The Housing Market and Fossetts Funding

[leeblue]

IMO we still wont be building at christmas, not a chance of getting the finances needed as most return depends on the sale of 300+ properties sorry to be doom and gloom but no stadium for a long while im afraid

 

[Irate Ian]

what i do for my tenants is advertise £50 below market rate, and keep the place pucker. That way you have a pick of tenants, build a semi-personal relationship with them, don't use an agent, instead take gas insurance etc, and let them treat it as their home. All that, and a 2 year agreement. :) haven't had a rent free month yet, and the £50 "loss" per month is repaid by not having a void every 6 months in my eyes

Same works well for me, but don't know about 2 year agreements, as may give them security of tenure ?

Even on 6/12 mths AST's tenants know they cannot get same price elsewhere and they tend to stay put, longer [hence fewer unoccupied periods].

 

[Irate Ian]

Was talking today to a friend about prices of flats and how the market has turned.

Flats seem to be anywhere up to about 175,000 6 months ago but as we know due to global warming ( :) ) and the credit crunch house prices are finally dropping.

This is great news for the millions of under 30's who never managed to get on the property ladder when the market was in boom, but thinking about it this seems to have happened at exactly the wrong time for Southend United.

As we know funding for the whole project relies on a number of factors, one of them being the flats to be built at Roots Hall and Fossetts. However if over the next 2 years house prices fall by 20% then the money raised from the redevelopment is going to fall as well just at the time its needed.

This may have been discussed elsewhere, if not whats peoples' thoughts?

It is not good news for property developers/speculators, estate agents etc, but great for the youth of the country.

Re-alignment and reality check simply had to happen.

SUFC are not a property developer but may face increased expenditure on higher rental, arising from higher borrowing costs to fund others building the stadium/complex and associated buildings.

 

[Rusty Lee]

This looks like an option which we are considering to fund the new ground.

What if you could spend, say, $100,000 to become the owner of two seats behind the dugout in the new Yankee Stadium, due to be completed in 2009?

We are talking not about tickets, but about the seats themselves. They would be your property for as long as the Yankees play at the stadium. And with the sale of these seats, the Yankees would have raised the entire $1.2 billion needed to build the venue.

The Yankees organization, though, isn’t the author of this deal.


It's Morgan Stanley and its partner, the start-up Stadium Capital Financing Group, who are behind the plan, and they’re hoping it will become an accepted way of doing business in sports.


Stadium Capital claims to have created a new way of raising money for stadiums and other venues, one that doesn’t rely upon public funds. And Morgan Stanley has bought into the proposal in a big way, acquiring a majority stake in the company for an undisclosed amount earlier this month through its principal investments division.

Louis Weisbach, the man who came up with the idea, says he will not divulge much about his business plan until his first deal is announced, which he hopes will be later this year. The Chicago businessman says Stadium Capital’s approach allows fans to be "locked into seats for an extraordinarily long time without any price increase" and "solves the problems municipalities have with a lack of appetite to finance new stadiums."

Yet details about his brainchild can be found in Weisbach’s February 2006 filing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent application No. 20060036506 describes a "method of financing a sports stadium or entertainment center."

Using his approach, fans would buy seats for a designated period of time and finance them much like a mortgage. Pricing mechanisms can vary, but the most appealing option for buyers might be a 30-year loan with an annual payment equal to the current price of a season ticket. In exchange, the seat becomes real property, equivalent to, say, a condominium. The team (or university or other owner) receives the principal amount of the loan up front, to put toward construction costs.

This arrangement is different from seat licensing, which gives the holder the right to buy a season ticket for a specific seat. It also differs from the stock ownership of teams like the Green Bay Packers. Under Weisbach's system, people own seats, not shares of a team.

