What is the real deal with the hotel?

[BBFF 0]

Can anyone help. What is the real deal with the hotel?

What I''ve heard is the club gets £1.1mill for a 150yr lease and one 3rd of any profit if the hotel is ever sold off by the owners?

Am I correct or will the club get anything from its normal day to day running as well?

[First Jedi 0]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"]

Can anyone help. What is the real deal with the hotel?

What I''ve heard is the club gets £1.1mill for a 150yr lease and one 3rd of any profit if the hotel is ever sold off by the owners?

Am I correct or will the club get anything from its normal day to day running as well?

[/quote]

 

I believe so - 10% of the profit...? Maybe? Dunno....   

[djc 0]

What''s the real deal?

 

Its currently an ugly looking building with bedrooms in it, which are probably at cheap value.

Perhaps its for all of our new signings to come stay in. And just think - they could even walk to work!!!   [;)]

[canary cherub 1]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Not sure about that................

It provides potential ongoing revenue in the way of shares dividends.

Obviously, the club forecast that this venture will become profitable.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Does anybody know how much money this venture has cost the club?

 

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Does anybody know how much money this venture has cost the club?

 

[/quote]Its cost the club/us a lot more than they will admit to. Its all part of their off the pitch ambitions......you can see that by whats happening on the pitch?

[Stephen Frys Evil Twin 0]

It''s only cost the club that area of land. The £1.1m was from the developers to the club, and we also get 30% of the shares in the hotel.

Don''t think there should be any hidden costs?

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]I don''t want to be too pedantic here but City have a 30% shareholding and so will receive 30% of the dividends.  That is not the same as operating profit as some profit will be retained in the hotel company as working capital.  The rest will be distributed to the shareholders as dividends.

The 70% partner is investing in this project to get capital growth and income which will come in the form of dividends.  There will be dividends and City will derive income from the project. 

There are plenty of arguments about whether this was the best use stategically for the land but £1.1m cash, dividend income and the capital growth in the hotel company mean that in pure financial terms, it is hard to see a more profitable use for the land.

I don''t like the look of the thing and I''d much rather have an infill stand and a proper stadium.  However, from the single point of view of the best way to bring cash and value into the club, I think the project is a winner.  We will be very glad of the income if/when this takes off.

[Hairy Canary 699]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Come on Brian me old mucker, this is an easy one. It has cost the club nothing. We got £1,100,000 in cash plus 30% of the dividends each year and have to contribute nothing to the operating costs. On top of that we can sell our 30% stake whenever we want. Sounds like a top quality deal to me.

Like everyone else I would have prefered to have an infill built as far as the deal itself goes its a no brainer.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Was the 30% share part of the deal when the land was purchased, or did we have to pay for our share seperately?

[macdougalls perm 0]

BB wrote - Its cost the club/us a lot more than they will admit to. Its all part of their off the pitch ambitions......you can see that by whats happening on the pitch?

Try not to be so specific with your allegations, lol[:D]! 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I''m still confused because I have never really understood the project. Some posters say it cost nothing except the land it''s built on and others say it''s money down the drain in hidden costs. What are the hidden costs??

I would have preferred another corner infill stand too but I guess that would have cost a lot of money. Does anyone have any idea how much?

Oh.. and what could we have done with that piece of land that wouldn''t have cost money and would have been a better use?

 

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Come on Brian me old mucker, this is an easy one. It has cost the club nothing. We got £1,100,000 in cash plus 30% of the dividends each year and have to contribute nothing to the operating costs. On top of that we can sell our 30% stake whenever we want. Sounds like a top quality deal to me.

Like everyone else I would have prefered to have an infill built as far as the deal itself goes its a no brainer.

[/quote]

Don''t old mucker me you OLD Hairy one, a stand of 750 at an average £275 a season ticket (remember the waiting list?) brings in £1.2mill (at today''s prices) in just six yrs and that''s every six yrs. With the hotel you lose a bigger fan base, Carrow Rd will never be a complete stadium and it shows that NCPLC will never put FOOTBALL first.

If the boards on pitch ambitions came close to matching their off pitch ambitions the bookies would have City as favourites tomorrow not Blackpool?

[Freddy H 0]

Dear Brian Ester, you seem to have forgotten that we would

need to build a corner infill stand first at a cost of ~£2.5M (Based on N&P

Jarrold infill cost).  Using your figures it doesn’t take an analyst to

work out that it makes it about 12 years before we pay off the £2.5M and

then another 6 years before we get the £1.1M that we have already received.

[blacko 0]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Come on Brian me old mucker, this is an easy one. It has cost the club nothing. We got £1,100,000 in cash plus 30% of the dividends each year and have to contribute nothing to the operating costs. On top of that we can sell our 30% stake whenever we want. Sounds like a top quality deal to me.

Like everyone else I would have prefered to have an infill built as far as the deal itself goes its a no brainer.

[/quote]

I understood that there has to be a gap between home and away fans and also a gap for the emergency services to get to the pitch so the potential extra seating did not warrant the cost. In addition the seats will obviously only be sold if the rest of the groung is full, which is now unlikely.

Therefore we could on the one hand have some pretty extra empty seats and be some millions short of funds or an hotel with potential annual income and over a million in the bin. Which would you rather have?

 

 

Don''t old mucker me you OLD Hairy one, a stand of 750 at an average £275 a season ticket (remember the waiting list?) brings in £1.2mill (at today''s prices) in just six yrs and that''s every six yrs. With the hotel you lose a bigger fan base, Carrow Rd will never be a complete stadium and it shows that NCPLC will never put FOOTBALL first.

If the boards on pitch ambitions came close to matching their off pitch ambitions the bookies would have City as favourites tomorrow not Blackpool?

[/quote]

[Branston Pickle 3,656]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Come on Brian me old mucker, this is an easy one. It has cost the club nothing. We got £1,100,000 in cash plus 30% of the dividends each year and have to contribute nothing to the operating costs. On top of that we can sell our 30% stake whenever we want. Sounds like a top quality deal to me.

Like everyone else I would have prefered to have an infill built as far as the deal itself goes its a no brainer.

[/quote]

Don''t old mucker me you OLD Hairy one, a stand of 750 at an average £275 a season ticket (remember the waiting list?) brings in £1.2mill (at today''s prices) in just six yrs and that''s every six yrs. With the hotel you lose a bigger fan base, Carrow Rd will never be a complete stadium and it shows that NCPLC will never put FOOTBALL first.

If the boards on pitch ambitions came close to matching their off pitch ambitions the bookies would have City as favourites tomorrow not Blackpool?

[/quote]

IMO you are mistaken on several grounds, it really was a no brainer for the club: a piece of land that would take years of debt, cost and hassle for the club to generate anything from if it were to build a stand, has generated £1.1m +  30% stake at no cost or risk other than the piece of land.  I''m pretty sure that the accounts cover this, and it would be illegal for them to state anything other than the truth.

I''m sure we''d have all liked a stand to be built but the simple fact is that it would have been more debt, when people are already moaning it is too high (even though we''ve part used this to build our biggest stand holding close to 10000 including the infill), and it would have generated relatively few seats and therefore little return: IMO the costs of a stand would have been £2m+ and would have taken 2 years to get any revenue, 10+ to cover costs.  In the short term we''d have had to be servicing debt and paying off capital  but with no extra revenue, so there would have been a cash loss for the club and lower amounts of money available in the short term for transfers etc.  Instead, we have the £1.1m and dividends.  Financially it really was a no brainer, and if the £1.1m is invested in the playing side, it would be a no brainier from the footballing side of things as well, since it is £1.1m we''d otherwise not have until 10-12 years time.

 

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="mystic megson"]

According to an article by David Cuffley dated 1st October 2005, we got £1.1m for the land which went towards reducing the debt on the NU Corner Stand.

We don''t get 30% of the operating profits.  We have a 30% share and the idea is that if the hotel is successful and the share price rises, the club will benefit that way.

 

[/quote]Thank you M M, it still sounds like a bad deal but its part of their off the pitch ambitions, more of our money down the drain.[/quote]

Come on Brian me old mucker, this is an easy one. It has cost the club nothing. We got £1,100,000 in cash plus 30% of the dividends each year and have to contribute nothing to the operating costs. On top of that we can sell our 30% stake whenever we want. Sounds like a top quality deal to me.

Like everyone else I would have prefered to have an infill built as far as the deal itself goes its a no brainer.

[/quote]

Don''t old mucker me you OLD Hairy one, a stand of 750 at an average £275 a season ticket (remember the waiting list?) brings in £1.2mill (at today''s prices) in just six yrs and that''s every six yrs. With the hotel you lose a bigger fan base, Carrow Rd will never be a complete stadium and it shows that NCPLC will never put FOOTBALL first.

If the boards on pitch ambitions came close to matching their off pitch ambitions the bookies would have City as favourites tomorrow not Blackpool?

[/quote]

IMO you are mistaken on several grounds, it really was a no brainer for the club: a piece of land that would take years of debt, cost and hassle for the club to generate anything from if it were to build a stand, has generated £1.1m +  30% stake at no cost or risk other than the piece of land.  I''m pretty sure that the accounts cover this, and it would be illegal for them to state anything other than the truth.

I''m sure we''d have all liked a stand to be built but the simple fact is that it would have been more debt, when people are already moaning it is too high (even though we''ve part used this to build our biggest stand holding close to 10000 including the infill), and it would have generated relatively few seats and therefore little return: IMO the costs of a stand would have been £2m+ and would have taken 2 years to get any revenue, 10+ to cover costs.  In the short term we''d have had to be servicing debt and paying off capital  but with no extra revenue, so there would have been a cash loss for the club and lower amounts of money available in the short term for transfers etc.  Instead, we have the £1.1m and dividends.  Financially it really was a no brainer, and if the £1.1m is invested in the playing side, it would be a no brainier from the footballing side of things as well, since it is £1.1m we''d otherwise not have until 10-12 years time.

 

[/quote]

I''m surprised how many fans have been infected by the NCPLC''s  "Poor Little Norwich" virus! So we are all happy with the boards on & off the pitch ambitions and commitment?..........but then they say you get the board you deserve.

FOOTBALL must come first.

[Branston Pickle 3,656]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][

I''m surprised how many fans have been infected by the NCPLC''s  "Poor Little Norwich" virus! So we are all happy with the boards on & off the pitch ambitions and commitment?..........but then they say you get the board you deserve.

FOOTBALL must come first.

[/quote]

Sorry, but you really do need to wake up to the realities of things.  I am by no means an apoligist for the board, but you clearly have not read and taken in anything that has been written about the hotel.  What I said was that it is of benefit to the playing side of things now, having this money, rather than your suggestion which ties the club into more debt before it gets even a vague return.  Which is better? Hmmm.

[John Boubepo 0]

I''m not sure how anyone can defend the decision to build a hotel in the corner of a football stadium, especially when there is a clear demand for more seats, the pitch-side of a football stadium should be for supporters only, personally I feel a hotel is as out of place at CR as a supermarket or a bus station, I would rather they had just left a gap, at least the potential would have still been there for a decent Stadium, now we have a  Mickey Mouse hotel for ever - a symbolisation and an constant reminder of the clubs ambition and lack of empathy with the fans.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]I''m not sure how anyone can defend the decision to build a hotel in the corner of a football stadium, especially when there is a clear demand for more seats, the pitch-side of a football stadium should be for supporters only, personally I feel a hotel is as out of place at CR as a supermarket or a bus station, I would rather they had just left a gap, at least the potential would have still been there for a decent Stadium, now we have a  Mickey Mouse hotel for ever - a symbolisation and an constant reminder of the clubs ambition and lack of empathy with the fans.
[/quote] Thanks John I didnt think I was standing alone on this one. FOOTBALL must come first

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Brian Burrell"][quote user="John Boubepo"]I''m not sure how anyone can defend the decision to build a hotel in the corner of a football stadium, especially when there is a clear demand for more seats, the pitch-side of a football stadium should be for supporters only, personally I feel a hotel is as out of place at CR as a supermarket or a bus station, I would rather they had just left a gap, at least the potential would have still been there for a decent Stadium, now we have a  Mickey Mouse hotel for ever - a symbolisation and an constant reminder of the clubs ambition and lack of empathy with the fans.
[/quote] Thanks John I didnt think I was standing alone on this one. FOOTBALL must come first[/quote]

I am still struggling with this one. I would much much rather have a corner infill than a hotel, it is afterall a football stadium!

However, reading the posts on here it seems to me that the hotel option is a better one, at least short term, for the football team??

Trouble I have with this is that now there will never be a corner infill!

Or am I still not understanding properly?

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]I''m not sure how anyone can defend the decision to build a hotel in the corner of a football stadium, especially when there is a clear demand for more seats, the pitch-side of a football stadium should be for supporters only, personally I feel a hotel is as out of place at CR as a supermarket or a bus station, I would rather they had just left a gap, at least the potential would have still been there for a decent Stadium, now we have a  Mickey Mouse hotel for ever - a symbolisation and an constant reminder of the clubs ambition and lack of empathy with the fans.
[/quote]

It provides a convenient and captive audience for Delia''s bed, breakfast and evening meal extravaganda just along the corridor......

DELIA''S FOLLY will forever remind us of these exciting times!..............[N]