Late David Gold, Sullivan and Brady
Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks
- hammer1975
- Posts: 16641
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
- Has liked: 934 likes
- Total likes: 1089 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Had a little time on my hands so been browsing some other club accounts
Everton as at end June 2016 had £19m on a 25 year loan fixed at 7.79% and £35m at 5.2% (against future TV revenue)....but the interesting part is that in the 'post balance sheet events' the accounts refer to the majority shareholder providing an £80m interest free loan with no agreed repayment date. It then suggests that this has been used to repay all the other loans against the club (including the ones above).
Highest paid director £400k
Need to charge a market interest rate?
Everton as at end June 2016 had £19m on a 25 year loan fixed at 7.79% and £35m at 5.2% (against future TV revenue)....but the interesting part is that in the 'post balance sheet events' the accounts refer to the majority shareholder providing an £80m interest free loan with no agreed repayment date. It then suggests that this has been used to repay all the other loans against the club (including the ones above).
Highest paid director £400k
Need to charge a market interest rate?
Last edited by hammer1975 on Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Tottenham haven't got anything on the table for naming rights let alone 200 mill. If they are aiming for that it will almost certainly be a 10 year deal compared to LLDC's 6 year deal. So to compare apples with spurs (fictional) apples it would be 20 mill a year versus 6.6 million. That assumes spurs would get it, something I am dubious of.Prob wrote:Vodafone £40million naming rights are a joke, when a new ground like Spurs are talking about £200million.
Who ever owns and runs the OS needs a kick up the ass they are clueless
For context, the world's highest grossing venue by ticket sales (The O2) gets 10 million a year for naming rights
- GingerJohn
- Posts: 3454
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:19 pm
- Jeffcoate321
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:00 pm
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
They will probably pair the name sponsor with a kit, training ground sponsor etc..
They are bound to get more than us regardless of whether we had input on it or not sadly, so the fact we see none of it is just an insult to the proverbial injury..
They are bound to get more than us regardless of whether we had input on it or not sadly, so the fact we see none of it is just an insult to the proverbial injury..
- Puff Daddy
- Gone for a Burton
- Posts: 42250
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
- Location: Westham Way
- Has liked: 248 likes
- Total likes: 1160 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Chinese are on the verge of buying AC Milan for £635m, a far bigger club than us, yet Sullivan rejected a £650m bid
- brooking_1980
- Posts: 1444
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:04 am
- Has liked: 12 likes
- Total likes: 58 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Exactly, no way is West Ham United (minus a home freehold ground) worth £ 650m !Puff Daddy wrote:Chinese are on the verge of buying AC Milan for £635m, a far bigger club than us, yet Sullivan rejected a £650m bid
- James P
- Posts: 16265
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:55 pm
- Location: Romford
- Has liked: 28 likes
- Total likes: 171 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
I thought the Vodafone deal was £3m odd a year. Hence why we weren't getting any of it.SBB wrote:Tottenham haven't got anything on the table for naming rights let alone 200 mill. If they are aiming for that it will almost certainly be a 10 year deal compared to LLDC's 6 year deal. So to compare apples with spurs (fictional) apples it would be 20 mill a year versus 6.6 million.
- -DL-
- Bag Man
- Posts: 30097
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:43 am
- Has liked: 836 likes
- Total likes: 4952 likes
- Contact:
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Did he b*llocks.Puff Daddy wrote:Chinese are on the verge of buying AC Milan for £635m, a far bigger club than us, yet Sullivan rejected a £650m bid
- Puff Daddy
- Gone for a Burton
- Posts: 42250
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
- Location: Westham Way
- Has liked: 248 likes
- Total likes: 1160 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
brooking_1980 wrote:
Exactly, no way is West Ham United (minus a home freehold ground) worth £ 650m !
Agreed. I have to ask myself how they valued us at that figure, the stadium isn't ours and the entire squad isn't even worth a £200mm So what do we have that is worth £450m ?
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Ac milan don't own their ground either. They share it with Inter and it is owned by the govtbrooking_1980 wrote: Exactly, no way is West Ham United (minus a home freehold ground) worth £ 650m !
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Could very well be, we wont know unless it is announced and disclosed. I wa just doing the maths based on what wa posted to put things in contextJames P wrote: I thought the Vodafone deal was £3m odd a year. Hence why we weren't getting any of it.
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
A badge with the word London in it, that's got to be worth £450mPuff Daddy wrote:
Agreed. I have to ask myself how they valued us at that figure, the stadium isn't ours and the entire squad isn't even worth a £200mm So what do we have that is worth £450m ?
- DaveWHU1964
- Posts: 14873
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:14 am
- Has liked: 1302 likes
- Total likes: 679 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
That £650 million figure is the equivalent of asking for a million quid for a £300k house in the vain hope of maybe fooling some sucker into parting with £350k.
- Hugh Jargon
- Posts: 5942
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:50 pm
- Has liked: 170 likes
- Total likes: 475 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
The evidence seems to be weighted against this Japanese takeover theory as suggested by Jinxed I am afraid.
- Diogenes
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:07 pm
- Has liked: 432 likes
- Total likes: 1144 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
At the moment the last businesses we want taking us over are Japanese, particularly a consortium. And the £650m Sullivan apparently turned down previously is absolute rubbish. If someone were to offer £450m to £550m he would even carry his own boxes out of his office.
We need to be careful here. It is not how much we sell for or even that we are sold. It is to who, and what investment they bring.
We need to be careful here. It is not how much we sell for or even that we are sold. It is to who, and what investment they bring.
- HamburgHammer
- Posts: 4020
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:06 pm
- Location: Too far away from Upton Park, Hamburg, Germany, to be precise
- Has liked: 2 likes
- Total likes: 7 likes
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Diogenes, you are indeed right, it is crucial that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot with the wrong kind of new owners. The trouble of course is that Sullivan will choose if to sell the club and who to.
And judging on various decisions of his about West Ham in recent times I wouldn't expect him to deliver a wise decision. Should we get rich and competent owners it is far more likely to be down to sheer luck or a happy coincidence rather than the wisdom or diligence of Sullivan methinks...
And judging on various decisions of his about West Ham in recent times I wouldn't expect him to deliver a wise decision. Should we get rich and competent owners it is far more likely to be down to sheer luck or a happy coincidence rather than the wisdom or diligence of Sullivan methinks...
Re: Gold and Sullivan ???
Our owners are so cheap, Chelsea pay more to their backup goalkeeper a year in wages than we pay in rent for our stadium, they pay more to players who are on loan then we pay to our entire squad. We need owners who are prepared to invest in the squad properly.