Jump to content

River Itchen frontage


spyinthesky

Recommended Posts

Had the opportunity to sail along the river Itchen today and viewed St Mary's from the water.

 

An interesting siteline.

 

It gives even more credance to the possibility of gentryfying the water frontage by, at some time in the future, relocating the aggregate wharves, developing the gasometer site (when it becomes redundant) and, perhaps, also expanding into the adjacent industrial estate to create a more appropriate sporting/leisure complex (if this is econmoically viable).

 

There have been discussions about this in the past but just wonder how much interest NC and the Liebherr family have in this possible future opportunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby County announced this multi million pound development a few days ago to boost revenue streams in light of the financial fair play regulations coming into force...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15154482

 

Might suit Saints to do similar (along with the 50k stadium ;))

 

This looks quite impressive. If we were to do something similar to this, on top of the waterfront location, it would be brilliant. Southampton is in desperate need of an indoor music venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby County announced this multi million pound development a few days ago to boost revenue streams in light of the financial fair play regulations coming into force...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15154482

 

Might suit Saints to do similar (along with the 50k stadium ;))

 

Surely the fair play rules must just include football income, otherwise all Man City have to do is put one of their oil companies under their name and carry on as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the fair play rules must just include football income, otherwise all Man City have to do is put one of their oil companies under their name and carry on as usual.

 

What are you counting as "football income"? Why does it matter if the restaurant is literally inside the stadium or next to it? Are you also saying the Saints shop in West Quay shouldn't count? It is all part of the same business.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you counting as "football income"? Why does it matter if the restaurant is literally inside the stadium or next to it? Are you also saying the Saints shop in West Quay shouldn't count? It is all part of the same business.

 

Exactly, Man City will say the same when their oil drilling department finances some big signings. Basically every single club can pay whatever they want rendering the whole idea pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you counting as "football income"? Why does it matter if the restaurant is literally inside the stadium or next to it? Are you also saying the Saints shop in West Quay shouldn't count? It is all part of the same business.

 

Is it, though? genuine question, as I don't know where the demarcations of footballing-income will be.

 

For instance, could Man City simply buy out, for instance, Frankie & Benny's, re-name them "Blue Moon Restaurants", incoporate them under the umbrella of "Manchester City holdings" or whatever and then claim all profits as football income? Seems totally ridiculous, of course, but is it possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, Man City will say the same when their oil drilling department finances some big signings. Basically every single club can pay whatever they want rendering the whole idea pointless.

 

Is it, though? genuine question, as I don't know where the demarcations of footballing-income will be.

 

For instance, could Man City simply buy out, for instance, Frankie & Benny's, re-name them "Blue Moon Restaurants", incoporate them under the umbrella of "Manchester City holdings" or whatever and then claim all profits as football income? Seems totally ridiculous, of course, but is it possible?

 

I don't know in the case of Man City and putting their oil businesses in the same company, I'd imagine the governing bodies would try to prevent that. However the Derby County executive even states the money earnt from the Pride Park Plaza would go back into the team and aid them under the financial fair play rules.

 

Otherwise where do you draw the line, does the Saints megastore count, the West Quay Saints shop, the concourses in the stadium, the corporate restaurants etc etc? If Saints were to buy up the land around St Mary's and put their own restaurants, offices, hotels etc there why can't that count in the same way revenue streams in the stadium count?

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise where do you draw the line, does the Saints megastore count, the West Quay Saints shop, the concourses in the stadium, the corporate restaurants etc etc?

 

Of course, they should count.

 

However, the very notion of it identifies the massive potential there is for abuse of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, Man City will say the same when their oil drilling department finances some big signings. Basically every single club can pay whatever they want rendering the whole idea pointless.

 

There will be loopholes all over the place. For instance, what's stopping Man Citys owners sponsoring the training kit for £100m. That would be football income. Just means the money will have to take a different route

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be loopholes all over the place. For instance, what's stopping Man Citys owners sponsoring the training kit for £100m.

