Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Uncle Jeff's Leaving Do.

Threads that have run on UpTheSaddlers that might or might not be worth keeping...
User avatar
bangsection
Site Addict
 
Posts: 3951
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:28 pm
Location: York

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:13 pm

Plastic Hawk wrote:
It doesn't follow if you assume JB is the disreputable businessman that he's painted as and that he'd be selling the freehold for a pittance. If you take him at his word and assume that he's got the best interests of the club at heart then he will sell the freehold (for a fair price, not a pittance) to someone he thinks has the best interests of the club at heart. Even if you don't assume that, then (as he won't live forever) at some point the market value of the land will become more valuable to him than the accumulated rents for the rest of his life. At that point it'll be in his interest to sell the land at a fair price.

The comment about disreputable businessmen lining up to get their snouts in the trough was slightly flippant, but it is undeniable that JB makes money out of the club year-on-year. Personally I do think that he's worth it, but that's not really relevant to the argument. If he makes £350k a year then a new investor could make back his money on the club and the ground in, say, 20 years and then sell the club (and ground) on for a clear profit. Is that any different from any other landlord?


Who's painting JB as a 'disreputable businessman'? Not me! Being charitable, JB is an opportunist who took on Walsall FC out of a desire to see the club prosper whilst simultaneously guaranteeing a tidy income for himself as long as the club stayed afloat. Whether this scenario should have been allowed to happen to a club which had just sold its ground for £4.5 million is a whole other discussion.

Nevertheless, JB now finds himself a very wealthy man because of his shrewd business acumen/good fortune in buying the Bescot freehold. And with retirement on the horizon this assessment of what is in 'the best interests of the club' is crucial. Selling on the freehold to the highest bidder is manifestly NOT in the best interests of Walsall FC - it is in the best interests of Jeff Bonser. Making the freehold a gift to the club would simultaneously thank the club (and us supporters of course) for making him a millionaire AND put the club on a sound financial footing for the future with an extra £350,000 freed up in the budget each year.

If he does this I'll have nothing but respect for the man. If he chooses to grab one last big payday I'm afraid one can only conclude that his time in charge has always been about Jeff Bonser first and Walsall FC second. And those who see Uncle Jeff as the club's knight in shining armour will be left to defend a man who will have taken much more from the club than he has given.

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:23 pm

Absolutely superb last paragraph and summing up bangsection. You talk a lot of sense.

User avatar
Plastic Hawk
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Thames Valley

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:32 pm

bangsection wrote:
Plastic Hawk wrote:
It doesn't follow if you assume JB is the disreputable businessman that he's painted as and that he'd be selling the freehold for a pittance. If you take him at his word and assume that he's got the best interests of the club at heart then he will sell the freehold (for a fair price, not a pittance) to someone he thinks has the best interests of the club at heart. Even if you don't assume that, then (as he won't live forever) at some point the market value of the land will become more valuable to him than the accumulated rents for the rest of his life. At that point it'll be in his interest to sell the land at a fair price.

The comment about disreputable businessmen lining up to get their snouts in the trough was slightly flippant, but it is undeniable that JB makes money out of the club year-on-year. Personally I do think that he's worth it, but that's not really relevant to the argument. If he makes £350k a year then a new investor could make back his money on the club and the ground in, say, 20 years and then sell the club (and ground) on for a clear profit. Is that any different from any other landlord?


Who's painting JB as a 'disreputable businessman'? Not me! Being charitable, JB is an opportunist who took on Walsall FC out of a desire to see the club prosper whilst simultaneously guaranteeing a tidy income for himself as long as the club stayed afloat. Whether this scenario should have been allowed to happen to a club which had just sold its ground for £4.5 million is a whole other discussion.

Nevertheless, JB now finds himself a very wealthy man because of his shrewd business acumen/good fortune in buying the Bescot freehold. And with retirement on the horizon this assessment of what is in 'the best interests of the club' is crucial. Selling on the freehold to the highest bidder is manifestly NOT in the best interests of Walsall FC - it is in the best interests of Jeff Bonser. Making the freehold a gift to the club would simultaneously thank the club (and us supporters of course) for making him a millionaire AND put the club on a sound financial footing for the future with an extra £350,000 freed up in the budget each year.