Say, for instance, the current price of a season baseball ticket is $3,240. A 30-year loan at 6 percent interest with an annual payment of $3,240 results in a principal amount of $45,000. Even if the price of the seat doubles in the next 20 years, the seat owner still pays $3,240. Investors will have the option of making annual payments over 30 years, paying the entire amount up front, or something in between. Owners can also sell their seats at any time for market value, but rest assured—the team will get a cut of any profits.

It’s a concept so simple it's surprising it hasn't been tried before. It's also hard to imagine that such a seemingly easy solution could settle one of the most hotly debated topics in civic affairs. Just last weekend, the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Sonics presented economic plans for their new homes, and both teams are asking for some public funds. And the Minnesota Vikings and Oakland A's are currently trying to determine stadium plans that would appease taxpayers in Minneapolis and Fremont, California.

It was one such local battle that inspired Weisbach to come up with the idea. Weisbach, who founded the promotional products company Ha-Lo Industries, was part of the unsuccessful effort to bring major league sports to Las Vegas. "We were frustrated by the inability to finance a stadium with the help of the municipality," he says. "That's when the light bulb went off."

Morgan Stanley hasn't disclosed what role it will play in Stadium Capital's operations, but if the idea takes off, it's clear that lending opportunities could be huge. "We're working with Morgan Stanley in every possible way," Weisbach says.

So just how many seat buyers would it take to finance a state-of-the-art stadium with the latest retractable roof technology? In an interview, Weisbach said fewer than 10 percent of seats would need to sell in order to build a new stadium. However, going by the example outlined above, the patent application states that selling 20,000 tickets would yield $900 million, just about enough to cover costs. In most Major League stadiums, this would require selling nearly half of the seats.

It may be quite a while before we see an entire stadium built according to Weisbach’s plan. Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor who has written extensively about stadium financing, says that such an approach might make a dent in required public funding but will never replace it. Noll points out that most teams can't afford to sacrifice future revenues in order to pay for their ball fields. "At the end of the day, stadiums are not good investments," he says. "This isn't going to be a revolution."

Even if fans never replace the need for public financing, there are plenty of diehards out there that would likely jump at the chance to own a piece of the next Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. And Morgan Stanley might be willing to let them do it.

 

[Pubey]

This looks like an option which we are considering to fund the new ground.

What if you could spend, say, $100,000 to become the owner of two seats behind the dugout in the new Yankee Stadium, due to be completed in 2009?

We are talking not about tickets, but about the seats themselves. They would be your property for as long as the Yankees play at the stadium. And with the sale of these seats, the Yankees would have raised the entire $1.2 billion needed to build the venue.

The Yankees organization, though, isn’t the author of this deal.


It's Morgan Stanley and its partner, the start-up Stadium Capital Financing Group, who are behind the plan, and they’re hoping it will become an accepted way of doing business in sports.


Stadium Capital claims to have created a new way of raising money for stadiums and other venues, one that doesn’t rely upon public funds. And Morgan Stanley has bought into the proposal in a big way, acquiring a majority stake in the company for an undisclosed amount earlier this month through its principal investments division.

Louis Weisbach, the man who came up with the idea, says he will not divulge much about his business plan until his first deal is announced, which he hopes will be later this year. The Chicago businessman says Stadium Capital’s approach allows fans to be "locked into seats for an extraordinarily long time without any price increase" and "solves the problems municipalities have with a lack of appetite to finance new stadiums."

Yet details about his brainchild can be found in Weisbach’s February 2006 filing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent application No. 20060036506 describes a "method of financing a sports stadium or entertainment center."

Using his approach, fans would buy seats for a designated period of time and finance them much like a mortgage. Pricing mechanisms can vary, but the most appealing option for buyers might be a 30-year loan with an annual payment equal to the current price of a season ticket. In exchange, the seat becomes real property, equivalent to, say, a condominium. The team (or university or other owner) receives the principal amount of the loan up front, to put toward construction costs.

This arrangement is different from seat licensing, which gives the holder the right to buy a season ticket for a specific seat. It also differs from the stock ownership of teams like the Green Bay Packers. Under Weisbach's system, people own seats, not shares of a team.