 

The new rules look at the marketplace and if a sponsorship deal is far in excess of the world sports market then it would be stopped. Like with what is happening about the stadium sponsorship.

 

Jean-Luc Dehaene, the chairman of Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel...

 

"If we see clubs that are looking for loopholes we will act. It is not enough to say: 'We've got a sponsorship contract and that's OK' if the contract is out of line."

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be loopholes all over the place. For instance, what's stopping Man Citys owners sponsoring the training kit for £100m. That would be football income. Just means the money will have to take a different route

 

Precisely. Sponsor a player in the programme? Sponsor one of the academy sides. Is there anything to stop a monetary gift being made, as happens with political parties? The list is almost endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new rules look at the marketplace and if a sponsorship deal is far in excess of the world sports market then it would be stopped. Like with what is happening about the stadium sponsorship.

 

Jean-Luc Dehaene, the chairman of Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel...

 

"If we see clubs that are looking for loopholes we will act. It is not enough to say: 'We've got a sponsorship contract and that's OK' if the contract is out of line."

 

And that is true, but who is to say what is out of line? Based upon what? It'll be a littany of court cases which the rich club's lawyers will end up winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is true, but who is to say what is out of line? Based upon what? It'll be a littany of court cases which the rich club's lawyers will end up winning.

 

The difference here is that Man City are just one rich club, but they will be up against objections from the rest of the European big clubs. Collectively they will have more power to make UEFA clamp down on Man City than Man City will of getting their own way.

 

As for the person to say if it is out of line, well that would be the man I quoted. They will look at comparable clubs both within football and other sports and if the deal is far in excess then they claim they will stop it. Of course it has been yet to be done, but given the other large clubs are pressuring UEFA I think it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know in the case of Man City and putting their oil businesses in the same company, I'd imagine the governing bodies would try to prevent that. However the Derby County executive even states the money earnt from the Pride Park Plaza would go back into the team and aid them under the financial fair play rules.

 

Otherwise where do you draw the line, does the Saints megastore count, the West Quay Saints shop, the concourses in the stadium, the corporate restaurants etc etc? If Saints were to buy up the land around St Mary's and put their own restaurants, offices, hotels etc there why can't that count in the same way revenue streams in the stadium count?

 

Of course they have to draw a line, that's my point. Making money from a shopping plaza is no different to making money from drilling for oil. You either take into account just football income or you dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference here is that Man City are just one rich club, but they will be up against objections from the rest of the European big clubs.

 

As for the person to say if it is out of line, well that would be the man I quoted. They will look at comparable clubs both within football and other sports and if the deal is far in excess then they claim they will stop it. Of course it has been yet to be done, but given the other large clubs are pressuring UEFA I think it will happen.

 

I don't disagree. I just imagine that UEFA will be massively spineless and in constant fear of being sued that they will fail to act. Wenger has stated publicly that the City deal raised issues relating to the credibility of the rule, and I can only imagine this will be just the start of it. It seems a nice idea in principle, I'm just massive skeptical that it can work in reality. Mostly due to said spinelessness of UEFA, who won't want to ruffle the feathers too much of the hands that feed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they have to draw a line, that's my point. Making money from a shopping plaza is no different to making money from drilling for oil. You either take into account just football income or you dont.

 

So where would you draw the line?

 

Do St Mary's concourse sales count towards turnover?

Does the Saints store income from West Quay count?

Does St Mary's corporate restaurant revenue count?

Do conferencing events held at St Mary's on non matchdays count?

Does income from the St Mary's megastore count?

Does revenue from the online store count?

 

etc etc

 

They all will, and as the Derby excutive states, so will the income from the Plaza at Pride Park. So if Saints were to do similar, it would also count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where would you draw the line?

 

Do St Mary's concourse sales count towards turnover?

Does the Saints store income from West Quay count?

Does St Mary's corporate restaurant revenue count?

Do conferencing events held at St Mary's on non matchdays count?

Does income from the St Mary's megastore count?

Does revenue from the online store count?