If he does this I'll have nothing but respect for the man. If he chooses to grab one last big payday I'm afraid one can only conclude that his time in charge has always been about Jeff Bonser first and Walsall FC second. And those who see Uncle Jeff as the club's knight in shining armour will be left to defend a man who will have taken much more from the club than he has given.


I'm sure if we look back over the threads posted on here we'll find plenty of people who feel JB is a "disreputable businessman" (let's start with a Mod with a silly latin name), even if you aren't painting him as one. My comments are aimed at them rather than just at you.

I don't feel that there's much to be gained by going back over the Fellows Park saga to be honest. Maybe the money the club got from that should have been used to ensure that we own the ground that Bescot stands on, maybe there were real reasons why that couldn't be done. Maybe we'll never know. Chances are that it's not that important anyway - despite the attempts on this thread I think that people will find it difficult to sustain the argument that the time since JB took over hasn't been the most successful 15-20 years of the club's history. Could we have replicated that success if we'd kept hold of the freehold and someone other than JB had acquired the club? Maybe, but the evidence of the previous 100 years suggests that it would have been unlikely. Would we be in as good a position to kick on from where we are in the future if we had the freehold on the ground? Again, maybe, but without the catalyst of those four years in the Championship it surely would habe been unlikely.

Probably we won't know JB's motives until it's too late. We'll only really know for sure where his interests lie when we can assess the motives of the person who he eventually sells to, but I expect (and I could be wrong) the ground to leave JB's ownership at roughly the same time as the club. As I say, I hope that it doesn't go directly to the club, but to an organization separate from it, but with it's best interests at heart (ie the Trust) in order to protect the club from property speculators. Clearly it's unlikely that this would be in the form of a gift (and why should it be?), so in an ideal world I'd like to see the Trust change it's objectives from buying shares in WFC (when they become available) to putting money aside to buy the ground lease (should it become available) and begin dialogues with JB about the circumstances in which that could happen and with banks about possible mortgage option (I envisage the Trust charging the club rent at least until the initial purchase cost is cleared). To me, owning the ground would be a better way of guaranteeing the club's future (surely the Trust's ultimate aim) than a minority shareholding.

Bernie
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:27 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:44 pm

I wish someone would explain to me why it is better for WFC not to own its stadium. A club which owns its ground does not have to pay rent. Renting the ground costs £1000 a day, and the amount paid in rent to date must be over £4 million. The rent will continue to rise with inflation. The more the club spends on improvements or extensions the more it has to pay.

If the club were ever to have financial difficulties and could not afford the rent then it would be evicted from the stadium, leaving a very valuable site for re-development.

When Jeff Bonser joined the Walsall board in February 1988 the club owned its own ground, and was heading for promotion to the second division. Now the club has huge debts and no real assets.

It is undeniable that not owning its own ground will deter potential investors in the club. In fact it would put off most sensible people. Who wants to buy a business with no assets and big debts? Do we really want our next owner to be totally naive?

Spen
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:31 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:22 pm

Think everyone is overlooking the fact that without him, there may well have been no Walsall FC to support. At the time he took over we were in dire straits. Look around now and see how many club's have been run poorly and have had to go into administration, Leeds, Luton, Swindon maybe, Coventry maybe, these clubs all have crippling debts and i'm sure there are many more. I for one am glad ours is in pretty safe hands. Whether you like them or not, and i'm not just talking about Bonser here, Mr. Whalley and all the directors and staff are included, we've still got a football club to support and hopefully will have for many years to come.

User avatar
stafflers
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Don't Ask. INOYFB

Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:52 pm

Bernie wrote:I wish someone would explain to me why it is better for WFC not to own its stadium.


1. If the club goes to a bank now it can't secure a loan on the ground; so if hard times come a bank can't take over the land.

2. This also means that a club doesn't speculate "what it hasn't got" to accumulate by taking on loans, secured on the land, to fund promotion pushes that don't happen. Rather than paying rent we're paying a mortgage, because we've mortgaged the ground - mortgage payments could be higher than rent payments

3. If a dodgy property developer decides he wants to expand a retail park or housing estate right opposite a branch line from the busiest railway station in Britain, he can't take over Walsall FC when times are tough, close the club down and use the land for his own purposes.

There's your starter for three.

User avatar
cec_the_saddler
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:43 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:37 pm

philthesaddler wrote:But WFCNIL, thats the way opinions are going to be. When there isn't anyone else to compare Bonser too, opinions will not be formed by matter of whether the club is successful compared to previous periods in history, but rather the minutae and the could-have-beens.

