC asset ? If Canalside belongs to Dean, does the club in any way benefit from the revenue generated there ? Potentially paying Rent for Canalside, that would surely mean no financial benefit to HTAFC beyond Deans tenure ? I am sure he could recoup quite a lot of his s money put into HTAFC over the years by renting to us ? downatthemac.proboards.com/post/1783278/thread
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 9:46:36 GMT 1
In fact the more I keep reading it.... So Canalside isn't a HTAFC asset ? If Canalside belongs to Dean, does the club in any way benefit from the revenue generated there ? Potentially paying Rent for Canalside, that would surely mean no financial benefit to HTAFC beyond Deans tenure ? I am sure he could recoup quite a lot of his s money put into HTAFC over the years by renting to us ? downatthemac.proboards.com/post/1783278/threadInteresting, doesn't really mention how we benefit from Canalside other than use of facilities ? So do we assume the club don't financially benefit ?
|
|
|
Post by bluedogs, Esq. on Sept 7, 2015 9:53:32 GMT 1
Interesting, doesn't really mention how we benefit from Canalside other than use of facilities ? So do we assume the club don't financially benefit ? What makes you think Canalside makes a profit
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 10:06:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by detox on Sept 7, 2015 10:58:00 GMT 1
isn't Stuart Webber a director at Town too ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 11:00:08 GMT 1
£90k loss in 13/14, down from £162k in previous year.
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Sept 7, 2015 11:03:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Big Ern on Sept 7, 2015 11:06:06 GMT 1
Interesting point regarding canalside. Dean openly admitting in today's examiner he owns canalside and a potential new owner has two option, either buy it or RENT. Not that the clubs for sale though [/span][/quote] Read the final page of this. He doesn't. Those shares are owned by Hudds Town irrespective of who owns Hudds Town. He COULD potentially transfer the shares into his own name ahead of selling Hudds Town, in a similar fashion to how a previous owner ended up owning the stadium. We've still got our lime green scarves should that happen though?! I wonder if this is a sign talks are ongoing but a buyer wants to reduce price by removing Canalside from the deal. beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07337291/filing-history/MzEyOTYzNTE0OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf[/quote] Its certainly how it reads. It looks like he has been made an offer and it isn't on the right terms. It would explain the lack of permanent signings and influx of loans. If I thought I might be selling the club I doubt I'd splash out on transfers too. The canalside article reads like Dean is saying to this potential buyer that these are the terms, it's up to you. Just because he says he isn't looking to sell the club it doesn't mean he won't sell if the right offer came in ala Butterfield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 11:37:59 GMT 1
Its certainly how it reads. It looks like he has been made an offer and it isn't on the right terms. It would explain the lack of permanent signings and influx of loans. If I thought I might be selling the club I doubt I'd splash out on transfers too. The canalside article reads like Dean is saying to this potential buyer that these are the terms, it's up to you. Just because he says he isn't looking to sell the club it doesn't mean he won't sell if the right offer came in ala Butterfield. The article effectively removes the stadium from being part of any sale too by suggesting the 40% would move into Trust separated from a club sale. The thing is, who on earth is going to want to buy a Hudds Town Football Club that doesnt have ownership in its own stadium and doesnt own its training facilities? These are the very things that Dean has said over the years are critical to the ongoing viability of the club. I'd be really interested to know, either from Dean or from folk who have knowledge of Trusts and 3rd party relationships, how the benefit of having the 40% changes, if at all, if that 40% is moved into Trust, given how important its been made out over the last few years that Town get the direct ownership. What would be the impact today, and what would be the impact in a theoretical future where the KSDL mortgages and other debts have been paid and the annual operating cost is less than the service charge that Town and the Giants pay. I dont fully understand if this is Dean effectively making the club less attractive, so its a statement that he's still interested and excited to be running a football club in the medium term, or, if he's helping to reduce the value to ease a sale, and he'll pick up any lost value over time through Canalside and through continuing to exert influence through a reorganised KSDL. Could a future Hudds Town owner opt to move to Leeds Rd playing fields or similar, or is the club legally bound to continue to use Canalside?