 

etc etc

 

They all will, and as the Derby excutive states, so will the income from the Plaza at Pride Park. So if Saints were to do similar, it would also count.

 

On that note then, rewind a few years when SFC were a subsidiary of Southampton Leisure Holdings, made up from:

 

Southampton Football Club Ltd

St. Mary's Stadium Ltd

St. Mary's SPV Ltd

Southampton Insurance Services Ltd

Southampton Mortgage & Financial Centre Ltd

Saints Supporters Club Ltd

Southampton Swaylife Ltd

Secure Retirement Ltd

Dell Estates Ltd

St Michael's Street Homes (No. 1) Ltd

Stadium 2000 Ltd

Felix Broadcasting Ltd

South City FM Ltd

Forest FM Ltd

 

Would they all have counted as football-income?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, aintforever used it, not me. Tom Glick clearly sees the Plaza at Pride Park as a way of helping Derby when the regulations come in.

 

Yes, and I used it as you used it to ask a question about where exactly the demarcations are, as it seems to be extremely loose. Almost 20 odd posts later and no closer to an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, the difference from income on matchdays on the concourses, in the shops etc is that it's related to the football club. A yachting company renting offices from the football club has nothing to do directly with the club other than being tenants - and there's your difference. That's how I'd determine it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, the difference from income on matchdays on the concourses, in the shops etc is that it's related to the football club. A yachting company renting offices from the football club has nothing to do directly with the club other than being tenants - and there's your difference. That's how I'd determine it.

 

But is that what the new rules say?

 

Tom Glick in that interview seems to think the cafes, restaurants and offices at the Plaza will count for Derby County. And I'm sure he has looked into this more than any of us have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, the difference from income on matchdays on the concourses, in the shops etc is that it's related to the football club. A yachting company renting offices from the football club has nothing to do directly with the club other than being tenants - and there's your difference. That's how I'd determine it.

 

Of course; but MLG has highlighted a link where Derby FC intend to build a series of shops, bars and restaurants external to the club stadium and the profits from that will then be able to be used to fund the football team. A bit like SFC building West Quay 2 and profitting in the same way. Which is why the question is being asked, where is the line drawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why using things cafes, restaurants, offices, hotels etc would be an issue. These rules have been brought in to prevent unsustainable expenditure by clubs and relying on sugar daddy's. If clubs find new ways to increase revenue, I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the clubs turnover for the new regulations. They are sustainable long term revenue streams for the benefit of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course; but MLG has highlighted a link where Derby FC intend to build a series of shops, bars and restaurants external to the club and the profits from that will then be able to be used to fund the football team. A bit like SFC building West Quay 2 and profitting in the same way. Which is why the question is being asked, where is the line drawn?

 

Well personally, for me, the line is drawn when you've determined what exactly is football-related income or not. Profiteering from a shopping centre housing stores completely unrelated to the club, for me, is. In a strange way though, I do like the idea. However, the overriding feeling is that football will officially cease being predominantly a sport if this is allowed to happen. Of course, it is touted that football is already a business. It's not quite there yet, but if this is given the green flag, then... hmmm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Profiteering from a shopping centre housing stores completely unrelated to the club, for me, is.

 

But why does it matter if it is unrelated to football? It is another sustainable revenue stream to make the football club a stronger business. That is what this financial fair play regulations are here to bring about, football clubs with strong financial revenue streams that can support themselves rather than with huge debts or sugar daddies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally, for me, the line is drawn when you've determined what exactly is football-related income or not. Profiteering from a shopping centre housing stores completely unrelated to the club, for me, is. In a strange way though, I do like the idea. However, the overriding feeling is that football will officially cease being predominantly a sport if this is allowed to happen. Of course, it is touted that football is already a business. It's not quite there yet, but if this is given the green flag, then... hmmm!

 

You see, I agree with you on my example. But for Derby I don't see how having generic cafes, shops and restaurants external to the stadium are anything to do with the football club. They're just a separate, money-making enterprise. Are they going to run them themselves? Or lease them to the likes of Starbucks and take rental income? Yet if they opened a "Derby County Pub", or a "Rams cafe", or "DCFC restaurant" and ran it themselves, I'd say that might be alright.