Whatsmore, saying this is our most successful period in history is unfair, there was a time when we regularly attracted over 12,000 to games.

Granted, we've been comparatively stable over the last 17 or so years, but thats been in the interest of Jeff Bonser - a perpetual state of mediocraty - he knows we'll keep turning up, and he doesn't have to pump any cash in. We arguably aren't a much better club than we were when we moved to Bescot, our attendances and PR are marginally better, but we aren't any richer financially despite a huge off the field operation. We've had a brief spell in the division above, which left us with a severe hangover - so if the question is: Has Jeff Bonser taken us forward, improved our PR and attendances and geared us up for life in the division above, then the answer is no.


sorry Phil, but this is factually wrong. we were loosing money hand over fist when we moved, 10k a week or something like that. I'm sure if you compared the accounts to then and now.

And yes I do believe that JB has geared us up for the life in Championship. Out of the smaller club brigade that are in the Championship now eg Colchester, Scunny, we are/were better prepared.

I think his PR could be better, much better in fact. But with the cash he has, JB has done a great job. For this club not to have fallen in administration is a great achievement

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:55 pm

Put me down for a fiver for his leaving present.

I'll add some more pertinent comment tonight.

User avatar
kevin
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: Location,Location.

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:01 pm

Burnside wrote:
Do you not remember the days sat there wondering if anyone was going to come in and save us?


Burnside.......... only you sat there wondering if anyone was going to come in and save us.

Me and Phil sat there thinking ..........I hope some tossers from Leeds don't move in , recruit Bonser, and cream off all the assets.



Burnside wrote:
I remember flicking teletext on everyday wondering if we were going to have a team to support



I remember wondering if , at that time , you were neurotic.

User avatar
Burnside
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:35 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:17 pm

Kev, I care about the football club.

you go get excited over some buses. don't forget to change the underwear after seeing this





Image

User avatar
kevin
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: Location,Location.

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:20 pm

stafflers wrote:
3. If a dodgy property developer decides he wants to expand a retail park



Have a guess who owns the retail park........................ (even though WFC paid for the roads and sewers) ?

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:21 pm

Phwoar! Look at the headlights on those!

User avatar
Burnside
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:35 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:24 pm

kevin wrote:
stafflers wrote:
3. If a dodgy property developer decides he wants to expand a retail park



Have a guess who owns the retail park........................ (even though WFC paid for the roads and sewers) ?


Wasnt that sold off by Denglen (edit) or whoever owned the land the stadium was built on ? Didnt Bonser pick up the stadium land from Denglen (edit) ? i'm sure the retail park is nothing to do with us in that way kev.
Last edited by Burnside on Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:29 pm

Get your facts straight Burnie, the company was called Denglen.

User avatar
Burnside
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:35 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:30 pm

Thats the one

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:32 pm

The land was sold by Severn Trent Water, by the way, some years after the move from FP.

User avatar
Burnside
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:35 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:33 pm

And Denglen had the stadium etc... ?

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:35 pm

Burnside wrote:And Denglen had the stadium etc... ?


It's a very long story. Numerous twists in the plot.

Bernie
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:27 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:56 pm

stafflers wrote:1. If the club goes to a bank now it can't secure a loan on the ground; so if hard times come a bank can't take over the land.

And the advantage there is what exactly? If I rent my house then I cannot secure a loan against it. True. But I am not really sure why this is such a good thing. If hard times come the club will be evicted from the site without any chance of a loan against the ground.

stafflers wrote:2. This also means that a club doesn't speculate "what it hasn't got" to accumulate by taking on loans, secured on the land, to fund promotion pushes that don't happen. Rather than paying rent we're paying a mortgage, because we've mortgaged the ground - mortgage payments could be higher than rent payments
Why would mortgage payments be more than rent payments? Rental return is usually at least same as mortgage rates, and that is assuming that the club would not have any equity at all in the site. Even on the most pessimistic comparison that the club had taken out a 100% mortgage on the site mortgage payments would be no worse than rent. At present we have big debts which have to be repaid over the next few years, plus a big rent payment.

stafflers wrote:3. If a dodgy property developer decides he wants to expand a retail park or housing estate right opposite a branch line from the busiest railway station in Britain, he can't take over Walsall FC when times are tough, close the club down and use the land for his own purposes.
Since the owner of the club also owns the stadium there is nothing at all to stop him doing what you suggest. Also any future owner of the club will be able to do a deal with any future dodgy owner of the land to make a lot of money between them.