|
|
|
Post by waltzingthecowshed on Sept 7, 2015 12:14:18 GMT 1
Its certainly how it reads. It looks like he has been made an offer and it isn't on the right terms. It would explain the lack of permanent signings and influx of loans. If I thought I might be selling the club I doubt I'd splash out on transfers too. The canalside article reads like Dean is saying to this potential buyer that these are the terms, it's up to you. Just because he says he isn't looking to sell the club it doesn't mean he won't sell if the right offer came in ala Butterfield. The article effectively removes the stadium from being part of any sale too by suggesting the 40% would move into Trust separated from a club sale. The thing is, who on earth is going to want to buy a Hudds Town Football Club that doesnt have ownership in its own stadium and doesnt own its training facilities? These are the very things that Dean has said over the years are critical to the ongoing viability of the club.
I'd be really interested to know, either from Dean or from folk who have knowledge of Trusts and 3rd party relationships, how the benefit of having the 40% changes, if at all, if that 40% is moved into Trust, given how important its been made out over the last few years that Town get the direct ownership. What would be the impact today, and what would be the impact in a theoretical future where the KSDL mortgages and other debts have been paid and the annual operating cost is less than the service charge that Town and the Giants pay. I dont fully understand if this is Dean effectively making the club less attractive, so its a statement that he's still interested and excited to be running a football club in the medium term, or, if he's helping to reduce the value to ease a sale, and he'll pick up any lost value over time through Canalside and through continuing to exert influence through a reorganised KSDL. Could a future Hudds Town owner opt to move to Leeds Rd playing fields or similar, or is the club legally bound to continue to use Canalside?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 12:15:43 GMT 1
Its certainly how it reads. It looks like he has been made an offer and it isn't on the right terms. It would explain the lack of permanent signings and influx of loans. If I thought I might be selling the club I doubt I'd splash out on transfers too. The canalside article reads like Dean is saying to this potential buyer that these are the terms, it's up to you. Just because he says he isn't looking to sell the club it doesn't mean he won't sell if the right offer came in ala Butterfield. The thing is, who on earth is going to want to buy a Hudds Town Football Club that doesnt have ownership in its own stadium and doesnt own its training facilities? Leeds United spring to mind. Cellino neither owns the ground or Thorpe Arch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 12:17:21 GMT 1
On the Trust issue, it would just depend on how the Trust's beneficiaries ie HTAFC LTD are treated. I'd think it would be quite simple to just have any money from KSDL divis paid into the Trust go straight to the football club, which would give all the benefit of actually owning the shares without a future owner having the ability to mortgage or sell the asset. I don't know how you'd get a trust to work within KSDL's corporate structure though - if the trustee was the owner of HTFC then they'd probably be able to wind the trust up.
It'll be a good day for the solicitors, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 12:47:31 GMT 1
I've read this thread twice over and I'm still non the wiser as to who owns fucking what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 12:54:39 GMT 1
Surely no one can take issue at him renting out something he has paid a fortune to build.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 13:05:10 GMT 1
Surely no one can take issue at him renting out something he has paid a fortune to build. I keep hearing about all the investment in Canalside - However- this investment by Dean will be clawed back, either by sale of Canalside OR Renting. I was of the understanding HTAFC benefitted from revenue from Canalside, is this not the case ? For clairty, and those unsure, Dean Hoyle owns Canalside NOT HTAFC as per the op comments - this is confirmed by the man himself in today's examiner
|
|
|
Post by detox on Sept 7, 2015 13:12:33 GMT 1
Any potential new owner might be quite happy not being burdened with having to buy the stadium complex, stadiums don't win matches..players do and it would enable him/her to concentrate their funds purely on the playing matters and not (for instance) in having to de-rust and re paint the stadium. I would imagine the security that the HTAFC Trust is holding Towns share of the complex and the management of it is undertaken by KSDL staff would be seen as a positive. When clubs are bought and sold I would say the majority of the time it is the potential on the field that swings it, rather than ooh it's a pretty stadium although I do accept some less savoury buyers purely see the potential of the site for development, but Dean will weedle them out first I reckon. The same goes for canalside, why waste precious capital when you can simply lease it for the duration of your ownership.. The combination of these two lease arrangements should in themselves be enough to weedle out any buyers salivating over the redevelopment prospects rather than pushing the football club forward.