Say, for instance, the current price of a season baseball ticket is $3,240. A 30-year loan at 6 percent interest with an annual payment of $3,240 results in a principal amount of $45,000. Even if the price of the seat doubles in the next 20 years, the seat owner still pays $3,240. Investors will have the option of making annual payments over 30 years, paying the entire amount up front, or something in between. Owners can also sell their seats at any time for market value, but rest assured—the team will get a cut of any profits.

It’s a concept so simple it's surprising it hasn't been tried before. It's also hard to imagine that such a seemingly easy solution could settle one of the most hotly debated topics in civic affairs. Just last weekend, the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Sonics presented economic plans for their new homes, and both teams are asking for some public funds. And the Minnesota Vikings and Oakland A's are currently trying to determine stadium plans that would appease taxpayers in Minneapolis and Fremont, California.

It was one such local battle that inspired Weisbach to come up with the idea. Weisbach, who founded the promotional products company Ha-Lo Industries, was part of the unsuccessful effort to bring major league sports to Las Vegas. "We were frustrated by the inability to finance a stadium with the help of the municipality," he says. "That's when the light bulb went off."

Morgan Stanley hasn't disclosed what role it will play in Stadium Capital's operations, but if the idea takes off, it's clear that lending opportunities could be huge. "We're working with Morgan Stanley in every possible way," Weisbach says.

So just how many seat buyers would it take to finance a state-of-the-art stadium with the latest retractable roof technology? In an interview, Weisbach said fewer than 10 percent of seats would need to sell in order to build a new stadium. However, going by the example outlined above, the patent application states that selling 20,000 tickets would yield $900 million, just about enough to cover costs. In most Major League stadiums, this would require selling nearly half of the seats.

It may be quite a while before we see an entire stadium built according to Weisbach’s plan. Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor who has written extensively about stadium financing, says that such an approach might make a dent in required public funding but will never replace it. Noll points out that most teams can't afford to sacrifice future revenues in order to pay for their ball fields. "At the end of the day, stadiums are not good investments," he says. "This isn't going to be a revolution."

Even if fans never replace the need for public financing, there are plenty of diehards out there that would likely jump at the chance to own a piece of the next Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. And Morgan Stanley might be willing to let them do it.

Only in America could you get people paying over £1,500 a season to watch rounders!

 

[Holy Joe]

So the club could receive cash upfront for the seats - but the downside is it removes a future income stream.

 

[Rusty Lee]

So the club could receive cash upfront for the seats - but the downside is it removes a future income stream.

yep, thats how i read it, but by then we're have a 25k stadium full to the rafters! ;)

 

[Hotman]

So the club could receive cash upfront for the seats - but the downside is it removes a future income stream.

future income stream that would be used to service the further debt.

 

[Irate Ian]

So the club could receive cash upfront for the seats - but the downside is it removes a future income stream.

That depends on what income streams are to accrue to SUFC & we are yet to learn any detail from the developer.

If catering and bar outlets etc etc etc, do not form part of income to the club, then the answer to your question might well be a yes ???????

 

[Irate Ian]

This looks like an option which we are considering to fund the new ground.

What if you could spend, say, $100,000 to become the owner of two seats behind the dugout in the new Yankee Stadium, due to be completed in 2009?

We are talking not about tickets, but about the seats themselves. They would be your property for as long as the Yankees play at the stadium. And with the sale of these seats, the Yankees would have raised the entire $1.2 billion needed to build the venue.

The Yankees organization, though, isn’t the author of this deal.


It's Morgan Stanley and its partner, the start-up Stadium Capital Financing Group, who are behind the plan, and they’re hoping it will become an accepted way of doing business in sports.


Stadium Capital claims to have created a new way of raising money for stadiums and other venues, one that doesn’t rely upon public funds. And Morgan Stanley has bought into the proposal in a big way, acquiring a majority stake in the company for an undisclosed amount earlier this month through its principal investments division.

Louis Weisbach, the man who came up with the idea, says he will not divulge much about his business plan until his first deal is announced, which he hopes will be later this year. The Chicago businessman says Stadium Capital’s approach allows fans to be "locked into seats for an extraordinarily long time without any price increase" and "solves the problems municipalities have with a lack of appetite to finance new stadiums."

Yet details about his brainchild can be found in Weisbach’s February 2006 filing at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent application No. 20060036506 describes a "method of financing a sports stadium or entertainment center."

Using his approach, fans would buy seats for a designated period of time and finance them much like a mortgage. Pricing mechanisms can vary, but the most appealing option for buyers might be a 30-year loan with an annual payment equal to the current price of a season ticket. In exchange, the seat becomes real property, equivalent to, say, a condominium. The team (or university or other owner) receives the principal amount of the loan up front, to put toward construction costs.

This arrangement is different from seat licensing, which gives the holder the right to buy a season ticket for a specific seat. It also differs from the stock ownership of teams like the Green Bay Packers. Under Weisbach's system, people own seats, not shares of a team.

Say, for instance, the current price of a season baseball ticket is $3,240. A 30-year loan at 6 percent interest with an annual payment of $3,240 results in a principal amount of $45,000. Even if the price of the seat doubles in the next 20 years, the seat owner still pays $3,240. Investors will have the option of making annual payments over 30 years, paying the entire amount up front, or something in between. Owners can also sell their seats at any time for market value, but rest assured—the team will get a cut of any profits.

It’s a concept so simple it's surprising it hasn't been tried before. It's also hard to imagine that such a seemingly easy solution could settle one of the most hotly debated topics in civic affairs. Just last weekend, the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Sonics presented economic plans for their new homes, and both teams are asking for some public funds. And the Minnesota Vikings and Oakland A's are currently trying to determine stadium plans that would appease taxpayers in Minneapolis and Fremont, California.

It was one such local battle that inspired Weisbach to come up with the idea. Weisbach, who founded the promotional products company Ha-Lo Industries, was part of the unsuccessful effort to bring major league sports to Las Vegas. "We were frustrated by the inability to finance a stadium with the help of the municipality," he says. "That's when the light bulb went off."

Morgan Stanley hasn't disclosed what role it will play in Stadium Capital's operations, but if the idea takes off, it's clear that lending opportunities could be huge. "We're working with Morgan Stanley in every possible way," Weisbach says.

So just how many seat buyers would it take to finance a state-of-the-art stadium with the latest retractable roof technology? In an interview, Weisbach said fewer than 10 percent of seats would need to sell in order to build a new stadium. However, going by the example outlined above, the patent application states that selling 20,000 tickets would yield $900 million, just about enough to cover costs. In most Major League stadiums, this would require selling nearly half of the seats.

It may be quite a while before we see an entire stadium built according to Weisbach’s plan. Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor who has written extensively about stadium financing, says that such an approach might make a dent in required public funding but will never replace it. Noll points out that most teams can't afford to sacrifice future revenues in order to pay for their ball fields. "At the end of the day, stadiums are not good investments," he says. "This isn't going to be a revolution."

Even if fans never replace the need for public financing, there are plenty of diehards out there that would likely jump at the chance to own a piece of the next Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. And Morgan Stanley might be willing to let them do it.

This is similar [variation on a theme] to the concept I started a thread upon on SZ in February 08, so you heard it on the Zone 1st !

How they can seek to patent a basic common sense idea that has been around for years is beyond me - could only happen in the USA.

From memory the thread started: "12345/" or similar

At March meeting with RM, he mentioned not then being in favour of "seat for life" [albeit that his share offer scheme had indicated the contrary] but the game plan may have had to be changed in the past 5 months, or he may be required to make the seat offer as part of the conditions of Morgan Stanley.

5% of 22,000 = approx 1,000 x say £10,000 would bring in £8M or circa 25% of the original estiimated buildng costs [£35M] = example only