If renting land is such a good idea perhaps you think that Jeff Bonser must have been an idiot to buy the freehold of the ground for himself all those years ago.

According to your theory he would have been a lot wiser if he had sold it to someone else back in 1992 for a few hundred thousand and paid rent personally to them.

User avatar
tinned
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Same poo, different day!

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:06 pm

Plastic Hawk wrote:Probably we won't know JB's motives until it's too late. We'll only really know for sure where his interests lie when we can assess the motives of the person who he eventually sells to, but I expect (and I could be wrong) the ground to leave JB's ownership at roughly the same time as the club. As I say, I hope that it doesn't go directly to the club, but to an organization separate from it, but with it's best interests at heart (ie the Trust) in order to protect the club from property speculators. Clearly it's unlikely that this would be in the form of a gift (and why should it be?), so in an ideal world I'd like to see the Trust change it's objectives from buying shares in WFC (when they become available) to putting money aside to buy the ground lease (should it become available) and begin dialogues with JB about the circumstances in which that could happen and with banks about possible mortgage option (I envisage the Trust charging the club rent at least until the initial purchase cost is cleared). To me, owning the ground would be a better way of guaranteeing the club's future (surely the Trust's ultimate aim) than a minority shareholding.


I would LOVE the scenario you talk about. To see the main asset of the club held safely by the fans, for the benefit of the club, would be a dream come true.

Unfortunately the chances of raising anything like such funds are miniscule beyond belief. We have enough trouble getting people to part with a couple of quid to help buy shares.

Still fanciful, but slightly less so, is the idea of raising an amount to take to any new owner and offer in exchange for somekind of stake in the club. That, on the face of it, may be possible but would rely on motivating and mobilising historically apathetic Walsall fans. If you think you've got the skills/patience to do so we're ready to talk.

User avatar
geoff skillet
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:58 pm
Location: Birmingham

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:23 pm

sir bangers is spot on with all of the above.

it is interesting that this has arisen now, but there isn't really any News, as such.

nothing has changed.

as bangsection has outlined, what happens in the coming months / years will actually clarify to all of us exactly what the motives of JB are & have been.

there is at least one potential buyer around at the moment. how likely it is that anything will happen though, im afraid i dont know. although the chap im referring to has been around the scene for a good while, so this is not what has prompted this story.

User avatar
Plastic Hawk
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Thames Valley

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:32 pm

tinned wrote:
Plastic Hawk wrote:Probably we won't know JB's motives until it's too late. We'll only really know for sure where his interests lie when we can assess the motives of the person who he eventually sells to, but I expect (and I could be wrong) the ground to leave JB's ownership at roughly the same time as the club. As I say, I hope that it doesn't go directly to the club, but to an organization separate from it, but with it's best interests at heart (ie the Trust) in order to protect the club from property speculators. Clearly it's unlikely that this would be in the form of a gift (and why should it be?), so in an ideal world I'd like to see the Trust change it's objectives from buying shares in WFC (when they become available) to putting money aside to buy the ground lease (should it become available) and begin dialogues with JB about the circumstances in which that could happen and with banks about possible mortgage option (I envisage the Trust charging the club rent at least until the initial purchase cost is cleared). To me, owning the ground would be a better way of guaranteeing the club's future (surely the Trust's ultimate aim) than a minority shareholding.


I would LOVE the scenario you talk about. To see the main asset of the club held safely by the fans, for the benefit of the club, would be a dream come true.

Unfortunately the chances of raising anything like such funds are miniscule beyond belief. We have enough trouble getting people to part with a couple of quid to help buy shares.

Still fanciful, but slightly less so, is the idea of raising an amount to take to any new owner and offer in exchange for somekind of stake in the club. That, on the face of it, may be possible but would rely on motivating and mobilising historically apathetic Walsall fans. If you think you've got the skills/patience to do so we're ready to talk.


I'm sure you're right. As I say, that's what I'd like to see in an ideal world - not a criticism of what the Trust do now. Clearly having shares and being able to ask questions at the AGM is very useful.

