Ken Tone Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So the trust's "all funded and ready to sign at the drop of a hat" bid is not yet actually ready? Gosh! Who'd have thought it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/631727513?-11209:804 Now wouldnt it be funny if they did reject it, This is funnier There should also be proof that £1m worth of investment collected by the trust and funding agreed by property developer Stuart Robinson are deposited into an escrow account. When added to this As previously reported in The News, city leaders voted to loan Pompey Supporters’ Trust £1.45m in August last year. Now a cabinet meeting is to be held at 1.40pm in the council chamber to finalise the agreement. A report being presented to members says the move should be agreed on the basis that assurances are made by The Football League and the club’s administrators PKF that no other bid is being considered. And then look back on the valuation that PDT want the Judge to approve to buy Nottarf. Now it has been a long time since I was at School and learnt Maths...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 I agree; The Parachute Payments were supposed to be critical in securing the funding to pay back this loan but now can't be assured sohow come the PCC are even considering going ahead with this reckless choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 The fact that they still need this loan confirmed makes it quite clear that the Trust is not ready to complete, despite the official line about 'bring it on, we are fully funded!' But this rubber-stamping exercise could be a tetchy affair - it only takes one mischievous councillor to stand up and point out the screaming herd of elephants in the room - pompey cannot meet the council conditions for the loan. Will someone be brave enough, or will they sit quietly to avoid the abuse that is heaped on anyone who draws attention to the actual facts? My money is on the loan being quietly approved with little reference to the issues surrounding it, and once the Lidl bubbly is cracked, some local politician will waddle into a photo opportunity and perform tricks for votes. It will be a celebration, hurrah for the taxpayer, bravely taking risks to shaft themselves again. but there's no risk rallyboy you nutjob.... No, of course there isn't, the council will pick up the tab WHEN it goes wrong, it won't be local taxpayers getting shafted again... This loan is nothing more than a borrowing suicide pact between the council and taxpayers - the property developing trust can't afford to repay it in the timeframe without creating more debt. Can the council help finance the local association for the blind, or the Salvation Army? No, those greedy selfish ****ers can jog on, the council have important people to help - and those old ladies visiting the city as tourists can pay to have a **** from now on. At a time when services are being cut and wards closed a local council is happy to set itself up as a low-interest bank propping up a criminally negligent business that has habitually raped the local community. Nice call councillor. But no one will challenge this for fear of losing votes, the facts will be ignored. The fantasy business plan initially offered has proved to be hopelessly out of step with events, and today is even the chance for someone to challenge the figure of £300M a year that the club brings into the city. But the bestest can't be questioned, even though their version of transparency seems cloudier than Ms Winkelman herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Thought for the day: If a council borrowing money to loan to a private company is a 'risk free' win-win for both parrties, why isn't this practice widespread throughout the land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) Can someone explain why the council even need to re-convene today to "finalise the agreement"? They "finalised the agreement" back in August: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19183904 Why do they need another meeting to "finalise" what has already been "finalised"? Surely a more accurate description of the objective of the meeting is: "to re-approve the loan due to a change in the conditions imposed when it was agreed last time"? A reminder of the original conditions: That the club owned and operated by the trust is the same club that was relegated and has membership of the relevant football league That the club and its assets are bought for £7.68m, which includes provision for the full and final settlement of the football creditors That the club owned and operated by the trust obtains all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments That the trust obtains a legal charge over Fratton Park That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the club, beyond those set out in the trust's business plan, without the prior consent of the council That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m That a subscription agreement for the trust's Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme is in place, which has been approved by the city solicitor and does not allow money to be taken out of the club until the council has been repaid That proof of funds from the three schemes has been demonstrated That a suitably skilled and experienced chief executive is appointed by the trust Edit: Actually, I can see they have a 'get out' clause in there re: using the parachute payments to guarantee the loan - that can be replaced by an "investor guarantee"..... have they got one of those...? Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Edit: Actually, I can see they have a 'get out' clause in there re: using the parachute payments to guarantee the loan - that can be replaced by an "investor guarantee"..... have they got one of those...? Robinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) With an urban population of over 400,000 people , what really justifies the need to pump £1.5m into a failing private business when it serves approximately 10,000 people at a push . One of the issues I think is not so much the idea of loaning this money ( although this has concerns for all of their alleged Tax payers) but WHAT happens if the repayments are not met ? After all why worry about a small detail like that with a triple star rating that the Skates have ? Edited 27 February, 2013 by qwertySFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) Robinson. Possibly a daft question coming up here but.....If he's in a position to "guarantee" repayment of the council loan, should the whole thing go t1ts up on 'day 1', why doesn't he loan the money to the PDT himself in the first place? In other words, if they've got an investor with the wealth to underwrite the deal why does the council need to loan them money at all? Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kirkup Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppBB.pdf Interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) There was no requirement to go back to the Council to finalise the loan. The previous resolution fully approved it, on terms. There was only a requirement to go back to the Council if the finalisation of the terms by the CEO and Solicitor increased the Council's risk. There is something they are trying to keep quiet. My guess is it relates to pp's and the PFA position, but it could be anything. Also, it seems they have only collected £1m from pledges, if you can believe anything written in the News. edit: I see I've just repeated what was already posted. It's what happens when you do some work! Edited 27 February, 2013 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppBB.pdf Interesting Looks like a good find. What's that an appendix to? It at least lays rest to the urban myth that the land is protected by an 'un-moveable' sporting covenant. The Council appointed the District Valuer Service (DVS) to undertake valuations on the football ground only based on the assumption that the Football Club is no longer present and there is no occupier for the ground in its existing structure. They understand that Portsmouth City Council have been asked to make a loan to the Football Supporters Club with the Fratton Park ground as security. DVS have therefore based their valuations on the most valuable alternative use value of the site. Based on informal discussions with the Local Planning Authority, in the event that the football club no longer existed, the site could in a number of years time be redeveloped for a variety of uses, the most likely of which would be residential . Adopting this assumption Planners have advised that it could physically be capable of accommodating a residential development between 40 and 80 units. Such development assumes 30% on site affordable housing provision and be of an appropriate density and mix of development. Any development will be liable for CIL contributions. For an 80 dwelling development, access would be required from the north and west through land controlled by the previous owners of Portsmouth Football Club. For the 40 dwellings it assumes access from the south only through the existing public roads. The cost of developing the site for any alternative use, including residential, would be high due inter-alia to the need to demolish the existing structures and remedying any potential historic contamination. A material factor affecting the alternative use value of the site under scenario one below (40 units) would be the constraint imposed by accessing any development utilising the existing road network. The District Valuer can advise ; Scenario 1: Value of football ground only assuming an alternative use for 40 homes is £101,000 Scenario 2: Value of football ground only assuming an alternative use for 80 homes is £800,000 In both scenarios the underlying land value has been severely depressed because of the need for demolition of the stands and of the possibility of contamination at the site with the resultant remediation costs. We have received a quotation and advice from an experienced local demolition firm and there are three main reasons for the high cost of demolition we have included. Firstly, they understand that there may be asbestos present in the stands which would be expensive to remove. Secondly, the North stand could potentially have fill beneath it, possibly hazardous, and this would need to be removed. Thirdly, the West stand runs parallel to and abuts residential gardens, therefore this elevation would have to be demolished by hand rather than by mechanical means unless permission were granted to demolish from the residential gardens. I have therefore included a figure of £1,000,000 to cover the costs of demolition. There is uncertainty as to potential contamination issues and we have taken advice from the Council's Contaminated Land Manager who advises that there is the potential for low-level contamination to be present on site as a result of the landraising activities around the perimeter. This material is unlikely to be highly contaminated. She notes that “Although nothing has been identified, we do not have access to the site operations and maintenance records so should consider the potential for: a) asbestos containing materials to be present in the structures on site; and b) unexpected contamination to be present on site as a result of previously contaminative uses associated with the football ground. An example would be if a leaking fuel tank had been located on site associated with heating the administration block. These are unknowns that are faced on the majority of commercial sites with lengthy histories, and can generally be partially answered by access to the site records." In the circumstances and because of the potential risk I have included a figure of £200,000 for the decontamination risks on the site. The costs of decontamination and demolition of £1,200,000 have been included in my valuation and have been deducted directly from the value of the land. Scenario 1 is for a development which can only be accessed from the residential roads to the south of the site. The narrow residential nature of these roads restricts their capacity for traffic and the planners have therefore advised that there is a limit of 40 dwellings on the number of units which can be constructed on the site. Whilst this means that the properties can be slightly larger, there is a ceiling on the sales prices which can be achieved in this mixed use area with commercial properties to the north and west. Consequently the land value for 40 units is reflective of the number of dwellings and the area. In both cases these figures need to discounted for a minimum of five years to reflect the current planning policy relating to the use of Fratton Park as a football club. Under scenario 2 the figure quoted would need to be further adjusted downwards to reflect the cost and un-certainty of acquiring access rights (from the adjoining owners, formerly owners of the Football Club). There is no guarantee that such access rights can be negotiated or the cost of acquiring such rights. Due to the un-certainty and cost in securing alternative access, Scenario One would be the appropriate basis if a loan was made to the Supporters Club based upon the alternative use of the site and having regard to the planning policies of the Council . This also assumes the Council can secure appropriate rights in the land against which any loan could be secured. Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppBB.pdf Interesting Why the high cost of decontamination Coffee over keyboard time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppBB.pdf Interesting So basically the council have drawn up contingency plans for if the club goes bust, but have decided that, because of the cost of demolition and associated risks with such old and badly-maintained buildings, the land is effectively worthless. Which begs the question of why the property developers are involved at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So the Council are planning to lend £1.45m for which they will take, as security, a piece of land which their own valuer reckons is worth £100k, and at best £800k. If they should need to take possession, they become responsible for all the possible contamination the report refers to. No risk there, no siree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kirkup Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 It's from the documents relating to todays council meeting http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/yourcouncil/28930.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Question: How do we Nutjobs find this info which is easily found in the public domain - another myth about the ground and lying dormant longer than Chernobyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppBB.pdf Interesting The amount of dwellings that they have used in their calculations seems very low. For comparison, the Vista apartments next to Fratton park (the blue building in this picture) contains 69 flats. If Fratton Park ever gets redeveloped I can guarantee that they'll squeeze more than 40-80 properties onto the site. As another comparison, when they built on The Dell (which I would say is a smaller site) they built 202 apartments and 26 town houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) So the Council are planning to lend £1.45m for which they will take, as security, a piece of land which their own valuer reckons is worth £100k, and at best £800k. If they should need to take possession, they become responsible for all the possible contamination the report refers to. No risk there, no siree. Now - call me cynical but here's the results of the last local election - not many votes between the 1st and 2nd (cough cough) http://http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/portsmouth-city-council-elections-results-1-3806778 IF - you are seen to be the savior of our fishey friends pipe dreams - even if it never comes off , valuable material for any campaign - you can see it now as they drive around in their open top wheelchairs with the mega phone - We are the ones who tried and offered the money but the nasty FL stopped us but vote for us we are on your side " Edited 27 February, 2013 by qwertySFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) For amusement purposes only, a quick reminder of the "Income Assumptions" the council were working to before approving the loan last August: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppB.pdf The key income assumptions include: Average attendance for home matches in Division 1 of 11,500 in 2012/13 Rising to average attendance of 12,250 in 2013/14 (giving an increase in income of £0.6m) Rising to an average attendance of 13,250 in 2014/15 (giving a further increase in income of £0.8m) The implication of the above is that there will be a measure of success over the 3 seasons and, as stated within the PST Business Plan, the Club will remain in Division 1. The starting attendance in 2012/13 appears to be reasonable. The average League attendance at Portsmouth for 2011/12 (in the Championship) was 15,751. The average League 1 attendance in 2011/12 was 7,359, however the larger Clubs were achieving the average attendances set out in the table below. If Portsmouth FC were to attract attendances of 11,500, they would be positioned 5th in the attendance rankings. Sheffield Wednesday 21,336 Sheffield United 18,701 Charlton Athletic 17,429 Huddersfield Town 14,146 Preston North End 11,428 Milton Keynes Dons 8,659 The other main income assumptions are as follows: Sponsorship Income will increase by 15% over the period Seasonal Packages will increase by 25% Income from Corporate Partners will increase by over 100% All of the above amount to an additional £150,000 per annum and have been assumed by PST despite a starting assumption for Season 1 (2012/13) of reduced attendance. Officers have challenged these assumptions and the PST response is that there is significant potential for increased revenues in these areas and that those operations have been poorly managed in the past. Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Possibly a daft question coming up here but.....If he's in a position to "guarantee" repayment of the council loan, should the whole thing go t1ts up on 'day 1', why doesn't he loan the money to the PDT himself in the first place? In other words, if they've got an investor with the wealth to underwrite the deal why does the council need to loan them money at all? Maybe it is 'tied up' but the money would be available just in case. Just think if the club does go t!ts up again and the Council have to get the money back, there would be absolute sh!tstorm for them for agreeing to do the loan in the first place and then try to get the money back. It would be more fun than if the Council turn down the loan now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So let me get this right, the Council complete a report which clearly shows there is no chance of getting back their £1.45m loan from the value of the land itself, and yet recommend the loan is given due to the following: The purpose in providing the Loan Facility Agreement is to promote the economic and social well-being of its local authority area by seeking to support the viability of a third-party’s proposal to take on the conduct of the football club in accordance with its stated aims (which include aims in which may have a social benefit). The terms of the loan have been composed to also reflect the Council’s role as an investor operating on market-investment terms and reflect an appropriate balance between security, and return on investment. 4.2 This matter arises as urgent owing to the stage the bid currently stands at: in order to meet court deadlines PST’s bid must be advanced within the next few working days – in order to promote the robustness of that bid, it is important that all supporting aspects to it are as concluded and final as is possible. Accordingly (and given that terms have now been finalised) officers recommend that a decision is taken forthwith. Also interesting to note that the PST appear to be under pressure to finalise their bid according to the Council. Hang on, haven't they been ready to go for a long time? That's what they've been telling everyone. Couldn't be telling lies in this era of transparency, could they? Dare they? Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Question: How do we Nutjobs find this info which is easily found in the public domain - another myth about the ground and lying dormant longer than Chernobyl More to the point, why do not the caring British Press circulate this and all other FACTS relating to the criminal way Portsmouth FC has been run for YEARS ?? WHY the grear big cover up ??? It's no longer a major Naval base for discharged semen is it ?? .... we only have hotspur IV left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 I see that they are having to bend the usual council rules to accommodate the Pompey loan "finalisation" in today's council meeting. Is anything ever dealt with in a 'straight' manner when it comes to that runt of a club? http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227a.pdf Notice of Forward Plan Omission The Portsmouth Football Club Financial Loan Support to PST (agenda item 5) was not included in the Forward Plan for 29 January to 31 March published by the City Council 29 January 2013. Amendments brought about by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) England Regulations 2012, requiring 28 days' notice to be given to all Decisions to be held in private which came into effect on 10th September 2012. Approval to consider this matter has been obtained from the Chair of the City Council's Scrutiny Management Panel in accordance with the Regulations. The Council must publish a notice as soon as reasonably practicable explaining why the meeting is urgent and cannot be deferred (regulation 5). This matter arises as urgent owing to the stage the bid currently stands at: in order to meet court deadlines PST’s bid must be advanced within the next few working days – in order to promote the robustness of that bid, it is important that all supporting aspects to it are as concluded and final as is possible. Accordingly (and given that terms have now been finalised) officers recommend that a decision is taken forthwith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So let me get this right, the Council complete a report which clearly shows there is no chance of getting back their £1.45m loan from the value of the land itself, and yet recommend the loan is given due to the following: Also interesting to note that the PST appear to be under pressure to finalise their bid according to the Council. Hang on, haven't they been ready to go for a long time? That's what they've been telling everyone. Couldn't be telling lies in this era of transparency, could they? Dare they? Oh dear. NOOOOO They have been ready for months - honestly, don't you read the Snooze, keep up man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) Appendix C highlights the council's position on the previous loan conditions: APPENDIX CHead of Finance & S151 Officer Comments The City Council decided unanimously to adopt 2.1, 2.2 b) Option 2, 2.3i), 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Council report of 9th August 2012. The recommendations of Council were the subject of a number of preconditions which are reproduced below alongside the progress that the Council has made in making provision for those conditions to be satisfied. THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVED that the following recommendations set out in the report be adopted Recommendation 2.1 - The City Council should only consider providing financial loan support to Portsmouth Supporters Trust and put public funds at risk if there is no other commercial alternative to bringing the Club out of Administration. Progress A letter has been sent to both the Administrators and the Football League asking them to confirm that “the Football League remain committed to only transferring the share to the PST, following completion of the purchase, and that no other commercial alternative is being considered which would result in the share being transferred elsewhere”. Confirmation is awaited. The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) to the Portsmouth Community Football Club Limited (“the Club”) is conditional upon written confirmation from the PST’s legal advisors that there was no alternative source of funding available to the PST other than the City Council and other than the agreed sums provided by South Point Finance Limited. Recommendation 2.2 - In the event that a commercial deal cannot be concluded and the bid from the Portsmouth Supporters Trust is the only alternative to liquidation, then the City Council approves Option 2 set out below: b) Option 2 Make budgetary provision for £1.45m of loan support to the PST for a 12 month period ending 31 August 2013, which shall be conditional upon: i) The Club owned and operated by the PST being deemed to be the “Relegated Club” and that transfer of membership of the Football League is obtained Progress A letter has been sent to the Football League asking them to confirm that “the Football League remain committed to only transferring the share to the PST. The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) requires “written confirmation from the Premier League Limited that the Borrower will be the “relegated Club” for the purposes of rule A.1.114 of the Premier League Rules ii) The business and assets of the Club are acquired for £7.68m and that this consideration for the acquisition includes provision for the full and final settlement of the Football creditors Progress The business and assets of the club will be acquired for £13.6m broken down as follows: Fratton Park £3.12m CVA £0.76m Special Creditors £0.09m Football Creditors – Other Clubs £1.25m Football Creditors – Non Playing Staff £0.38m Football Creditors – Players £7.96m £13.56m As set out below (see Recommendation 2.6), whilst the purchase price has increased, the overall Business Plan itself is an improvement against that presented to the Council in August 2012. The primary consideration of the Cabinet ought to be the adequacy of the Business Plan (see Recommendation 2.6 below). The recommendations to Council were drafted in such a way as to enable the terms of any acquisition to be “flexed” so long as there was not a material change to the risk to public funds. This is set out in recommendation 2.4a). iii) The Club owned and operated by PST obtaining all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments Progress The “Deed of Assignment” and “Intercreditor Agreement” sets out that the expected £5.5m parachute payment due in August 2013 will be distributed to the City Council first and to include the repayment of principal, interest and costs. iv) Obtaining a first legal charge over Fratton Park Progress The Debenture with Portsmouth Community Football Club Limited provides for: i) A first legal mortgage of Fratton Park ii) A fixed charge over other property either currently owned or owned in the future iii) A floating charge over all other property, assets and rights either currently owned or owned in the future v) That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the Club beyond those set out in the PST Business Plan received on 1 August 2012 without prior consent of the City Council Progress The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) requires that the Club shall not (without the Council’s consent): i) Create or allow any security over any of its assets ii) Sell, transfer or dispose of any assets under a “sale and lease back” or “sale and buy back” arrangement iii) Sell, transfer or dispose of any of its rights to income vi) That the City Council must obtain an assignment of unencumbered parachute payments (preferable) of a sum sufficient to repay the loan from the proper body entitled to provide it or alternatively that an investor guarantee is provided by the PST for the full £1.45m. Progress The “Deed of Assignment” and “Intercreditor Agreement” sets out that the expected £5.5m parachute payment due in August 2013 will be distributed to the City Council first and to include the repayment of principal, interest and costs. vii) A “subscription” agreement (or equivalent) for each of the Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme is in place which is satisfactory to the City Solicitor setting out the conditions of the investment and disinvestment into the Club and which does not allow any disinvestment until such time as the loan to the City Council has been repaid Progress The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) requires that the Club shall not: i) Make any distribution (in cash or in kind) of any of its share capital ii) Repay or distribute any dividend or share premium reserve iii) Pay any management, advisory or other fee to any of the Shareholders iv) Redeem, repurchase, defease, retire or repay any of its share capital The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) requires that the Club shall not (without the Council’s consent): i) Make any amendments to the Shareholders’ Agreementviii) Proof of funds from the Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme for the sum agreed in recommendation 2.3 has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the S151 Officer and which are subject to the subscription agreement (or equivalent) set out in vii) above Progress The S151 Officer has observed proof of funds of Investments within the PST’s Legal Advisors Client Account as follows: i) High Net Worth Investors and Associate Directors (known as Presidents) £1.02m ii) Fan Share Scheme £1.05m (now believed to be £1.3m) The minimum requirement resolved by Council was a total (in aggregate) from all sources of £1m (see recommendation 2.3 below). The S151 Officer will not authorise release of the Council loan until such time as he has seen proof of these funds deposited in the Escrow account, the use of which is governed by the “Deed of Assignment” and associated “Escrow Agreement” ix) A suitably skilled and experienced Chief Executive is appointed to the Club by the PST Progress The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) requires that the Club provides written confirmation that Iain McInnes is the Chairman of the Club. Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) Appendix C (part 2) The “Facility Agreement” (i.e. loan agreement) also requires that the Club appoints a suitably skilled Chief Executive. In the event any of these conditions cannot be satisfied (subject to recommendation 2.4a) then the City Council does not provide any loan support. Recommendation 2.3 - In the event that the City Council approves the provision for loan support set out in recommendation 2.2b) above, that it approves 2.3i) £1.0m (as described in Section 7 of the report) as the level of investments from the Fan Share Scheme, Associate Director Scheme and High Net Worth individuals that must be deposited and be subject to a satisfactory “subscription” agreement or equivalent: Progress See progress against recommendation 2.2b vii) and 2.2b viii) above. Recommendation 2.4 - In the event that the City Council approves the provision for loan support as set out in recommendation 2.2b) above, that: a) The Chief Executive and the S151 Officer, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be given delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions of the loan so long as they do not materially affect the risk to public funds or the spirit of the conditions set out in 2.2b) Progress Divergences from the recommendations set out above and their rationale for acceptance are as follows: i) The business and assets of the club will be acquired for £13.6m as opposed to the £7.68m approved by the City Council The rationale for accepting this amendment is based on the primary consideration that the risk to public funds has not increased materially (see 2.6 below). ii) The Club owned and operated by PST obtaining all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments The rationale for accepting an assignment of the August 2013 parachute payment (as opposed to the whole £11.7m) is as follows: a) The spirit of the whole suite of recommendations is that the City Council’s loan is repaid and the intention of the report to Council was that this would be repaid in August 2013 from the August 2013 parachute payment b) The City Council has a first ranking over the August 2013 parachute payment which as a minimum is expected to be £3.3m but which is expected to receive an uplift to £5.5m c) Accepting this amendment does not materially increase the risk to public funds, survival of the Club to August 2013 was the most significant risk at the time of the report to Council. This risk has now reduced significantly given its current proximity b) The S151 Officer and City Solicitor are given delegated authority to enter into the loan. Progress This recommendation stands but is dependent upon Cabinet approval. Recommendation 2.5 - In the event that the City Council provide financial loan support that it be funded from Prudential Borrowing. Progress This recommendation stands. Recommendation 2.6 - In the event that the City Council provide loan support and the status of the Business Plan changes in any aspect which, in the opinion of the S151 Officer, materially increases the risk to the City Council, then a further report be brought back to the City Council for it to re-consider the approval of financial loan support. Progress In overall terms, the risks contained within the PST’s Business Plan have reduced through a combination of factors including an expected increase in parachute payments from the Premier League, increased investment from the Fan Share Scheme and Investors, reduced players salaries but most importantly, the proximity of the timing of the loan and the significant August 2013 parachute payment of £5.5m (expected) The main changes in risk compared to the Business Plan presented to the City Council in August 2012 are as follows: Increases in Risk: Purchase price has increased by £5.88m (from £7.68m to 13.56m) Assumed attendance levels are the same (11,500 Current Season, 12,250 Season 2 and 13,250 Season 3), however relegation to League 2 could impact on this. The current season’s attendance averages at 12,400. The Business Plan however, does not assume any additional cup games or play-off games in any year. This places an increased risk against ticket income. Reductions in Risk: Investments have increased from the Fan Share Scheme and other Investors by £0.815m (from £3.0m to £3.815m). Proof of funds in August 2012 were £1.0m and now currently stand at £2.0m An additional loan from the Trust’s development partner Parachute payments are expected to increase by £4m (from £7.0m to £11.0m) Players wages have reduced by £1.15m per annum and appear to be comparable to other League 2 Clubs (players’ salaries now average circa £1,250 per week) Non Playing Salaries have increased by £344,000 per annum however, this represents a more prudent plan and therefore an increased likelihood of delivery The overall cash flow position has improved by between £0.7m and £0.8m over the current Season and Season 2. The lowest cash balance over the first two Seasons is now forecast to be £0.75m (compared with £0.04m in the Business Plan presented to the City Council)Overall Sensitivity (i.e. the extent to which the Business Plan is affected by changes in key assumptions / variables) has improved. The impact of a 10% increase in expenditure and a 10 % reduction in income on the current Business Plan would still result in the Club remaining cash solvent. The equivalent test against the Business Plan presented in August 2012 resulted in cash insolvency in June 2013 Notes: 1] The new Portsmouth Community Football Club will start trading afresh and will not bring over any transferred assets and liabilities associated with Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited (in Administration) with the exception of the following as part of the Sale & Purchase Agreement: Fratton Park Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) Special