|
Post by rickyqpr on Apr 1, 2021 8:28:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2021 11:03:36 GMT
Very interesting as someone once said.
A couple of bits that stand out are that the company owning the stadium owe the club money and the club can offset that against the rental payments they should be making. . This can only mean that either the company did not pay over all the cash that it should have done when it bought the ground. That could explain why the Land Registry was not updated if the new ground "owners " did not pay what was due for the purchase. Alternatively they have not made their contributions towards the stadium upkeep.
Also the fact that the Brum lease of the ground is extended as a result of the transfer of ownership opens a big question in my mind. If this deal is purely the sale of the company that owns the ground from one company to another company the lease as an asset of the company selling should not be impacted, unless the new ground owning company have renegotiated the lease before they actually complete the purchase.
On top of that I also assume that as Coventry are sharing the ground this season they would have needed agreement of the ground owners as well as the football club and EFL. Also I would assume Coventry are paying something for use of the ground - so who are they paying? 1. Birmingham Football Club - in which case Brum are making money from renting out an asset they do not own. 2. The owners of the ground - in which case the owners have 2 tenants with separate leases 3. A mixture with the two football clubs jointly paying the ground owners the original rent effectively reducing the amount Brum are paying.
I maybe smell another FFP rat here or maybe I would be bit worried if I were a Birmingham or Coventry supporter - or bit of everything.
|
|