User avatar
swiftyboy
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:02 pm

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:54 pm

[Who's painting JB as a 'disreputable businessman'? Not me! Being charitable, JB is an opportunist who took on Walsall FC out of a desire to see the club prosper whilst simultaneously guaranteeing a tidy income for himself as long as the club stayed afloat. Whether this scenario should have been allowed to happen to a club which had just sold its ground for £4.5 million is a whole other discussion.

Nevertheless, JB now finds himself a very wealthy man because of his shrewd business acumen/good fortune in buying the Bescot freehold. And with retirement on the horizon this assessment of what is in 'the best interests of the club' is crucial. Selling on the freehold to the highest bidder is manifestly NOT in the best interests of Walsall FC - it is in the best interests of Jeff Bonser. Making the freehold a gift to the club would simultaneously thank the club (and us supporters of course) for making him a millionaire AND put the club on a sound financial footing for the future with an extra £350,000 freed up in the budget each year.

If he does this I'll have nothing but respect for the man. If he chooses to grab one last big payday I'm afraid one can only conclude that his time in charge has always been about Jeff Bonser first and Walsall FC second. And those who see Uncle Jeff as the club's knight in shining armour will be left to defend a man who will have taken much more from the club than he has given.[/quote]

I couldnt have summed it up any better myself Bangsection, brilliantly summed up!

User avatar
tinned
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Same poo, different day!

Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:57 pm

Plastic Hawk wrote:
tinned wrote:
Plastic Hawk wrote:Probably we won't know JB's motives until it's too late. We'll only really know for sure where his interests lie when we can assess the motives of the person who he eventually sells to, but I expect (and I could be wrong) the ground to leave JB's ownership at roughly the same time as the club. As I say, I hope that it doesn't go directly to the club, but to an organization separate from it, but with it's best interests at heart (ie the Trust) in order to protect the club from property speculators. Clearly it's unlikely that this would be in the form of a gift (and why should it be?), so in an ideal world I'd like to see the Trust change it's objectives from buying shares in WFC (when they become available) to putting money aside to buy the ground lease (should it become available) and begin dialogues with JB about the circumstances in which that could happen and with banks about possible mortgage option (I envisage the Trust charging the club rent at least until the initial purchase cost is cleared). To me, owning the ground would be a better way of guaranteeing the club's future (surely the Trust's ultimate aim) than a minority shareholding.


I would LOVE the scenario you talk about. To see the main asset of the club held safely by the fans, for the benefit of the club, would be a dream come true.

Unfortunately the chances of raising anything like such funds are miniscule beyond belief. We have enough trouble getting people to part with a couple of quid to help buy shares.

Still fanciful, but slightly less so, is the idea of raising an amount to take to any new owner and offer in exchange for somekind of stake in the club. That, on the face of it, may be possible but would rely on motivating and mobilising historically apathetic Walsall fans. If you think you've got the skills/patience to do so we're ready to talk.


I'm sure you're right. As I say, that's what I'd like to see in an ideal world - not a criticism of what the Trust do now. Clearly having shares and being able to ask questions at the AGM is very useful.


We do our best with very minimal time and support. As you say, we have a presence in the club as the tenth largest shareholder (even if it is miniscule). At least we are in the position to be able to ask questions of the club. Also, God forbid, anything serious happened to the club and the fans had to mobilise to help (SWAG for instance) then at least there is an organisation already set up, that is subject to all proper checks and restrictions.

User avatar
The Red Prince
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:48 pm
Location: Summat abaht Winter, it's reet grand

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:15 pm

This story isn't new, he has been on about selling the club to 'the right person' for years, if it were to go to someone it would be one of the newer board members, so things wouldn't really change - a good thing IMO.

I'll put money on JB still being owner in 5 years though.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:25 pm

One thing stopping the rather fanciful 'give the freehold to the club' charity act is that the land is owned by a pension fund (chief beneficiary: JW Bonser) and as such the officers of said fund are bound legally to make the best investments possible. Cashing in the land for peanuts by gifting it to the club would lead to lawsuits against them for reckless use of pension fund money.

Not in their best interests.

What would have been in the club's best interests would have been the chance to buy the land when it was picked up in 1994 (I think) by the pension fund at the whopping cost of GBP116,500 (I think).

User avatar
tinned
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10023
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Same poo, different day!

Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:34 pm

Exile wrote:One thing stopping the rather fanciful 'give the freehold to the club' charity act is that the land is owned by a pension fund (chief beneficiary: JW Bonser) and as such the officers of said fund are bound legally to make the best investments possible. Cashing in the land for peanuts by gifting it to the club would lead to lawsuits against them for reckless use of pension fund money.

Not in their best interests.


The pension fund is a self-invested personal pension plan, in Bonser's name. I take it from that, that the original employee pensio scheme were bought out by the personal one.

What would have been in the club's best interests would have been the chance to buy the land when it was picked up in 1994 (I think) by the pension fund at the whopping cost of GBP116,500 (I think).


Who was in charge, and therefore made that decision? :roll:

User avatar
canadiansaddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: In a hammock belizing

Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:51 am

In 1994 WFC were hardly in the healthiest states even compared with today. The decision to put the land in the Fund was undoubtedly from a security point of view as if the club had gone belly up then Bonsor would have still had the land etc, to put it in the name of the club would have been financially reckless for any investor to do.

The $350,000 paid in rent - assuming a 10% rate of return on a 20 year lease only values the ground / Staduim at approx £3M.

Given the increased risk in holding investment property in the UK property market then now might be the time for Bonsor to sell the land to the club for a fair value and take a Vendor take back mortgage. It may make the club easier to sell. This of course will not happen and if it did for some reason I would be more uneasy about our future prospects. JB may not be the best owner but he is not the worst and I believe at least while he owns the land the club is not moving anywhere.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:53 am

canadiansaddler wrote:In 1994 WFC were hardly in the healthiest states even compared with today. The decision to put the land in the Fund was undoubtedly from a security point of view as if the club had gone belly up then Bonsor would have still had the land etc, to put it in the name of the club would have been financially reckless for any investor to do.

The $350,000 paid in rent - assuming a 10% rate of return on a 20 year lease only values the ground / Staduim at approx £3M.

Given the increased risk in holding investment property in the UK property market then now might be the time for Bonsor to sell the land to the club for a fair value and take a Vendor take back mortgage. It may make the club easier to sell. This of course will not happen and if it did for some reason I would be more uneasy about our future prospects. JB may not be the best owner but he is not the worst and I believe at least while he owns the land the club is not moving anywhere.


Too right it's not moving anywhere (except sideways). :wink:

In 1994 Walsall were still a lot better off than 4 years prior, having dumped all the high income players, ridden the ticket price increase storm and settled in at Bescot, yet to the best of my knowledge no option was put forward to help the club buy what it was supposed to already own and there was only one bidder. As a side issue, after our chairman of the time bought the land for the Bonser Retirement Fund the rent was GBP30,000 a year, a far cry from what it is now. Work out the compound increase - frightening, yet all market driven. What could Walsall have done with all that extra money over more than a decade, instead of having to pay and pay and pay?

I'd also add that Walsall moved to Bescot expecting to own the land, and that financially the funds were there to achieve all directives at the time. What happened to derail this plan one can only speculate on due to complete lack of public reporting of almost all aspects.

We ended up with a stadium that was a direct copy of another (Glanford Park), yet took five times longer and an extra GBP4,000,000 to build. We got done like a kipper by somebody. Bonser took over Denglen's shareholding in Walsall in 1991, no listed shareprice given, but as they were in administration at the time I doubt it was more than a nominal value, so it's a moot (and probably very small) point what he paid to get total control of our club.

Financial info from the club ceased to be a free and public matter a little prior to the Bescot land sale. Note that when Ramsden took over it was a fanfare welcome, and it was announced in the media that the figure he "paid" was GBP400,000 for a freehold club. When Uncle Jeff took over nothing was reported anywhere, and now we're a leasehold club.

To all the apologists suggesting the best way forward is for a club not to own it's own ground I'd say that we'd almost survived the bad times when Bescot came about and if our new stadium project hadn't been totally f****d up by various parties we'd still have that luxury.

I'll also challenge the "increased risk in investment property" statement with you, Canadian (no offence meant now I've met you :wink: ). Firstly, we own the property, not the land, and secondly I'd suggest that land ownership hasn't fallen out of favour in the UK since at least the reformation. It's a part of every investor's portfolio, including retirement fund investors.

User avatar
kevin
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: Location,Location.

Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:05 am

Burnside wrote: i'm sure the retail park is nothing to do with us in that way kev.



I never said it was anything to do with us.



What I did say was..................part of the costs of the sewers , roads , and enabling works for the retail park, came out of the tin labelled "Fellows Park Money "

PreviousNext
Return to UTS Classics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests