Fan Finance

[essex canary 491]

AFC Wimbledon have introduced a bond scheme and have raised over £5 million over 5 months at interest rates between nil and 4% to last up to 20 years.

NCFCs attempts at fan finance include raising £2 million for share purchases 17 years ago then handing £2 million profit on a £5 million base 17 years later to a far narrower range of supporters after  only 17 months investment.

Can you identify the crazy gang?

 

 

 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Do you live in a flat?........

[A Load of Squit 5,123]

Is there a prize?

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

49 minutes ago, essex canary said:

AFC Wimbledon have introduced a bond scheme and have raised over £5 million over 5 months at interest rates between nil and 4% to last up to 20 years.

NCFCs attempts at fan finance include raising £2 million for share purchases 17 years ago then handing £2 million profit on a £5 million base 17 years later to a far narrower range of supporters after  only 17 months investment.

Can you identify the crazy gang?

 

Wimbeldon's bond is a much riskier venture - they had an £11 million shortfall so the mere £5m raised doesn't even go half way to meeting that, so there is a much bigger risk that the club could go under and all those that put money in would lose it.  Our bond was not to pay off debt, it was an investment and although still some risk, was well thought out and rightly offered the reward for the risk takers with a bonus should we reach the land of milk and honey, which we did. 

Really don't know what your problem is.

[essex canary 491]

Lake District, the principles of economics are that the higher the risk taken the higher the rewards that should be received. Therefore it would follow that if Wimbledon supporters are taking a higher risk, as you claim, they should receive higher rewards.

In the event though they have been prepared to put their money in for much less reward. Brave or foolish on their part you can make up your mind. Either way the cost of capital that NCFC applied ultimately must be seen to be excessive . Also if NCFC engage in further fan finance initiatives the lessons from previous initiatives will need to be learnt whilst some of the amateurism in design is likely to dampen supporters enthusiasm.

 

[A Load of Squit 5,123]

The bond scheme for the training facility was an overwhelming success.

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

The bond scheme for the training facility was an overwhelming success.

 

I think that may be what's bugging him !  

But it is nearly two weeks since  his last moan about the bond scheme. ' ignore the noise' was the last misleading title thread. It got short shrift on here too.

[baldy09 155]

Just throw money in the virtual bucket that will sort it out and pay the players wages 

[Pugin 601]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

AFC Wimbledon have introduced a bond scheme and have raised over £5 million over 5 months at interest rates between nil and 4% to last up to 20 years.

NCFCs attempts at fan finance include raising £2 million for share purchases 17 years ago then handing £2 million profit on a £5 million base 17 years later to a far narrower range of supporters after  only 17 months investment.

Can you identify the crazy gang?

 

 

 

 

Why does your agenda appear to be so consistently anti-NCFC?

Wimbledon have waged a generation-long campaign to get back into the Borough of Merton. The construction of the new stadium is the culmination of that campaign. These are extraordinary circumstances and hardly a parallel with any comparable with NCFC's situation now or 17 years ago. 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

Lake District, the principles of economics are that the higher the risk taken the higher the rewards that should be received. Therefore it would follow that if Wimbledon supporters are taking a higher risk, as you claim, they should receive higher rewards.

In the event though they have been prepared to put their money in for much less reward. Brave or foolish on their part you can make up your mind. Either way the cost of capital that NCFC applied ultimately must be seen to be excessive . Also if NCFC engage in further fan finance initiatives the lessons from previous initiatives will need to be learnt whilst some of the amateurism in design is likely to dampen supporters enthusiasm.

Our scheme was hugely successful and even if we hadn't been promoted and the bond ran for it's five years, it would still have been a good scheme.  The large extra reward that canary supporters got for putting money in was because of a Premier League windfall clause, otherwise the interest rates were very similar with Wimbledon's interest rates - and if Wimbledon were in the championship, they might have considered a similar carrot in their scheme.

 

 

[essex canary 491]

Successful in what sense?

I had a bet on NCFC to win the championship last season. If the bookmaker over priced it, his profits are less than they otherwise would have been.

Clearly in relation to the Bond scheme, the bookmaker in this sense the Club could have laid that horse to achieve the same stake at a mucher lower price than it did . Therefore any sensible bookmaker would have done exactly that. 

From a shareholders viewpoint Premier League windfalls should have been directed at the clubs playing strength or infrastructure rather than bondholders  excess profits. That was the agreement with shareholders.