|
|
|
Post by mids on Sept 7, 2015 13:14:25 GMT 1
I've read this thread twice over and I'm still non the wiser as to who owns fucking what. Dean owns Canalside. Huddersfield Town own the 40% share in the stadium. Dean owns Huddersfield Town.
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 13:19:57 GMT 1
Any potential new owner might be quite happy not being burdened with having to buy the stadium complex, stadiums don't win matches..players do and it would enable him/her to concentrate their funds purely on the playing matters and not (for instance) in having to de-rust and re paint the stadium. I would imagine the security that the HTAFC Trust is holding Towns share of the complex and the management of it is undertaken by KSDL staff would be seen as a positive. When clubs are bought and sold I would say the majority of the time it is the potential on the field that swings it, rather than ooh it's a pretty stadium although I do accept some less savoury buyers purely see the potential of the site for development, but Dean will weedle them out first I reckon. The same goes for canalside, why waste precious capital when you can simply lease it for the duration of your ownership.. The combination of these two lease arrangements should in themselves be enough to weedle out any buyers salivating over the redevelopment prospects rather than pushing the football club forward. Some good points. Up until today though, the club would have you believe HTAFC has invested a lot of money into Canalside.... but it won't see any benefit financially , Dean does. I feel a bit cheated to be honest. Has as club money been used to facilitate Canalside ? If so, how much, and why ? When the club don't own it!
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 13:21:06 GMT 1
I've read this thread twice over and I'm still non the wiser as to who owns fucking what. Dean owns Canalside. Huddersfield Town own the 40% share in the stadium. Dean owns Huddersfield Town. Quite worrying really. The club have lead supporters to believe Canalside belongs to the club prior to today
|
|
|
Post by detox on Sept 7, 2015 13:23:06 GMT 1
Surely no one can take issue at him renting out something he has paid a fortune to build. exactly, it's an investment he might actually be able to get some return on, unlike his investment in the football club. Having said that, he might well get a chunk of his investment in Town back when/if he sells...but tbh I've no idea what our club is worth to a new owner. One thing for sure though, the the new owner would get a club that is debt free as I'm sure I've read somewhere Dean would write off any remaining debt there is owing to him. Add in the fact the debt to KSDL only has a few more years to go until that is repaid (4 I think) and it would allow the majority of the owners cash to go into buying better players/coaches/manager ?
|
|
|
Post by detox on Sept 7, 2015 13:31:16 GMT 1
Any potential new owner might be quite happy not being burdened with having to buy the stadium complex, stadiums don't win matches..players do and it would enable him/her to concentrate their funds purely on the playing matters and not (for instance) in having to de-rust and re paint the stadium. I would imagine the security that the HTAFC Trust is holding Towns share of the complex and the management of it is undertaken by KSDL staff would be seen as a positive. When clubs are bought and sold I would say the majority of the time it is the potential on the field that swings it, rather than ooh it's a pretty stadium although I do accept some less savoury buyers purely see the potential of the site for development, but Dean will weedle them out first I reckon. The same goes for canalside, why waste precious capital when you can simply lease it for the duration of your ownership.. The combination of these two lease arrangements should in themselves be enough to weedle out any buyers salivating over the redevelopment prospects rather than pushing the football club forward. Some good points. Up until today though, the club would have you believe HTAFC has invested a lot of money into Canalside.... but it won't see any benefit financially , Dean does. I feel a bit cheated to be honest. Has as club money been used to facilitate Canalside ? If so, how much, and why ? When the club don't own it! I thought it was common knowledge that Dean had paid for Canalside, and that it would be left as a legacy for the football club. I don't see where the funding has ever come out of the football club. It was always my interpretation that when/if Dean sold HTAFC he kept hold of Canalside to ensure it remained for the use of the club..the fact he might want a rent for it is quite right, why wouldn't he ? Dean's business interests don't just stop with HTAFC, and Canalside is a Ltd Co. in it's own right..not a subsidiary of HTAFC despite both businesses having the same owner....(unless of course their is a tax efficient parent company tucked away in the Cayman islands.....)
