Again not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
17A lot Newport CC have three men's teams that I know of and Glamorgan use it for 2nd team cricket and the odd first class fixturesGeorge Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:42 am II like the cricket ground idea. How much use does that part of the Spytty campus get?
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
18Love the old girl as In do I am not without criticism of Newport. And far and away my biggest criticism of Newport is the misguided Newport attitude. Cut corners and do things on the cheap. We could build a football stadium but if we cut back on the length of the stand and put a running track around it, we'll get two lots of rent for half the cost. If we build with cheap grey concrete as opposed to red brick we can re-develop the city centre at minimal cost. The result is a soulless wind-tunnel of a stadium at Spytty and a city centre which let's face it is a shithole.UPTHEPORT wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:14 amA lot Newport CC have three men's teams that I know of and Glamorgan use it for 2nd team cricket and the odd first class fixturesGeorge Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:42 am II like the cricket ground idea. How much use does that part of the Spytty campus get?
Sometimes you just have to accept that the only way to get anything worthwhile is through hard work, grind, setbacks and heartache. We should have started 30 years ago we didn't. We should have started 20 years ago, we didn't, we should have started 10 years ago we didn't. There is nothing we can do about that. If I were Chairman of Newport County, Monday morning, after I had finished my phone call to Dave Buttress I'd be straight of the phone to the chairman of Exeter City. I'd soft soap them by saying how impressed I was with what they'd done, and then I'd ask to pick their brains. What did you do that worked? What were your mistakes that we should avoid? How did you galvanise your supporters? After all what harm can a 'phone call do?
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
19Great life story that Stan, well done and a reminder to us all that hard work and dedication is how to get results.
Cathedral County - I agree with most of your thoughts, however I do feel that a club like ours which prides itself on being a community club representing the area absolutely needs its own ground and training facilities. Yes we could co-own or continue renting but future investors will only be interested if we own our own assets and have a viable future.
At present, we are just one rental agreement away from being homeless and with insufficient cash in the bank to buy or rent an alternative site.
Cathedral County - I agree with most of your thoughts, however I do feel that a club like ours which prides itself on being a community club representing the area absolutely needs its own ground and training facilities. Yes we could co-own or continue renting but future investors will only be interested if we own our own assets and have a viable future.
At present, we are just one rental agreement away from being homeless and with insufficient cash in the bank to buy or rent an alternative site.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
20When Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.CathedralCounty wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:06 amAgain not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
21That’s another insightful, honest and accurate portrayal of life and history. This forum is benefitting from rational and sensible debate without veering into arguments.
I couldn’t have written that any better and agree with every word except, perhaps, to add a little to the last few lines.
I’d like to think I’m still relatively young but the remnants of my marriage are currently making two divorce solicitors very rich and there is a greater argument these days - forgetting the religious angle - for having a sensible cohabitation arrangement without marrying.
I couldn’t have written that any better and agree with every word except, perhaps, to add a little to the last few lines.
I’d like to think I’m still relatively young but the remnants of my marriage are currently making two divorce solicitors very rich and there is a greater argument these days - forgetting the religious angle - for having a sensible cohabitation arrangement without marrying.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
22Two points here. The idea that selling off council houses was anything other than a stunt to sure up the Tories is simply nonsense. The legislation even forbade local authorities from using the cash raised from sales to build new houses. Proving I think the idea that councils were forced to sell houses because they couldn't afford repairs is utterly misconceived.Bangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pm
When Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
True if you buy property you become responsiblefor repairs. Is there anyone on this board who has bought their own house who wishes they had rented? Of course not. If you bought a house twenty five years ago you don't pay rent or mortgage anymore. True you may spend £500 a year on repairs. Better than £10,000 on rent.
Finally you just don't understand the concept of a wasting asset. Some, by no means all, business assets reduce in value. But you need to take into account the value you gained from that asset. I bought a top of the range cd in 1990. It cost £600. It gave me 10 years of pleasure. That is a benefit.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
23How can something be a stunt when it was in the manifesto? The Tory Councils has sold off all the school playing fields. The legislation did forbid Councils using the money to build new housing, how exactly does that relate to the massive backlog of repair works? It's just yet another example of how councils are in a straight jacket as far as finance is concerned. Both legislation and political in-fighting make Council employees want to quit, because trying to progress anything is painful.Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 8:48 pmTwo points here. The idea that selling off council houses was anything other than a stunt to sure up the Tories is simply nonsense. The legislation even forbade local authorities from using the cash raised from sales to build new houses. Proving I think the idea that councils were forced to sell houses because they couldn't afford repairs is utterly misconceived.Bangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pm
When Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
True if you buy property you become responsiblefor repairs. Is there anyone on this board who has bought their own house who wishes they had rented? Of course not. If you bought a house twenty five years ago you don't pay rent or mortgage anymore. True you may spend £500 a year on repairs. Better than £10,000 on rent.
Finally you just don't understand the concept of a wasting asset. Some, by no means all, business assets reduce in value. But you need to take into account the value you gained from that asset. I bought a top of the range cd in 1990. It cost £600. It gave me 10 years of pleasure. That is a benefit.
Again we are not talking about a house are we? We are talking about business assets. Do small shops own their premises? no of course not, they rent them. Why? because if business is too slow, and your rent is a bigger issue than expected, you rent a shop in a cheaper location.
Brains brewery handed over their portfolio of 100 plus pubs that they owned the freehold for, to Marsdens to run. Now they have anouced that they have agreed the sale of all the freehold titles to venture capitalists.
Why would they do that if the asset liability wasn't a problem?
A third of the shops in Newport are empty. Is that a problem for the title holders, yes, their asset brings in no income, but is still a liability for repairs, security, etc, etc.
None of these are gains are they?
Rodney Parade is not growing in value is it? What is spent on it is for two tenants, no one else can utilise the asset in the way that we can. Therefore it has a restricted market valuation.
Did NRFC recoup the cost of building the Bisley and North Stand?
In business, asset valuation reduces year by year in the yearly accounts, until the assets reach the point where they are more of a liability than an asset. Different for the land element, but how much is the NRFC clubhouse worth at Rodney Parade?
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
24I am intrigued. I would like to know what the privileges are that cause the Directors to strut around. Is this something we should know about?Taunton Iron Cider wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:14 am Controversial perhaps, but I think we have a majority on the board, along with the Chairman, who are resistant to change. As things stand their positions are not under threat, and they can strut around as directors of a football league side with all the privileges that brings, and without risking any of their own money. However I do respect and appreciate their significant investment of time, which in itself has considerable intangible value.
What that setup has brought to the party is a degree of stability, thanks largely to Cup runs, but along with it a lack of business acumen and capital that would ultimately assist in the progression of our Club.
It is widely known that had we been relegated in 2017 it was highly probable that our Club would have gone out of existence.
As far as I’m aware no supporter owned club has got beyond League 1, so are we destined to have a life always under the threat of relegation, because to me that’s what the current operating model seems to offer? The supporter’s vote for a hybrid structure was left to wither on the vine, was that because of self interests or genuine lack of interest from outside parties? In my book, if you don’t actively look, then you will never find!
My overriding concern is that without a credible youth policy or capital, and consequently having to continually shop in the bargain basement for players and managers, will inevitably at some point see us paying the ultimate price. To succeed we need a planned and evolving structural change, without which the sword of Damocles will always continue to hang over us.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
25She set up right to buy to weaken the unionsBangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pmWhen Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.CathedralCounty wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:06 amAgain not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
Think about it before you where renting so if you went on strike the worst that would happen most of the time was you'd be in arrears with your rent
Buying a house people had second thoughts about striking
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
26Exactly, and there were many idiots who became Tories overnight by associating house ownership and the conservatives. She was an astute politician but by her housing policy and union-breaking policy amongst many other distasteful ploys she ruined beyond repair much of the fabric of society ( which iirc she said there was no such thing as! ). Those of us who saw communities destroyed by her, remember it only too well. It’s why the right wing sycophants who want to immortalise the horrible individual with a statue find it so hard to find a safe site, those with a memory would seek to defile or destroy it. Modern Tories invented Brexit as an electoral gimmick, we’ll see how many will be throwing eggs at Johnson’s future statue when the sum total of the damage he has caused sinks in with the population.UPTHEPORT wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 4:23 pmShe set up right to buy to weaken the unionsBangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pmWhen Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.CathedralCounty wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:06 amAgain not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
Think about it before you where renting so if you went on strike the worst that would happen most of the time was you'd be in arrears with your rent
Buying a house people had second thoughts about striking
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
27Are you buying the house you currently live in or are you renting?UPTHEPORT wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 4:23 pmShe set up right to buy to weaken the unionsBangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pmWhen Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.CathedralCounty wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:06 amAgain not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
Think about it before you where renting so if you went on strike the worst that would happen most of the time was you'd be in arrears with your rent
Buying a house people had second thoughts about striking
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
28I agree, and she was a grocer's daughter, who was good at selling a con, because it was cheap.lowandhard wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 7:47 pmExactly, and there were many idiots who became Tories overnight by associating house ownership and the conservatives. She was an astute politician but by her housing policy and union-breaking policy amongst many other distasteful ploys she ruined beyond repair much of the fabric of society ( which iirc she said there was no such thing as! ). Those of us who saw communities destroyed by her, remember it only too well. It’s why the right wing sycophants who want to immortalise the horrible individual with a statue find it so hard to find a safe site, those with a memory would seek to defile or destroy it. Modern Tories invented Brexit as an electoral gimmick, we’ll see how many will be throwing eggs at Johnson’s future statue when the sum total of the damage he has caused sinks in with the population.UPTHEPORT wrote: June 2nd, 2022, 4:23 pmShe set up right to buy to weaken the unionsBangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pmWhen Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.CathedralCounty wrote: June 1st, 2022, 11:06 amAgain not an issue in my view - we do not need nor is it viable now to 'own' our own stadium - firm and guaranteed security of tenure yes - outright ownership noStan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:40 amA pitch of which we own not one blade of grass.George Street-Bridge wrote: June 1st, 2022, 10:25 am Well, clearly they didn't know how arduous it would be or they wouldn't have had to find £800k at short notice to finish the works after going with a contractor who couldn't finish the job. But it's good they were engaged with the fan base to the extent their Trust would guarantee the loan they needed. As a member of our Trust would you back ours doing that?
I have no idea what we have spent on infrastructure but I'd be amazed if the pitch was a freebie.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
Think about it before you where renting so if you went on strike the worst that would happen most of the time was you'd be in arrears with your rent
Buying a house people had second thoughts about striking
Council housing that was 30 years old, and badly maintained, had single pane windows, with softwood or steel frames. If the councils didn't keep painting, the wood rotted on the outside, or condensation ran down the panes on the inside, to rot the inside. Kitchens, Bathrooms and heating systems 30 years old etc etc.
Same with Utilities, sold cheap on the basis that those buying shares would quickly make money. However the networks that they owned were also old and failing, and required huge investment that politically couldn't be made. Hence we now have the situation where Electricity de France ( a nationalised company) can put up energy prices by 30% in the UK, but just 5% in France.
And there are many many examples of this type of stealth tax, allowing income tax reductions that over time are much smaller benefit.
Johnson of Course has also sold a con, and UK exposure to cost of living rises, are therefore much greater, than elsewhere. Food costs more, because supermarkets no longer have access to European lorry drivers, and have had to increase wages to attract HGV drivers. They were bus drivers, and thus the bus service cannot now run later services, as the drivers cannot be replaced.
Same with council garden waste services etc short of drivers, so service cut. Etc Etc.
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
29Whether Jim owns his own home or no I think is irrelevant. I was a renter then and happy to do so but she sold the stock so cheaply you were a mug if you didn’t buy. Sometimes with a young family, principles are just too expensive. In London some council houses made their occupants rich overnight. There’s now a shortage of housing in the city for renters.
