Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone?

The land behind the Jarrold stand.........

Recommended Posts

[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

TFA,

Are you or anyone else (buckethead/Mr Carrow?) able to estimate what the overall net profit from all the peripheral land developments would have contributed at say:

1. Height of the property boom pre credit crunch

[/quote]

Even if they had sold it for £10m. (probably worth £4m now if you could find a buyer) there are the following to be considered:

£2.5m. to be repaid to the bank regarding the related loan

£5m.    estimate for a multistorey car park or nearby land

?          demolition costs if buildings are on the nearby land

?          asphalting costs, so the nearby land could be used for a car park

 

If a multistorey car park is built then there are also section 106 Planning obligations.

So theres not much left for the squad, is there?

[/quote]

Surely the club werent proposing to build the car park and then sell it? surely they were proposing to get planning permission for the car park, and sell the land with the planning permission attached? something that would actually increase the value of the land?

[/quote]

Sorry, it seems that I have confused you.

The £5m. estimate is for building a multistorey car park on land NCFC already own at the back of the Jarrold stand OR to buy a piece of nearby land with no multistorey car park on that. Just use the land surface for a car park.

Last year there was a discussion with Buckethead and others on this bb., questioning the location and  size of a multistorey car park behind the Jarrold Stand. If its uneconomic at the size they told Norwich City Council (330 spaces if I remember correctly and NCFC wanted to retain use of about 100 of those) then I cant see how a third party would be interested either. However I appreciate views from others on this matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Ryan,

No a reasonable estimate would be suffice. I believe that many of the factors that you have highlighted are either known or can be reasonably estimated. I was only looking for an answer to the nearest million and I cant see what the harm is in exploring this. I know many propoerty developers that can make this mental claculation within minutes of seeing a site or its plans.

The point that I am trying to tease out is what could the Board have reasonably expected to have earned from thsi development as opposed to its value know. This will then enable us to quantifiy the extent of the risk that has been taken (i.e between the upside and downside valautions) and to assess whether this risk was worth taking.

My concern is that this is not simply a case of borrowing specific funds to pursuse this at the margin and that this is now eating into the playing budget rather than contributing towards it. Lets see whether TFA or others (it is an open offer - including you) are prepared to have a punt?

[/quote]

Your friends might be able to give you an approximate cost of a side extension or two 120 m2 terraced houses, but unless there is another chartered surveyor on here, no figure whatsoever can be ascertained relating to your question.

[/quote]

I think you will find Buckethead works in the construction field. When I have time I will find his posts and we can discuss further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan,

Your professional concerns are well put, but that is why most property developers run around in Ferraris etc. Believe me, I have been involved in many such deals and you will be astonished how quickly they are able to judge an investment (and we are talking to the narest couple of million) and how invariably they get things right. Its what they do.

Unfortunately, property development is not what a TV chef, magazine publisher and provincial solictor do well. Have you ever wondered who has advised the Board and how they reacted to this advice? As you yourself have intmated above, the fact that they have not engaged any commerical partner with land development expertise is simply staggering and perhaps explains why and where we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TFA,

If I recall correctly, when Buckethead posted as the Prisoner, who mentioned that he was heavily involved with one of the Riverside redevelopments and so has recent local knowledge of costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"]Nobody on here can sit down with a calculator and give you a serious figure. Please take that from a professional, else you can be influenced by anybody.[/quote]That''s all very well Ryan but everyboy knows that fag packets are MUCH more accurate than calculators!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23/02/2009, 6:53 PM

Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? is not online. Last active: 11/05/2009 15:27:29 Tangible Fixed Assets anyone?

Top 100 Posts
Joined on 03/08/2005
Posts 2,613

Re: £2m - £3m for a Multi storey car park (MSCP.)?

Reply Quote

One of my earlier posts:

Re: Has the club managed to rollover the £2.5m loan re the ex LSE land?