|
|
|
Post by haveitback on Sept 7, 2015 13:34:00 GMT 1
I've read this thread twice over and I'm still non the wiser as to who owns fucking what. Dean Own's Huddersfield Town the Brand/Name Dean also owns the 40% shares in the stadium, He states he will put them in trust to protect them should a sale ever happen. Dean owns the 5million pound canalside which again should a sale ever happen he is either happy to sell to the new owner or rent it to Huddersfield Town, Either way he still gets his money back, One way is longer than the other. If i was him though i would look to sell and not rent, Any new owner of Town could easily say we might rent then build there own facilities else where leaving DH with a large complex and nothing to do with it, I am sure he will factor a Buy or rent agreement in either way should a sale happen, Just to protect himself though. If both doesn't happen he can always flatten it and build some more houses on the land.
|
|
|
Post by dugnet on Sept 7, 2015 13:38:19 GMT 1
The issue with the ownership of the club is very clear and there is no evidence to not trust DH in this respect. He is a shrewd businessman for sure but he also has safeguarded the future of the club, by using the Trust and owning Canalside he is protecting those assets. Football is littered with people who have bought into clubs with a view to essentially asset stripping.
Where football is now different is that the Premiership offers such riches that a potential investor may take the view that HTAFC is a secure base from which to mount an assault on the Premiership gold mine. As it stands a "new owner" would essentially have nothing other than:
Th HTAFC Brand The Playing Staff The Management & Satff (at playing and all other levels)
If DH wanted to be creative he could offer to "outsource" the academy and commercial operation and basically leave a new owner to run and fund the 1st team.
On the flip side unless you are an individual with an intense desire to run a successful football club, with immensely deep pockets, an iron nerve and also a plan to reap the fringe benefits of having a successful football team e.g. Ethihad at City, you are not actually to likely see running a Championship club as a great proposition.
Where we are at the moment is we have a stable and honest owner who has kept his word. On the other hand our current model is making things hard but that said we could still be doing better (on the pitch - at every level).
Whatever happens these next few months it is unlikely to be dull...well everything apart from the football lol. Mr Powell needs to get the positivity pills out and a dose of belief into the team.
UTT
|
|
|
Post by somenun on Sept 7, 2015 13:38:39 GMT 1
Some good points. Up until today though, the club would have you believe HTAFC has invested a lot of money into Canalside.... but it won't see any benefit financially , Dean does. I feel a bit cheated to be honest. Has as club money been used to facilitate Canalside ? If so, how much, and why ? When the club don't own it! I thought it was common knowledge that Dean had paid for Canalside, and that it would be left as a legacy for the football club. I don't see where the funding has ever come out of the football club. It was always my interpretation that when/if Dean sold HTAFC he kept hold of Canalside to ensure it remained for the use of the club..the fact he might want a rent for it is quite right, why wouldn't he ? Dean's business interests don't just stop with HTAFC, and Canalside is a Ltd Co. in it's own right..not a subsidiary of HTAFC despite both businesses having the same owner....(unless of course their is a tax efficient parent company tucked away in the Cayman islands.....) www.examiner.co.uk/sport/football/news/huddersfield-town-cut-annual-loss-6450057" There was £1.07m of capital expenditure investment, primarily on the Canalside training complex, with the figure for investment in transfers £2.22m" Maybe I aren't interpreting something right or missing something ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 13:40:20 GMT 1
Well this let the cat out of the bag a bit. I'd asked before about who exactly owned and benefited from Canalside and got repeatedly told Town did. I wonder if some of the club's "losses" include the buying of the stadium shares and development of Canalside?