Creditors Football Creditors – Other Clubs Football Creditors – Non-playing staff Football Creditors – Players Entitlement to Premier League Parachute Payments Entitlement to Football League Payments 2] The remaining fees of the Administrator (£1.74m as at January 2013) will be paid from the assets held within Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited (In Administration) which as at 2nd January 2013 amounted to £4.14m of which £3.9m is held in general cash balances. Edited 27 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So basically the council have drawn up contingency plans for if the club goes bust, but have decided that, because of the cost of demolition and associated risks with such old and badly-maintained buildings, the land is effectively worthless. Which begs the question of why the property developers are involved at all... So their biggest asset (or maybe only asset) has a realistic commercial value of £101,000 (or if Chin gives them access, maybe £800k). If I was the council, I would find it very hard to loan them any more than £800k if the ground is to be used as security. If you were to be hard nosed about it, and do your job objectively, then the councillors should only be offering a loan of £100k while FP is offered as security and not £1.5m It will be interesting to see what happens.....if PST takes over with the aid of a £1.5m council loan, what happens when they can't repay it? Does the council close down the football club or just write off the debt? The latter might be illegal, but these are the problems they will have to face when playing this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kirkup Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Assumed attendance levels are the same (11,500 Current Season, 12,250Season 2 and 13,250 Season 3), however relegation to League 2 could impact on this. The current season’s attendance averages at 12,400. Current season's average is 12,400? ORLY Any other details supplied by the trust this far out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 It will be interesting to see what happens.....if PST takes over with the aid of a £1.5m council loan, what happens when they can't repay it? Does the council close down the football club or just write off the debt? The latter might be illegal, but these are the problems they will have to face when playing this game. What happens to people who live in council houses in Pompey and don't pay their rent? I expect it will be the same attitude towards PFC. Anyone know what council house rent arrears in Pompey are running at these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 What happens to people who live in council houses in Pompey and don't pay their rent? I expect it will be the same attitude towards PFC. Anyone know what council house rent arrears in Pompey are running at these days? Not a lot due to vast amount of Housing Support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Progress The Debenture with Portsmouth Community Football Club Limited provides for: i) A first legal mortgage of Fratton Park ii) ]A fixed charge over other property either currently owned or owned in the future iii) A floating charge over all other property, assets and rights either currently owned or owned in the future v) That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the Club beyond those set out in the PST Business Plan received on 1 August 2012 without prior consent of the City Council Progress LOL where have I seen that in the past .. All the fuss about Chinny and now they are happy to sign away what ever it takes to save the deluded few - Double standards or what !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Why, under "Reductions in Risk" do the council state "Parachute payments are expected to increase by £4m (from £7.0m to £11.0m)" How come? What's changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Get the Bubbly in the Fridge. Get her indoors to organise the Canapes. Sit back and enjoy the celebrations tonight. POL will be alive with the new dawn, the firework displays above Gunwharf will be something to behold. Of course they will get their loan and support from the Council. Full Speed ahead me hearties, a new era will dawn. And then Chinny will sue PKF & the FL and they will see the size of the bill and and and and and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 But Phil - will you be having the Lidl bubbly as Rallyboy clearly states they have every day after reading the Snooze ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Maybe it is 'tied up' but the money would be available just in case. Just think if the club does go t!ts up again and the Council have to get the money back, there would be absolute sh!tstorm for them for agreeing to do the loan in the first place and then try to get the money back. It would be more fun than if the Council turn down the loan now. Definitely this ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 But Phil - will you be having the Lidl bubbly as Rallyboy clearly states they have every day after reading the Snooze ? Oh how we would love to have the joys of Lidl's booze, but unfortunately our sources of Booze are restricted to MMI or African & Eastern up the road, the hole in the wall in the Desert or Duty Free. So to stay in the spirit of things perhaps I will crack a bottle of Jacob's Creek Brut Rose. About the same price as a Lidl's I would imagine, and probably contains less horsemeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanimal Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Looks like the Dv and the planners between them have been briefed to base any valuations on the worst case scenario, perhaps deliberately so to bring out the issue of security that we have highlighted. Or maybe rushing this through to help out at the impending court case. either way it seems GVJ is bending over backwards to help, the whole thing now smacks of complete desperation. Oh dear.....WTFILN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 