 

Massive shades of gray and I'm not sure many people know where the boundaries are, I certainly haven't got a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that note then, rewind a few years when SFC were a subsidiary of Southampton Leisure Holdings, made up from:

 

Southampton Football Club Ltd

St. Mary's Stadium Ltd

St. Mary's SPV Ltd

Southampton Insurance Services Ltd

Southampton Mortgage & Financial Centre Ltd

Saints Supporters Club Ltd

Southampton Swaylife Ltd

Secure Retirement Ltd

Dell Estates Ltd

St Michael's Street Homes (No. 1) Ltd

Stadium 2000 Ltd

Felix Broadcasting Ltd

South City FM Ltd

Forest FM Ltd

 

Would they all have counted as football-income?

 

those were the days we had a radio station and first class catering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the opportunity to sail along the river Itchen today and viewed St Mary's from the water.

 

An interesting siteline.

 

It gives even more credance to the possibility of gentryfying the water frontage by, at some time in the future, relocating the aggregate wharves, developing the gasometer site (when it becomes redundant) and, perhaps, also expanding into the adjacent industrial estate to create a more appropriate sporting/leisure complex (if this is econmoically viable).

 

There have been discussions about this in the past but just wonder how much interest NC and the Liebherr family have in this possible future opportunity?

 

I remember Cortese referencing Ikea and how their Manhattan site was developed with water access, so pretty sure he is aware. Equally the council mentioning the ability to over come planning regulations should St Mary's increase in capacity. They seemed very keen the Stadium stayed within the city limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, I agree with you on my example. But for Derby I don't see how having generic cafes, shops and restaurants external to the stadium are anything to do with the football club. They're just a separate, money-making enterprise. Are they going to run them themselves? Or lease them to the likes of Starbucks and take rental income? Yet if they opened a "Derby County Pub", or a "Rams cafe", or "DCFC restaurant" and ran it themselves, I'd say that might be alright.

 

Massive shades of gray and I'm not sure many people know where the boundaries are, I certainly haven't got a clue.

 

I don't believe there should be too great a problem in defining the boundaries. If the revenue generated by the football club is used for another enterprise, any profits from that enterprise can readily be accepted as being generated by the football club. Even if at a later date the enterprise were to dwarf the football club financially. I expect they will already have set a date or position from when other enterprises are considered part of the football club, even if not founded from club funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why using things cafes, restaurants, offices, hotels etc would be an issue. These rules have been brought in to prevent unsustainable expenditure by clubs and relying on sugar daddy's. If clubs find new ways to increase revenue, I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the clubs turnover for the new regulations. They are sustainable long term revenue streams for the benefit of the club.

 

You might not see why, and to be honest niether do I, but regardless of that the FFP regulations don't allow 'non-football' income to be counted.

 

However, it's also the case that not all outgoings are counted either, for example money put into youth development or stadium construction. So additional income isn't counted by FFP can be put into outgoings that aren't counted and free up income that is counted to be put towards the outgoings that are counted.

 

No doubt that there will be arguments and probably court cases over whether certain income streams should be counted, but I can't see this ending cleanly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might not see why, and to be honest niether do I, but regardless of that the FFP regulations don't allow 'non-football' income to be counted.

 

Then why does Derby chairman, Tom Glick think otherwise? What counts as "football income" anyway? And where did you read this?

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe there should be too great a problem in defining the boundaries. If the revenue generated by the football club is used for another enterprise, any profits from that enterprise can readily be accepted as being generated by the football club. Even if at a later date the enterprise were to dwarf the football club financially. I expect they will already have set a date or position from when other enterprises are considered part of the football club, even if not founded from club funds.

 

So you're suggesting it hinges upon a timeline having been implemented for what ownerships a club has for them to be counted within their income? Can't say I've ever he.ard of that before, but OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why does Derby chairman, Tom Glick think otherwise? What counts as "football income" anyway? And where did you read this?