I feel we have been lied to again. Not good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 13:40:30 GMT 1
Its certainly how it reads. It looks like he has been made an offer and it isn't on the right terms. It would explain the lack of permanent signings and influx of loans. If I thought I might be selling the club I doubt I'd splash out on transfers too. The canalside article reads like Dean is saying to this potential buyer that these are the terms, it's up to you. Just because he says he isn't looking to sell the club it doesn't mean he won't sell if the right offer came in ala Butterfield. The article effectively removes the stadium from being part of any sale too by suggesting the 40% would move into Trust separated from a club sale. The thing is, who on earth is going to want to buy a Hudds Town Football Club that doesnt have ownership in its own stadium and doesnt own its training facilities? These are the very things that Dean has said over the years are critical to the ongoing viability of the club. The club does have ownership of it's 40% though, just not in a way that could lead to that being abused? Surely what Dean has done by putting the shares in a trust is bind the 40% to the club, meaning no one in the future can abuse the ownership like Davy did and take the 40% stake away from the club to use for their own benefit. Without this, what's to stop an unscrupulous person come in and buy the club, then the very next day sell the 40% stake to his own company for a penny, and then take all the benefits that having that share offers in terms of dividends/income etc, and then when all is said and done they can sell the 40% stake back for a ton of cash. What Dean has done is prevent this. The owner could if he so wished take all the proceeds the 40% stake delivers for the length of his ownership, but he can never split the asset from the football club going forward, meaning that *hopefully* it will be the club that benefits from the share. Also the issue of Canalside ownership effectively makes the sale of the club much more flexible and therefore attractive. With CS being owned currently by DH, this price of the facility won't be tacked on to the price of the club, so there's an opportunity to pay less for the club. A prospective buyer can buy the club and the training facility, but what Dean has done is give them the choice to decide. They could pay less for the club and just rent the training complex at a fair price. Considering it ran at £90k+ loss last year and £150k+ the year before – it would make sense...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 13:52:15 GMT 1
Any potential new owner might be quite happy not being burdened with having to buy the stadium complex, stadiums don't win matches..players do and it would enable him/her to concentrate their funds purely on the playing matters and not (for instance) in having to de-rust and re paint the stadium. I would imagine the security that the HTAFC Trust is holding Towns share of the complex and the management of it is undertaken by KSDL staff would be seen as a positive. When clubs are bought and sold I would say the majority of the time it is the potential on the field that swings it, rather than ooh it's a pretty stadium although I do accept some less savoury buyers purely see the potential of the site for development, but Dean will weedle them out first I reckon. The same goes for canalside, why waste precious capital when you can simply lease it for the duration of your ownership.. The combination of these two lease arrangements should in themselves be enough to weedle out any buyers salivating over the redevelopment prospects rather than pushing the football club forward. I agree. But its all very confusing when. 1) There was an initial collaboration agreement drawn up between the council, the football club and the rugby club, such that the stadium would be run and developed in such a way to benefit all three parties. 2) Ken Davy transferred the football clubs ownership of the shares away from the football club, to "protect the football club from the potential liabilities of the stadium" (the rugby club shares had already moved away from the rugby club, as he effectively manufactured the situation, in amongst Sheffield/Hudds Giants etc, where the club playing as Hudds Giants ultimately was a new company, with the shares remaining in the old, largely dormant rugby club business,which became an umbrella, and "protected the Giants from KSDL liabilities". 3) Ken Davy sells the football club, without the stadium shares. 4) We're then told the football club NEEDs a direct say in how the stadium is managed and needs direct ownership to " benefit in the future" (although specifically how is never made clear). 