The intention of NCFC is clear from the document (the third report on the web page generated by the link below) presented to the Planning Committee of Norwich City Council on the 26th July 2007:

 

 

http://www.norwich.gov.uk/webapps/meeting_minutes/Meetings.asp?meeting=specific&mid=1784&id=

The last page shows where the MSCP. would be located, i.e. behind the river end of the Jarrold stand.

 

 

Page 16 of the report includes the following:

 

''At all other times, the car park will operate principally as a public car park,with a short/medium stay tariff, and will be included on the variable message signing system (a contribution to facilitate this has been agreed as part of the package of measures to reduce traffic impact), although 101 of the 330 spaces are required for the operational use of the Club, the hotel and the office development. In effect, therefore, this part of the City will operate in a similar manner to the rest of the City Centre and will therefore only require operational car parking for the commercial uses.

 

The Prisoner’s forecast cost of £5m plus £0.6m re section 106 Planning obligations, tell me how the club is going to make a profitable return on the investment in a MSCP. given the small number of spaces?  So overall for the MSCP to go ahead the club will in effect be spending £2m - £3m net, even IF and I mean IF we can sell the land for £10m in three years time.

 

Are we a football club or a speculator in a 335 space MSCP. ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/11/2008, 12:02 AM

Buckethead




Joined on 04/01/2006
Beyond the pail
Posts 1,406

Re: £2m - £3m for a Multi storey car park (MSCP.)?

Desert Fox.

Actually I''m neither a local builder or Developer but I was Project Director on a contract basis for a Bradford based Company for the BigW development in 2001. In that capacity I was accountable for many decisions both design and construction related and party to many financial decisions being the senior representative of the main contractor on site and so do have experience of building a large project in that part of the City.

It''s interesting to see that those who work in the industry in some capacity tend to be more pragmatic when valuing land and I''d say you''re bang on the money at about £5m max at the moment.

Canary Nuts projection might appear gloomy but I think he too is on the money if you''ll excuse the pun.
The big problem is that not only have landbank values been written down approx 30% in the last 12 months they have also by definition failed to grow at the rate projected whatever that may be and I''m sure 10-15% pa. is not unusual. Keeping it simple this brings the actual value of the land to be a whopping 40% less than the future value projected (on purchase) for those same 12 months a huge discrepancy and one that wipes out any potential for profit for quite some years IMO.

I''m afraid that if the Club were for any reason forced to dispose of this in a hurry then we would not only be in the position of loss but a buyers market would prevail and any price achievable might actually be even lower than valuation. C. N''s figures are realistic and I would pay little attention to anyone who might argue against them. What was unrealistic was the cost of the road (too much IMO) or the price per plot achieved from the last land deal (too little IMO) or even the Hotel land (too little IMO).

I guess Jeremy Clarkson would say this is why the manufacturers of ''I can''t believe it''s not butter'' dont build passenger carrying airliners as a sideline. Or as I might say just because they know about football doesn''t mean they know f.a. about property developement and basing my judgement on previous construction projects the Club have undertaken I''m not convinced they are being best advised by any specialists they might employ either.
Give me twenty minutes and I can prove a MSCP is not in the remotest viable using industry accepted calculations and forecasts. Our Club have somehow incurred Professional fees, had drawings made up and have applied for planning permission on the grounds that a short stay car park in that ( long stay) location is a viable proposition. When the numbers dont add up before you start you are dong something very wrong indeed.


I''d go with ''T''s'' suggestion that the MSCP would be farmed out to a 3rd party but with 1/3rd capacity required by the Club, the location and the cost of alternative car parking inthe locale I doubt anyone would touch it for exactly the same reasons the Club should not.

------------------------------------------------------

 

Our Club have somehow incurred Professional fees, had drawings made up and have applied for planning permission on the grounds that a short stay car park in that ( long stay) location is a viable proposition. When the numbers dont add up before you start you are dong something very wrong indeed.

 

Why has the club wasted money on professional fees etc.?

