Delancey

[Shrimperstrust]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,15:01)]buy all the raffle tickets sent to me

That's good

The Xmas Draw ones will be available from Sundays Game

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Stig Purple @ Oct. 04 2005,14:44)]Saw another idea mentioned in The Sunday Telegraph the other day. Bournemouth FC are putting together a deal with Standard Life for Supporters' Pension Schemes. What this entails is supporters investing in a self-invested personal pension (Sipp).  On top of fans' contributions the scheme can borrow additional funds to purchase land and stadium. The details for SUFC would take some working out but for example, Bournemouth are looking for 40 fans to put in £50k each to raise £2m, then the scheme can borrow another £3.6m; so £5.6m is available for the purchase. The scheme then receives £360k per annum in rent from the club. Bournemouth already have 35 out of the 40 required. Brighton and Chesterfield are also considering doing something similar.

More info on Bournemouth scheme

Couple of things to note:
1) Some transfer of funds into the sipp from existing pension schemes is required
2) Transferring from a current occupational pension scheme would mean you would miss out on employer contributions.

Obviously full independent financial advice should be taken before taking up this option but for those that can afford it this sounds far more interesting an investment than some random, faceless unit trust.

Very interesting (I'm a pensions actuary).  Essentially you'd be investing £50k in the club's property (as opposed to investing in some other investment).  The club gets full benefit of your cash and hopefully you will get a reasonable return.  

There may be better investment/pension ideas elsewhere but this sort of idea could appeal to the more wealthy fan who does not mind losing on a bit of return/taking a bit more risk with their pension.  It's still a much better deal than just making a £50k donation.

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Shrimperstrust @ Oct. 04 2005,15:05)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,15:01)]buy all the raffle tickets sent to me

That's good  

The Xmas Draw ones will be available from Sundays Game  

Sorry, should have said "I buy all the raffle tickets sent to me provided I'm not sent more than 15"

 

[Upminster Blue]

Right, while I'm in thinking mode (it doesn't happen often

), I saw in Gillingham's programme that their fans have set up a charitable trust in order to raise funds for the club.

The key benefit of a charity structure is the tax position - when making donations, paying subs etc you can tick the gift aid box which means the trust can claim back basic rate income tax on your sub/donation. So, on a £10 sub the trust would actually receive £12.82. Even better, higher rate tax payers can put their subs down on their tax return and claim back the difference between higher rate and basic rate income tax. So, a £10 sub would actually only cost a higher rate tax payer £7.69 after this extra tax relief.

I have no idea what's involved in setting up a charitable trust or what restrictions it would bring over the structure of our current trust, but the tax reliefs are very worthwhile.

 

[Stig Purple]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,15:01)]

When I first joined the Trust I made the conscious decision not to go OTT on donations/financial support (I still make a small donation with my subs, buy all the raffle tickets sent to me and make sure that I and all my friends/family use the shopping link on the website to get the Trust commission) but to instead be prepared to make a decent contribution when the future of the club depends on it.  

Bit morbid this but along these lines I named SUSCT when I made a will recently. I might not want to 'go large' on donations now unless the club were in dire trouble but have no problem leaving a fair sum on death. Perhaps the trust could promote making a will (with the option of leaving a pecuniary legacy to SUSCT at the individual's discretion). I'm sure many blues fans would like to leave something for the club's survival after their loved ones are catered for.

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

And everything was looking so good for a moment ...

WS

 

[MilkeySUFC]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,15:21)]Right, while I'm in thinking mode (it doesn't happen often  

), I saw in Gillingham's programme that their fans have set up a charitable trust in order to raise funds for the club.

The key benefit of a charity structure is the tax position - when making donations, paying subs etc you can tick the gift aid box which means the trust can claim back basic rate income tax on your sub/donation.  So, on a £10 sub the trust would actually receive £12.82.  Even better, higher rate tax payers can put their subs down on their tax return and claim back the difference between higher rate and basic rate income tax.  So, a £10 sub would actually only cost a higher rate tax payer £7.69 after this extra tax relief.

I have no idea what's involved in setting up a charitable trust or what restrictions it would bring over the structure of our current trust, but the tax reliefs are very worthwhile.

SUSCT, Southend United Supporters Club Trust.

There's a clue in there somewhere!!

 

[Stig Purple]

Don't believe SUSCT is a charitable trust so does not qualify for the tax breaks.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Quote[/b] (Stig Purple @ Oct. 04 2005,16:45)]Don't believe SUSCT is a charitable trust so does not qualify for the tax breaks.

Bingo

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Stig Purple @ Oct. 04 2005,16:45)]Don't believe SUSCT is a charitable trust so does not qualify for the tax breaks.

As well as tax relief at source, I think a charitable trust (bold for the avoidance of doubt

) also benefits from tax free returns on their invested assets. I think the non-charitable SUSCT has to pay tax on any returns, but I may be wrong.

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Stig Purple @ Oct. 04 2005,15:59)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,15:01)]

When I first joined the Trust I made the conscious decision not to go OTT on donations/financial support (I still make a small donation with my subs, buy all the raffle tickets sent to me and make sure that I and all my friends/family use the shopping link on the website to get the Trust commission) but to instead be prepared to make a decent contribution when the future of the club depends on it.  

Bit morbid this but along these lines I named SUSCT when I made a will recently. I might not want to 'go large' on donations now unless the club were in dire trouble but have no problem leaving a fair sum on death. Perhaps the trust could promote making a will (with the option of leaving a pecuniary legacy to SUSCT at the individual's discretion). I'm sure many blues fans would like to leave something for the club's survival after their loved ones are catered for.

Excellent idea.  The donation doesn't have to be monetary - could be old programmes, memorabillia etc (if I don't give mine away my wife will only throw them out or burn them when I'm gone  

).

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Spaceman Spiff @ Oct. 04 2005,13:59)]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,13:37)]The football club's interest in Roots Hall is leasehold. ie the club leases Roots Hall (and Boots and Laces) from SEL Ltd (or whoever owns the freehold) at a rent reportedly in the region of £0.55m per annum.

2. Without that lease the club has no right to play at Roots Hall. Wrong! There is a covenant that says we do, for so long as the club exists. If there is no club, the issue of where to play is irrelevant.

3. The club is believed not to be paying the rent due under the lease at the moment. If so it will be in breach of its obligations under the lease.
That is correct but in no way impacts the covenant, for so long as the club exists

5. Forfeiture extinguishes the interest: it is not dependent on there being a willing purchaser. If the lease is forfeited the club has no interest in Roots Hall and is not able to play there.
The covenant protects the club from forfeiting Roots Hall unless part of the forfeiture includes SUFC ceasing to exist. After which the issue of where to play is irrelevant. This is my point

See above

Nope, you've lost me.

I'm really having conceptual problems trying to work out how this covenant could operate. Is it a freehold or leasehold covenant? Is it positive or restrictive? How is the burden passed on?

I think the most interesting point is if the club has the benefit of this covenant which you seem to claim gives them an unfettered right to play at Roots Hall, why did the club bother to sign a lease at £0.5m rent a year, when they could have (according to you) played there for free?

 

[dloman]

on the investment side, i own a medium sized business in the local area and do invest in other opportunities, but the first thing you look for is a return on your investment at some stage and usually fairly quickly i.e 3 - 5 years.

Now this can realised in many ways such as management buy out, share issue ( aim possibly) or just very good dividends.

Now from what i understand and am most likely wrong , but doesn't Delancy own the ground?? if this is the case then large investors will be very difficult to come by, due to the club not really having any assets (apart from staff)

Sorry if this is a bit of a down post , but just seeing from an investors point of view

 

[dloman]

Oh and before anybody asks!! i do add to the coffers of the club by doing the corporate thing on match day basis

 

[Hong Kong Blue]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Oct. 04 2005,14:15)]SS and HKB, I think you are talking at crossed purposes.

SS the covenant (which, as I said before, I don't think exists in the form you think) only prevents RH being developed without there being an alternative place for them to play (as it is linked to Planning permission). I don't belive it protects the club from a winding up order on the grounds of unpaid debt.

However, the unpaid rent has already been written off so the issue of the lease being withdrawn on the grounds of unpaid rent doesn't come into it either.

Basically if Delancey want to develop RH they will wind up the club first, by asking for the 5.5 m back, then they can do what they want with RH as there is no pro team in the borough.
However due to the the B&L site  being designated as for Sports stadia use only in the borough plan I would hope that the council would block any planning applications for that site, which would seriously hamper the development of the remainder of the FF site. As this site is worth more money to Delancey than RH (both per acre and in the size of the site) I would hope that this would be enough to encourage continued dialogue.

FS - that was my understanding on the covenant, although SS seems to know otherwise.


Regarding the rent being written off, I understand that this is the position with respect to accounting, but I remain to be convinced that this is the correct legal position and suspect these amounts haven't just disappeared, never to return.

I expect if SEL tried to claim this money, SUFC would have a defence of promissory estoppel, but without knowing the full facts this is merely speculation. Even so, if Delancey wanted to revert back to the contractual position, then they would be able to do so on reasonable notice. It is highly likely that we can not afford to pay £500,000 a year rent and so it would only take Delancey to decide that they have been too generous and to start charging us rent to plunge us into deeper financial trouble.

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,17:59)]Regarding the rent being written off, I understand that this is the position with respect to accounting, but I remain to be convinced that this is the correct legal position and suspect these amounts haven't just disappeared, never to return.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the accounting and legal positions are pretty much similar. If the club are still legally liable for the historic rent I can't see how any auditor could sign off the club's accounts as showing a "true and fair view" if they don't show potential liabilities that the club are legally liable for.

If an investor were to buy the club on the basis of the current accounts and were then to find there were lots of hidden liabilities the auditor would be sued pretty quicky I'd imagine.

I'm not an auditor, so stand to be corrected.

 

[Upminster Blue]

Quote[/b] (dloman @ Oct. 04 2005,17:46)]Now from what i understand and am most likely wrong , but doesn't Delancy own the ground?? if this is the case then large investors will be very difficult to come by, due to the club not really having any assets (apart from staff)

Yes, but by investing in SUFC/Fossets Farm you would not be investing because of the club's current assets but because of the potential. Hence the fact that the club currently has no meaningful assets is not crucial.

You also make the point about an investor expecting a return. This is something Delancy are not getting from Roots Hall at the moment. So surely they want out (at a reasonable price) either by selling their stake or by forcing the club under so that they can get their hands on the ground.

 

[sufcintheprem]

Good God. Internet restrictions are raised and I find out that Shrimperzone has gone all Che Guavara on me! Talk of elevating a local hero to a national one and buying out owners by hook, crook or cash.

I had so many burning points across the 15 minutes or so it has taken me to read all this but I have either forgotten them or had them answered.

It certainly beats rubbish debates about things that don't matter much. Ah, some of the points are coming back to me....

1) I can't believe Tilly has been outspoken off his own back either. Seems out of character and an unusual time to do it. Perhaps 'he' was waiting for a time when press coverage was at it's higherst witht he club record, being top and a televised game being the pick of Sky's league football coverage.

2) If we were going to get some sort of banner going, a far better way, IMO, would be a line of people in the East Stand (facing cameras of course and with the steeper elevation) wearing T-shirts with a letter on each.

3) I also agree that this would be a little foolish to take at the first instance when we haven't even tried out more reasonable solutions discussed in some detail later in the thread.

4) Forget about why was the post deleted, this should be in the other forum!!

 

[sufcintheprem]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Oct. 04 2005,17:59)]Regarding the rent being written off, I understand that this is the position with respect to accounting, but I remain to be convinced that this is the correct legal position and suspect these amounts haven't just disappeared, never to return.

If my accounting education has taught me right, I would imagine that if there was a significant write off in the accounts then it would have to be detailed in the accounts.

If there was any consideration due from the club with regards to the write-off, I expect it would have to be announced. If not, it would seem like a way of tying up debtors in your accounts by hiding them away for a few years and then suddenly re-introducing them later on.

In other terms, a form of income smoothing.

Christ, that's the most academic thing I've written since university by far!

 

[Smiffy]

What have I started!...