 

Maybe Derby are a loss making football club, and any revenues from their new enterprise will simply be seen as bringing them back to break-even.

 

Or maybe UEFA's rules are so utterly lapse that the whole system is indeed open for complete abuse.

 

Maybe maybe maybe. Shame nobody knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it, though? genuine question, as I don't know where the demarcations of footballing-income will be.

 

For instance, could Man City simply buy out, for instance, Frankie & Benny's, re-name them "Blue Moon Restaurants", incoporate them under the umbrella of "Manchester City holdings" or whatever and then claim all profits as football income? Seems totally ridiculous, of course, but is it possible?

 

Gotta be easier for us; we would just have to re-name them 'Frankie Bennett's'; always one step ahead of the sky blue few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to bore you but the info is in artcle 58 which is listed below, however, the relevant bit is under the last section (k) on my post in bold.

 

Under Article 58 which is the Notion of relevant income and expenses, it states:

 

"Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights, sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations."

 

"Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations."

 

"Relevant income and expenses from related parties must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions."

 

1. Definitions for the elements of the relevant income are as follows:

 

a) Revenue – Gate receipts

 

Includes revenue derived from general admission and corporate match attendance, from both season tickets and matchday tickets, in relation to

national competitions (league and cup), UEFA club competitions and other matches (friendly matches and tours). Gate receipts also include membership fees.

 

b) Revenue – Sponsorship and advertising

Includes revenue derived from main sponsor, other sponsors, pitch-perimeter and other board advertising, and other sponsorship and advertising.

 

c) Revenue – Broadcasting rights

Includes revenue derived from sale of broadcasting rights to television, radio, new media and other broadcast media, in relation to national competitions

(league and cup), UEFA club competitions and other matches (friendly matches and tours).

 

d) Revenue – Commercial activities

Includes revenue derived from merchandising, food & beverage sales, conferencing, lottery and other commercial activities not otherwise categorised.

 

e) Revenue – Other operating income

Includes all other operating income not otherwise described above, including revenue derived from other activities such as subsidies, rent, dividends and

income from non-football operations.

 

f) Profit on disposal of player registrations or Income from disposal of player registrations

 

g) Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets

 

h) Finance income

Finance income is in respect of interest revenue arising from the use by others of entity assets yielding interest.

 

i) Non-monetary credits

e.g. Revaluations of tangible and intangible fixed assets.

 

j) Income transaction(s) with related party(ies) above fair value

e.g. Sale of sponsorship rights by a club to a related party, or donations.

 

k) Income from non-football operations not related to the club

The income (and expenses) of non-football operations only needs to be excluded from the calculation of relevant income if it is clearly and exclusively not related to the activities, locations or brand of the football club, in which case it must be excluded.

 

Examples of activities that may be reported in financial statements as nonfootball operations but for the purposes of the calculation of relevant income and expenses would not normally need to be adjusted include:

• Operations based at, or in close proximity to, a club’s stadium and training facilities such as a hotel, restaurant, conference centre, business premises (for rental), health-care centre, other sports teams; and

• Operations clearly using the name/brand of a club as part of their operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't the authorities just ban sponsorships from "related companies" to avoid a loop hole for gifts. There is already a HMRC definition of related companies and it wouldn't stop investment in infrastructure such as stadia and academies.

 

Also surely any "traffic" issues with a development at this site could be addressed with a number of "park and sail" locations at say Hythe, Millbrook, Burseldon / Warsash etc. It would certainly add some glamour to the club.

 

Include decent shops. a large spa and good creche and it might make it easier to grow the attendances as it would be easier to justify for many family men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, if the money is there for it, and it's going to help attract people to the club, and raise the profile of the club. Does it really matter it the money cant be put back into the club?

 

It would still be a great addition to the area around the football ground. And if it makes the Liebherr family some money then they will be more likely to stick with the club?

 

But reading the above article it seems like it would be all ok anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...