5) Ken doesn't want to sell / give away is stadium ownership, is declared the devil incarnate against a backdrop of insisting still that keeping the shares separate from the football club protects the football club. 6) After influence of aprolonged aggressive campaign led on Deans behalf, and no doubt lots of negotiation, Dean gets the stadium shares "back where they belong", at a cost of £2m? For some reason the football club no longer needs " protecting" from KSDL. 7) Now we're told that when Hudds Town next changes hands, then the stadium ownership will be removed. Does the football club "need protecting" from KSDL again? Why was direct stadium ownership by the football club / the owner of the football club such a critical requirement whilst Dean has been the owner, but Dean is saying he will ensure that any future owner won't have that ownership? Something doesnt add up somewhere. Similarly, should Canalside be excluded from a future deal to sell the football club, why is it that Dean expects a return on his investment with the comment about a new owner having to BUY or rent the site....but when Ken wanted to see his investment returned via the mechanism of getting some value back out of the stadium shares, he was hounded by fans, supporter groups and the media and probably lived in fear for a while off the back of some very threatening vitriol. Will Dean sell "Hudds Towns share" in Canalside back to a future Hudds Town for £99, or will he bargain for millions? We really need more info putting out there, as theres a risk that Dean is starting to build a wall between himself and the fans, whereas over the last few years he has been considered as one of those fans. I'm sure its all innocent and theres probably nothing to worry about, he seems an inherently fair and decent person, but, as Town fans we've been scarred in the past by well meaning owners doing their best for the club but ultimately running it down....and that the tenures of Rubery, Taylor, and Davy are all so fresh in the mind makes us naturally wary. It's just a shame that Rubery didn't have Deans head, or that Taylor didn't have Ruberys money! (I won't comment on Davy...most folk remain irrational with regards to him...he's probably the kind of owner who would have been seen as quite successful in the 80s).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:00:09 GMT 1
Some good points. Up until today though, the club would have you believe HTAFC has invested a lot of money into Canalside.... but it won't see any benefit financially , Dean does. I feel a bit cheated to be honest. Has as club money been used to facilitate Canalside ? If so, how much, and why ? When the club don't own it! I thought it was common knowledge that Dean had paid for Canalside, and that it would be left as a legacy for the football club. I don't see where the funding has ever come out of the football club. It was always my interpretation that when/if Dean sold HTAFC he kept hold of Canalside to ensure it remained for the use of the club..the fact he might want a rent for it is quite right, why wouldn't he ? Dean's business interests don't just stop with HTAFC, and Canalside is a Ltd Co. in it's own right.. not a subsidiary of HTAFC despite both businesses having the same owner....(unless of course their is a tax efficient parent company tucked away in the Cayman islands.....) Currently it is. Going by DH's comments today, that would change if he were to sell the club. The £390k turnover of Canalside is counted within the club's total revenue in the last set of accounts. As far as I can tell, we don't pay any rent for using the facilities. Not sure why some people seem to have got themselves so confused and worked up by this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:00:34 GMT 1
Similarly, should Canalside be excluded from a future deal to sell the football club, why is it that Dean expects a return on his investment with the comment about a new owner having to BUY or rent the site....but when Ken wanted to see his investment returned via the mechanism of getting some value back out of the stadium shares, he was hounded by fans, supporter groups and the media and probably lived in fear for a while off the back of some very threatening vitriol. Davy didn't fund Town's 40% of the construction of the ground. He received that 40% from buying the club and then sold it to himself (for £2 was it?) By comparing the two situations you're inferring that when Dean bought the club this £5million Canalside was just sat there as an asset that he's now taken control of and will use it as a bargaining tool to get some money. You're twisting things. Why? The situation seems crystal clear to most but you for some reason are attempting to retrieve murkiness and underhandedness from it. There's a lot of harmful drivel wrote on this board that people shouldn't get too worked up about, but your recent posts in this thread just seem to be trying to cause trouble and paint a picture that doesn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 14:03:27 GMT 1
Ideally of course, Dean remains in charge, we remain in the Championship as a minimum, and then none of the rest really matters!
|
|