Rupp & Sparks Out?

Totally agree with you here and at #874 and #875, very level analysis. The only talking point is value and as said decent money paid for clubs with non league standard grounds.
I've posted before, the guy who bought Oldham immediately after relegation to NL paid £10m and paid off £3m debt in addition. I believe the Americans who bought Gills paid around £8m for a 75% stake which has since reduced to 66%. The Americans who bought Carlisle apparently paid over £2m but also took on the debt.
In my opinion both those last two have little or no potential to increase income from fans as they are geographically isolated / have competition in London or Newcastle / Sunderland. As I think you said, in addition to the purchase price there is also such as legal fees etc to add on which could add 10%.
Looking at others, what about the rumours that Morecambe has an asking price of £20m??. The simple fact is value comes from a willing buyer and willing seller.

 

Quite agree. Valuation is subjective and any 'thing' is worth whatever the buyer is willing to pay. I personally don't think we're worth £10m, but I could make a case that we are too.

The key thing that makes us attractive, is that we have the infrastructure and fanbase to sustain a championship club. That's far more relevant that whether we own or lease the ground.

 

Every club in league 2 is a selling club bar the wealthy Wrexham. Don't let out season ticket sales fool you, we live from hand to mouth and as such will always need player sales to fund on and off the field activities.

Infrastructure? An ageing ground in a decrepit shithole?

 

Its a championship level stadium. Training facilities are fine too. Not cutting edge, but you can house 20-25k fans for every home game. That's crucial in terms of being a sustainable championship club.

 

I've no problem with the training facilities. I love VP but any potential new owners would have to understand the place. And as it stands its mute point anyway, no one is paying what Rupp wants, never will.

 

All good points. Perhaps a better way for me to express it, is that we'd have a better chance of at least coming close to self-sustainability than a Stockport, a Crawley, a Salford, etc. I think we miss a massive trick as to how we should define ourselves and manage sustainability over a longer term period. We're geographically close to some of the biggest clubs in the country - The Manchester giants, Liverpool and Everton, Leeds. We should be seeking to partner and take either high quality loans or talented prospects that aren't quite going to cut it there, and building in buy-back and lucrative sell on clauses. Basically, be an academy club for their talent. It'd require capital and an appetite to manage risk, but there's real attraction we can offer - not only would players not have to move (i.e. move house), but we can provide a breeding ground for playing in front of 15k plus fans and really testing players in terms of talent and mentality. Its a USP that few can offer and if you get it right, you start to build a reputation for developing players and start a cycle of transfer fees for re-investment. Similar to the Peterborough model, but targeting the better loanees and cast offs from the top tier rather than the lower leagues. And then as you get nearer the championship, that cycle of selling players and reinvesting is established, so you can subsidise any shortfall in terms of running a championship club. Embrace being a feeder club, but do it properly.

Once again though, we lack the vision, capability and willingness to fund such an approach.

 

This is where I come back to the question of whether we're attractive. I look at the investment that comes into other, smaller clubs, and wonder why it doesn't come here. They can't offer anything meaningfully that we can't, and in reverse, we have much to offer that they don't. I conclude its one or both of two things:

1. The interest is there, but the asking price is a deterrent
2. We're not proactive in seeking interested parties.

On the second point, I work (partly) in the world of corporate M&A, albeit nowhere near the sports industry. Acqusitions and investment don't just happen as a consequence of receiving unprompted contacts, they nearly always occur on the back of both interested buyers, and willing sellers, engaging thoroughly and regularly with networks, agencies, consultants to brand themselves and attract discussion. Does anyone think we're doing any of that, or at least, doing it competently...?

 

Wholeheartedly believe this would bring success on the pitch and in the coffers but it would require investment in coaching, facilities and transfer fees. We won’t do it… we like the safety of 30 plus year olds and the tried and tested. We need those players no doubt aswell. We just need to be more creative

 

Sadly, you're right. There's no vision, or genuine experience and strong leadership capability. Its literally just 'don't run us at a loss'. Any reasonably competent business manager can do that.

The situation with the ground and the lease term expiring in 2027 is fascinating to me. It'll be hugely indicative as to how we're being run in terms of what we do. What I mean by that, is if we simply commit to re-leasing, it'll affirm that there's zero strategic thinking and leadership or ambition at the club. We've had long enough, and we now MUST either buy back VP, or build a new ground elsewhere.

 

Walsall bought their ground from the pension fund of the previous club owner for £7m.
One could argue VP is worth at least that much, possibly more, in any negotiations Gibb’s fund would almost certainly use that as an example. It’s old ground if you excuse the pun, but I’d imagine anyone paying north of £7m for VP is going to want a reasonable 5-6% return each year.

 

£7m sounds about right. Both sides will feel they have leverage, and you need a strong poker face. Our leverage is that we're the only option to take the lease. Either we use it, or the land is sold. And the land value won't be worth anything like the ground value. We're in a situation now whereby either through or owner, or other funding parties, we can raise the capital to buy the ground and there's a clear business case to be had in terms of rent saved. Any properly competent CEO and owner would resolve this and ensure we either buy back, or build elsewhere.

 

I agree in principle but having read and listened to Stockports plans for future growth i'd admire the fact they've put their cards on the table and formulated a plan for the future, partly based on the growth of Stockport as a fashionable town outside of a rapidly growing Manchester. I worked in Didsbury a couple of years ago and you could see the growth, 10 to 15 minutes on the tram to Manchester central, lots of trendy eateries and bars. Its not foolproof but it shows the levels the owners have gone to in trying to see where they could be as a club in 5/10 years time with the right investment structure. Their constant improvement over the last two or three years testament to that ambition.

 

Manchester and Leeds are thriving. Bradford is dying on its arse. The clubs trajectory matches the city.

 

Begs the question, why would anyone pay top dollar for us as a club in a city with very little going for it?

 

Top dollar? No. But a fair price, yes. Unless you're talking about a super rich owner that wants to fund regeneration in the area as well as the club.

 

Christ, imagine trying to regenerate that.

 

How many years left on the VP lease? Is there a risk the clock could be ticking and the club could be held to ransom a few years down the line or risk ending up at Odsal?