 


Where are the good experienced strikers?
----------------------------------------
DECLINE with Delia''s NCFC.
   Report 

   23/02/2009, 8:44 PM

Buckethead is not online. Last active: 10/05/2009 21:35:55 Buckethead



Top 150 Posts
Joined on 04/01/2006
Beyond the pail
Posts 1,791

Re: £2m - £3m for a Multi storey car park (MSCP.)?

Reply Quote

TFAA? or Canary Nut if that is you:

You could print this thread off 100 times and roll it up into a big stick to beat the forum mebers over the head with and still struggle to make them understand just exactly what a big and damaging cock up this whole land fiasco is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="ryan85k"]Nobody on here can sit down with a calculator and give you a serious figure. Please take that from a professional, else you can be influenced by anybody.[/quote]That''s all very well Ryan but everyboy knows that fag packets are MUCH more accurate than calculators![/quote]

Lappinitup,

So you have a problem with this subject being debated?

No doubt without fully audited currently inside information, any discussion about this is worthless in your eyes?

You may find it boring, so dont bother to contribute. Of course any constructive views you may have (either way) would be welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23/02/2009, 8:44 PM

Buckethead is not online. Last active: 10/05/2009 21:35:55 Buckethead



Top 150 Posts
Joined on 04/01/2006
Beyond the pail
Posts 1,792

Re: £2m - £3m for a Multi storey car park (MSCP.)?

Reply Quote

TFAA? or Canary Nut if that is you:

You could print this thread off 100 times and roll it up into a big stick to beat the forum mebers over the head with and still struggle to make them understand just exactly what a big and damaging cock up this whole land fiasco is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

The costs to 31st May 2008 were approx £6.4m and we have this seasons interest bill on the related loan and probably another arrangement fee to add to the costs to date. However the Profit & Loss related to the land is separate from the use of the cash from a sale even if made at £10m (hopefully sometime in the future).

The £6.4m includes: £2.75m ex LSE land, £0.9m ex Norwich City Council land, £0.55m re the land Chase purchased, £1.2m re Spine Rd etc and £1m re interest to the 31st May 2008.

The land Chase purchased was for £160k per year for five and half years and the club was collecting £50k per year from Carrow Commercials and match day car parking fees. The payments were made on an interest free basis.

 

[/quote]

So robber barron Chase was actually making more from the land than he was paying for it year on year!!

Average cost of a seasons car park about £150.00 +the 50K Absolute magic[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

The costs to 31st May 2008 were approx £6.4m and we have this seasons interest bill on the related loan and probably another arrangement fee to add to the costs to date. However the Profit & Loss related to the land is separate from the use of the cash from a sale even if made at £10m (hopefully sometime in the future).

The £6.4m includes: £2.75m ex LSE land, £0.9m ex Norwich City Council land, £0.55m re the land Chase purchased, £1.2m re Spine Rd etc and £1m re interest to the 31st May 2008.

The land Chase purchased was for £160k per year for five and half years and the club was collecting £50k per year from Carrow Commercials and match day car parking fees. The payments were made on an interest free basis.

 

[/quote]

So robber barron Chase was actually making more from the land than he was paying for it year on year!!

Average cost of a seasons car park about £150.00 +the 50K Absolute magic[:D]

[/quote]

Not quite, it was £160k per year - (£50k per year + car parking fees) = £100k per year approx. Paid for five and half years = £550k approx in total and no interest bill either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prisoner




Joined on 04/01/2006
Posts 889

Re: Another £1m+ spent on non entertaining Tangible Fixed Assets!

 Canary Nut wrote:

 

 

 

In addition we have  a couple of reasoned judgements:

 

People on this bb. have suggested that it will take at least three years for the property market to recover. On that basis its not unreasonable to calculate the interest for three years on the £2.5m loan according to the term (FACT) in the NCFC Plc Accounts.

 

The estimated cost of the Multi storey car park (MSCP.) is pro rata from the cost of a much bigger MSCP to be located elsewhere in the city area. I suspect that I am underestimating the cost of the proposed NCFC. MSCP.

 

 

 

£2.5m for a 335 space multistorey is well off the mark I''m afraid, they don''t scale up or down linearly.

Ball park figures would be.

£

600,000 planning permissions as per NCC app.
150,000 Professional fees Architects, civils etc.
200,000 Groundworks *
2,000,000 concrete *
200,000 steelwork*
300,000 mechanical and electricals
500,000 lifts
500,000+ entry exit roads inc probably a new junction/roundabout in there too.
250,000 ticketing and barriers.
1,000,000 labour and management.

 

* These could increase drastically upon accurate survey. Any land close to water requires considerable piling implemented depending on the table, you are possibly going to filling 2 or 3 hundred holes 1200mm diameter and 10m deep with concrete at £150 per cubic metre before you even get to ''ground'' level be that actual ground level or subterranean if the carpark is sunk. With boring rigs and concrete etc thats more than half a million straight on top.

If you went up a level you might create 100 extra spaces ie approx 30% extra for approx £1m but it''s the dare I say it infrastructure which costs the big money. There''s always likely to be about £2m buried in the ground that nobody ever sees on a job of that size.

As a guide think of the bigW site. Half the build cost went on access, carpark and the concrete slab (125,000 sq ft shop 140,000 sqft storage) The major cost of those was the concrete (laser levelled) floor slab but bigW got bitten by some huge bills for pilings. Roughly £2m of concrete and steel in that building just to get to ground level  and that was in 2001.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Ryan,

Your professional concerns are well put, but that is why most property developers run around in Ferraris etc. Believe me, I have been involved in many such deals and you will be astonished how quickly they are able to judge an investment (and we are talking to the narest couple of million) and how invariably they get things right. Its what they do.

Unfortunately, property development is not what a TV chef, magazine publisher and provincial solictor do well. Have you ever wondered who has advised the Board and how they reacted to this advice? As you yourself have intmated above, the fact that they have not engaged any commerical partner with land development expertise is simply staggering and perhaps explains why and where we are today.

[/quote]

I have to disagree with most of this post. ''Most'' property developers dont get anywhere near the point where they are driving a ferrari, and in fact many will spend more time with more liabilities than cash assets whilst developing.

The current economic climate has sent many investors into bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy, and why is this? because they did stupid investment appraisals based on an ever growing property market and rough figures.

Any of those professions can make successful property developers, with Michael Owen and Robbie Fowler in fact being very successful in the game despite only being footballers.The only developers that havent lost are the ones that employed a good professional to perform sensitivity analysis, and listened to the advice of those professionals.

So yes, through 15 years of economic growth it was almost impossible to get it wrong. It is those that quickly ''judge'' an investment that are guilty of exactly what Doncaster and Smith are guilty of, and thats assumming that the market wont crash.

So your friends are exactly the same as Delia and Doncaster in that respect, assuming that every property investment equals a profit without considering market changes. Without inputting academic theories and formal professional analysis, it is impossible for anybody to point at a building and state how much profit they will make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On two occasions the club has speculated in land at the expense of relegation. 

After he bought the land Chase sold too many players to balance the books.  It matters not a damn that the land eventually yielded a profit of £5m or so (has this ever been confirmed btw?) 10 years later, because it''s peanuts compared to what we would have received if we''d stayed in the Premiership.

Chase''s adventure was an object lesson in what NOT to do.  The present board ignored it, and history has repeated itself.  Cheeseparing on the football side to pay for the land has got us relegated - again.  If there''s such a thing as criminal stupidity this must be it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have looked at the various documents relating to this land. The various flat blocks will take up the land between the test bed building and the river. Furthermore the plan also has houses around the multistorey car park on the piece of land just behind the Jarrold stand where vehicles currently park. So its a multistorey car park or another piece of land for the car parking.

 

If you look at the facts yes there are some residential units which could possibly be built adjacent to the car park and for which the existing car park would probably need to be relocated but as i read it there is permission for in excess of 320 residential units on other land which does not require the existing car parking to be relocated. That is on top of the first phase of residential land already sold off and for which the club already received a considerable sum.

If building the car park is not viable then whay the hell would the club build it?? IMHO they would be much more likley to go for some sort of replan and put some other smaller commercial uses on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can''t believe this red herring is still swimming. You assess the land on what you buy and sell it for - you may happen as often in property development sell it with planning permission but what some else does with the property once you have sold it such as build a car park is not particularly the club''s concern just like the hotel so it is irrelevant for calculating the profit on the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

If building the car park is not viable then whay the hell would the club build it?? IMHO they would be much more likley to go for some sort of replan and put some other smaller commercial uses on the site.

[/quote]

Hence the consideration about buying a nearby piece of land instead of the multistorey car park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]I can''t believe this red herring is still swimming. You assess the land on what you buy and sell it for - you may happen as often in property development sell it with planning permission but what some else does with the property once you have sold it such as build a car park .[/quote]

If its uneconomic for NCFC to build it, just on usable spaces alone, why on earth would a third party be interested in it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

On two occasions the club has speculated in land at the expense of relegation. 

After he bought the land Chase sold too many players to balance the books.  [/quote]

MYTH!

The size of the bank overdraft was the problem not the land purchase. NCFC borrowed an additional £2m (on top of the existing bank debt) to keep the playing squad together and to give Martin O''Neill some money. MO. bought Fleck (part 2) who dried up in terms of goals after 6 months and Matthew Rush.

The land purchase cost NCFC. in effect £100k a year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Ryan,

Your professional concerns are well put, but that is why most property developers run around in Ferraris etc. Believe me, I have been involved in many such deals and you will be astonished how quickly they are able to judge an investment (and we are talking to the narest couple of million) and how invariably they get things right. Its what they do.

Unfortunately, property development is not what a TV chef, magazine publisher and provincial solictor do well. Have you ever wondered who has advised the Board and how they reacted to this advice? As you yourself have intmated above, the fact that they have not engaged any commerical partner with land development expertise is simply staggering and perhaps explains why and where we are today.

[/quote]

I have to disagree with most of this post. ''Most'' property developers dont get anywhere near the point where they are driving a ferrari, and in fact many will spend more time with more liabilities than cash assets whilst developing.

The current economic climate has sent many investors into bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy, and why is this? because they did stupid investment appraisals based on an ever growing property market and rough figures.

Any of those professions can make successful property developers, with Michael Owen and Robbie Fowler in fact being very successful in the game despite only being footballers.The only developers that havent lost are the ones that employed a good professional to perform sensitivity analysis, and listened to the advice of those professionals.

So yes, through 15 years of economic growth it was almost impossible to get it wrong. It is those that quickly ''judge'' an investment that are guilty of exactly what Doncaster and Smith are guilty of, and thats assumming that the market wont crash.

So your friends are exactly the same as Delia and Doncaster in that respect, assuming that every property investment equals a profit without considering market changes. Without inputting academic theories and formal professional analysis, it is impossible for anybody to point at a building and state how much profit they will make.

[/quote]

Ryan,

They are not my friends, but clients. They do drive Ferraris and they are big league (not buy to let landlords). I am afraid they do make quick judgements, which is then followed by up due dilligence, and most times the reseacrh supports their intuition. I am sorry I have pricked your professional pride, but this is the truth and I am not looking for a fight with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes if they want to develop the existing car park area then maybe they will have to find an alternative car parking solution but there is nothing that compels them to develop this area and even without it they appear to have land with permission for 320 units on it which they are able to sell!

Alternatively they could build the car park (if its commercially viable) or come up with an alternative solution with a remodelled car park and some additional commercial uses. The simple fact is though they are not obliged to spend £5m on a car park as you seem intent on making out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T,

I am afraid the red herrings dont drain the football team.

This is very real not matter how much you would like the subject to disaapear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="canary cherub "]

On two occasions the club has speculated in land at the expense of relegation. 

After he bought the land Chase sold too many players to balance the books.  [/quote]

MYTH!

The size of the bank overdraft was the problem not the land purchase. NCFC borrowed an additional £2m (on top of the existing bank debt) to keep the playing squad together and to give Martin O''Neill some money. MO. bought Fleck (part 2) who dried up in terms of goals after 6 months and Matthew Rush.

The land purchase cost NCFC. in effect £100k a year.

 

[/quote]

That''s a MYTH I have been banging on about for ages.

All tied up with pressure from youknow who on the bank.

Over to you TFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]

 

 

I have looked at the various documents relating to this land. The various flat blocks will take up the land between the test bed building and the river. Furthermore the plan also has houses around the multistorey car park on the piece of land just behind the Jarrold stand where vehicles currently park. So its a multistorey car park or another piece of land for the car parking.

 

If you look at the facts yes there are some residential units which could possibly be built adjacent to the car park and for which the existing car park would probably need to be relocated but as i read it there is permission for in excess of 320 residential units on other land which does not require the existing car parking to be relocated. That is on top of the first phase of residential land already sold off and for which the club already received a considerable sum.

If building the car park is not viable then whay the hell would the club build it?? IMHO they would be much more likley to go for some sort of replan and put some other smaller commercial uses on the site.

[/quote]

Jim,

Excuse me if I am being thick, but if the current car park land is redeveloped, what impact is the going to have on the club''s commercial income? Where are the tennants from the offices, the catering facilities, the hotel guests and club staff going to park? What are the contractual commitments to third parties and will the loss of parking cannibalise other income streams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canary cherub "]

On two occasions the club has speculated in land at the expense of relegation. 

After he bought the land Chase sold too many players to balance the books.  It matters not a damn that the land eventually yielded a profit of £5m or so (has this ever been confirmed btw?) 10 years later, because it''s peanuts compared to what we would have received if we''d stayed in the Premiership.

Chase''s adventure was an object lesson in what NOT to do.  The present board ignored it, and history has repeated itself.  Cheeseparing on the football side to pay for the land has got us relegated - again.  If there''s such a thing as criminal stupidity this must be it.

[/quote]

Here you are Cherub, a list of all the teams other than Norwich that experienced relegation from the Premiership post Chase. Some went down further, some into administration. Whether they needed to heed Chase''s adventure in what not to do, or not, down they went just the same. Imagine if ever you needed to get a job in football for clubs that were looking for a talent such as yours, there''s a multitude of them out there. You should be able to name your own salary....imagine that? Then some other set of fans would be calling you an idiot but, of course, you''d make them love you with your superior intellect. Oh, and by the way, you will likely be able to add Hull to the list, a club you were commending earlier this season for giving it a real go. Looks like they will be relegated with a point more than Norwich achieved on relegation. Haven''t heard you singing the praises of Hull lately.

Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Notts Forest, Bolton, Barnsley, Crystal Palace, Blackburn, Charlton, Wimbledon, Watford, Sheffield Wednesday, Manchester City, Coventry City, Bradford, Ipswich, Derby, Leicester, West Ham, West Brom, Leeds, Wolves, Southampton, Birmingham, Sheffield United, Reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol YC.

As of next season twenty of those clubs will be either one or two leagues above us.  Three will be in the same league (if you include MkDons as "Wimbledon").  Only one will be below us.  Eighteen of those clubs have a lower average attendance than us.

Good argument.....[:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Planning permission would have also have been obtained for building the hotel. What was the cost of building the hotel to NCFC and where is the cost in the accounts? - None as will be the case for the car park. NCFC has planning permission for a car park but like any property development that does not mean that they would ever be responsible for the car park project and therefore it has no direct relevance for calculating the profit on the land. That is entirely false logic as you have to assess each stage of an investment decision seperately. The question is what did the land cost, what was it expected to be sold for when the decision was made, what is the anticipated future realisation value and when will the property market recover to allow that value to be realised. It is this which as for charlton may well provide a future cash boost which will improve the clubs future prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...