I believe, however, that Thatcher began the real split in our society and that it will break up the U.K. The different priorities of the constituent countries to her divisive policies. Only England is Conservative and remains so. Wales, Scotland and N I go their separate ways, the result is inevitable if Westminster doesn’t reflect the totality of the aspirations of its constituent parts. Wales and Scotland always want a different party in power - they always get the Tories because most English people like them for some god knows why reason. The die is cast and therefore the resentment because the centre dictates the situation everywhere .
I believe, however, that Thatcher began the real split in our society and that it will break up the U.K. The different priorities of the constituent countries to her divisive policies. Only England is Conservative and remains so. Wales, Scotland and N I go their separate ways, the result is inevitable if Westminster doesn’t reflect the totality of the aspirations of its constituent parts. Wales and Scotland always want a different party in power - they always get the Tories because most English people like them for some god knows why reason. The die is cast and therefore the resentment because the centre dictates the situation everywhere .
Re: Planning for the future (football with a future)
30The Prime Minister said:Stan A. Einstein wrote: June 1st, 2022, 8:48 pmTwo points here. The idea that selling off council houses was anything other than a stunt to sure up the Tories is simply nonsense. The legislation even forbade local authorities from using the cash raised from sales to build new houses. Proving I think the idea that councils were forced to sell houses because they couldn't afford repairs is utterly misconceived.Bangitintrnet wrote: June 1st, 2022, 6:03 pm
When Thatcher set up the right to buy your Council House, it wasn't just a political thing, it was because the local councils didn't take in enough rent to complete necessary repairs. Most of the housing stock was built quickly just after the war, and by the eighties a lot was in need of costly repair. The backlog was horrendous, and people just had to put up with it. In one stroke by selling the stock to the tenant's, or moving it to housing associations, the massive problem of housing stock liability disappeared.
The housing associations were free to use private capital that the Council simply couldn't.
Likewise if you buy a house, it's not then your bank that are liable to fix the heating system, when it's past it's sell by date.
In business, the biggest problem is forecasting future income. What if you are promoted, what players would you want to keep? What if you were relegated, what big earners could you get off the books. What if something happens unexpectedly, like a pandemic? Will your predicted budget cope?
Assets are fixed, so if you hit a lean patch, like Yeovil, will the local council find a way to assist you?
If you share the use of the asset, then it is the landlord that has to meet any liability. If like NRFC your circumstances change, you reduce the number of facilities that you utilise. NRFC only used the Bisley Stand, pitch and changing rooms. They couldn't commit to future investment in the pitch etc. Therefore Spytty suited their needs better, and suddenly they are successful again.
As the dominant user of the facilities at RP, I personally, would be reluctant to sign onto anything without a break clause.
Years ago it was unheard of for a couple to live together for a lifetime without ever getting married. However Young people today don't see the advantage of a signed piece of paperwork that won't actually keep them together, but if they do split, will make the solicitors a bit richer.
Times change things move on, but access to cheap finance is what a business requires, and unlike a house, business asset value reduces, as liability increases.
True if you buy property you become responsiblefor repairs. Is there anyone on this board who has bought their own house who wishes they had rented? Of course not. If you bought a house twenty five years ago you don't pay rent or mortgage anymore. True you may spend £500 a year on repairs. Better than £10,000 on rent.
Finally you just don't understand the concept of a wasting asset. Some, by no means all, business assets reduce in value. But you need to take into account the value you gained from that asset. I bought a top of the range cd in 1990. It cost £600. It gave me 10 years of pleasure. That is a benefit.
Just as no generation should be locked out of home ownership because of when they were born, so nobody should be barred from that same dream simply because of where they live now.
For four decades it has been possible for council home tenants to use a discount to buy the property they live in.
Over that time almost two million people have been helped into home ownership.
They have switched identities and psychology, from being dependent on the state for every repair – from damp-proofing to a new front door – to being in charge of their own family home, able to make improvements and add value as they please.
From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/righ ... ore-people
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: amberandy, Bristolexile, newrodneyfan, terry norman, wattsville_boy