And let's face it - IF the fishey few fans really believed in their club and really wanted it to survive - The loans, property deals would never be required as the "shares" (donations) would have covered the lot - so much for the bestest fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Can I first of all salute them for raising £1.3m from the fans. That is a pretty decent achievement in all the circumstances. Apart from that they've failed to meet any of the pre-conditions laid out for the loan, but the council look set to approve it anyway. Unless some of them are prepared to ask whether the risk is justified. And a piece of land that size, even allowing for demolition, is going to sell for between £4m and £5m. Didn't The Dell sell for £5m, and I can't think the contamination issues would have been any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 (edited) Fewer season tickets next season for sure... Average gate next season will be about 6-7 thousand if they are off to a good start..maybe 7-9 thou. Query the council condition re fans pledge money of only one thousand? ? ?.......into an escrow account with builders money?............Adds to about 1.6 million at most......Mark my words... HNWs 5-8 hundred thousand already paid up ...allegedly?...maybe.......and another 600,000 between them if you are lucky......plus the 1 mil if actually collected in pledges....???????? MAYBE NOT Let alone trying to reduce the ex.....players promised money and the value of the massive stadium.......There seems a vast shortage of dosh.. The council must know that the chances of any loan ever being repaid at best are nil..... This would smell like a corrupt deal..... if it goes through.. ie if any of the supposed conditions are ever met to warrant loaning the 1.45 million. All the delays at court etc...farcical. I think Pompey is FLUUUUUCKED big time. Edited 27 February, 2013 by ottery st mary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertySFC Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Just what you need when you have a huge decontamination job on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 The amount of dwellings that they have used in their calculations seems very low. For comparison, the Vista apartments next to Fratton park (the blue building in this picture) contains 69 flats. If Fratton Park ever gets redeveloped I can guarantee that they'll squeeze more than 40-80 properties onto the site. As another comparison, when they built on The Dell (which I would say is a smaller site) they built 202 apartments and 26 town houses. Cast your mind back to one of the many plans for redevelopment of Fratton/building a new ground under Mad Milan - they were going to build a truckload of flats on/around Fratton, the sales of which were not only to fund a new ground but would also give them a large cash surplus to reinvest in players etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Can I first of all salute them for raising £1.3m from the fans. That is a pretty decent achievement in all the circumstances. Apart from that they've failed to meet any of the pre-conditions laid out for the loan, but the council look set to approve it anyway. Unless some of them are prepared to ask whether the risk is justified. And a piece of land that size, even allowing for demolition, is going to sell for between £4m and £5m. Didn't The Dell sell for £5m, and I can't think the contamination issues would have been any worse. Fratton is a less attractive area than the area around The Dell. (in every sense!) Won't be worth as much. and I'm not clear how much land the club (sort of ) owns beyond the actual stadium before it reach Gaydamak's land. There was a small car park with the Dell, so the area may be bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 FP's maximum value (by a very long way) is as part of a large development when combined with the Gaydamak land. A foresighted developer would value it accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 FP's maximum value (by a very long way) is as part of a large development when combined with the Gaydamak land. A foresighted developer would value it accordingly. Yes but that would require someone, who is not a fan, to buy Gaydamak's land then underwrite the PCC loan and also lend them some money himself so that the trust go ahead with more debt than they can service, so that when the club default on the repayments they can't afford, the ground will also belong to him, so he can eventually develop the lot for a big profit. Thank goodness no one has thought of that ....Oh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Just to change the subject for a minute, but those five first half minutes last night is the only time they have led in a football match so far this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Just to change the subject for a minute, but those five first half minutes last night is the only time they have led in a football match so far this year Cause enough to roll the open top bus out again 'not only did we get a point, we were in front for a bit' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 So .......... the bid isn't quite ready, despite being ready to go for weeks. How many of the court adjournments have been down to Chinny? My guess is none, but when you read their message boards, they think every one is. The pst might not be very good at maths, but they get top marks for their "Spin", even if their audience aren't the brightest students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 27 February, 2013 Share Posted 27 February, 2013 Just to change the subject for a minute, but those five first half minutes last night is the only time they have led in a football match so far this year So What you are saying is that when an ex Saints player plays for them they not only score first but don't lose the match either. The faithful few will not be happy about that whereas we know that agent Connolly is just prolonging the agony for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts