if we go up

[frogmiller]

Your missing the point completely Wrinkly!

TS to TS to TS

Any debt on the ground is repaid by RU estates (TS) which increases the value of the balance sheet by asset value as the loan is repaid, when paid off he will have £30m of assets paid by the rent from RU paid by some of the sponsorship from ASD!

and then RU estates will continue to receive rents after TS has departed.

im not knocking TS one bit for what he has done but its a shrew investment

The point of sale will be interesting. The club won't survive paying rent to RU Estates.

[wrinkly]

Your missing the point completely Wrinkly!

TS to TS to TS

Any debt on the ground is repaid by RU estates (TS) which increases the value of the balance sheet by asset value as the loan is repaid, when paid off he will have £30m of assets paid by the rent from RU paid by some of the sponsorship from ASD!

and then RU estates will continue to receive rents after TS has departed.

im not knocking TS one bit for what he has done but its a shrew investment

I know your not knocking TS and I'm sure most of us wouldn't begrudge him a reasonable return in due course.
I hope you're right that it's a shrewd investment although Kerr surely makes a good point:

"You say that RU Estates will eventually own the ground and whilst that may be true, it will be an asset that is without value unless it has a tenant and the position at the moment is that the club is a tenant that cannot pay the rent without substantial financial support from the landlord."

[KerrAvon]

The point of sale will be interesting. The club won't survive paying rent to RU Estates.

It will if the new owner does what the existing owner does, which is to provide substantial financial support to cover the costs of the running of the club (but not at the level that some supporters demand).

In reality the risky nature of the football industry means that Tony Stewart is likely to try to sell the ground at the same as the club. If he retained ownership of the ground and the club folded he would be left with an expensive white elephant.

[gm_gm]

It will if the new owner does what the existing owner does, which is to provide substantial financial support to cover the costs of the running of the club (but not at the level that some supporters demand).

In reality the risky nature of the football industry means that Tony Stewart is likely to try to sell the ground at the same as the club. If he retained ownership of the ground and the club folded he would be left with an expensive white elephant.

I think any deal that TS enters into with a new buyer whereby he would keep the ground and receive rents, would be protected under a lease with PGs and possible debentures placed on other company assets from the buyer. Secondly, Im sure he would ensure any potential buyer had the financial stability, resources and acumen to fund the club within at least half the lease period.

[welovebooth]

The latest set of accounts (for the year ending 30.6.17) shows that ASD Lighting paid the club (Rotherham United Football Club (RUFC) Ltd.) £1 million in sponsorship. That is money that is gone for ever - i.e. it is not in any way repayable. I'm sure that you would agree that it is unlikely that ASD Lighting achieved a benefit worth anything like £1 million from that sponsorship.

The previous set of accounts show that ASD had paid £2.9m during the accounting period. I've not looked any further back, but have no reason to believe that the sponsorship has not being going on for the whole of the time that Tony Stewart has been the owner of the club. That's a lot of money that ASD has put in and which will never be seen again.

The £1m in sponsorship barely covered the rent on the ground paid to RU Estates, which was £1.1m.

The latest set of accounts also show that despite the sponsorship payment, the club lost £1.2 million during the reporting year. That's down from the £1.46 million lost during the previous reporting period, but it's still a loss that has to be covered and given that banks generally don't lend money to football clubs anymore (they are tired of losing it), it is ASD that is stepping into the breach. As a result of that, the total debt owed to ASD rose to £3.9 million.

Whilst the debt to ASD is payable on demand, that is no different to the position on many loans between related companies and in effect it is meaningless - the club doesn't have £3.9 million and so can't repay the debt. If the demand was made, the club would fold and ASD would be an unsecured creditor getting a few pence in the pound from a company that has the same owners as ASD, which would make no sense.

You say that RU Estates will eventually own the ground and whilst that may be true, it will be an asset that is without value unless it has a tenant and the position at the moment is that the club is a tenant that cannot pay the rent without substantial financial support from the landlord.

In other words, Rotherham United, like most league clubs, exists because its owner is willing to put substantial amounts of money in with very little hope of a return.

kerravon do you think been owed 3.9 million from been a football club owner over a 10 year period is a lot??

what is it 390k a season debt.

it's not a lot (which I'm glad) really is it to say he ownes a football club.

his son Ferrari would of cost a little bit less than that.