A Genuine Question

[BensGrandad]

I asked this question on another thread but nobody seems to want to answer it and it is not asked with a 'hidden agenda' ior as a knock against anybody.

DK changed the rules so that no 1 person could own the club.

If a Roman Abramovich, Mlacolm Glazier Sheik El Maktoom or even Ardilles bought the new company that will be formed to build a new stadium wherever it may be Falmer/Sheepcote Valley/ Withdean could they change the rules again to suit themselves.

If not why not?

 

[Wardy]

The reason the rules were changed was to avoid a situatuion of someone buying the club, and then setting about asset striping it. I am not sure if there is a clauss in the club rules to stop this being overturned, but I would have my doubts about anyone who wanted to have sole control over the club.

 

[BensGrandad]

I fully accept the reasons as to why it was done and have no problem with that but if DK can change it one way can somebody else not change it another.

If I invested £30m into the club I would want control.

 

[Wardy]

I fully accept the reasons as to why it was done and have no problem with that but if DK can change it one way can somebody else not change it another.

If I invested £30m into the club I would want control.

Like I said, there may be a clause in the rules that say it cannot be changed back. If there is not then i guess all they would need is a majority vote.

 

[BensGrandad]

I am sure that somebody somewhere on here Lord B, Large One etc must have a definitive answer of yes or no it can or cant be done.

 

[Easy 10]

Who said that a new company will be formed to build the stadium then ? Won't we be using an existing developer ? That being the case, I can't see it being of any relevence who owns the company that builds the stadium. I don't see how Brighton & Hove Albion FC will be tied in with the stadium developers at a boardroom level.

 

[Wardy]

Who said that a new company will be formed to build the stadium then ? Won't we be using an existing developer ? That being the case, I can't see it being of any relevence who owns the company that builds the stadium. I don't see how Brighton & Hove Albion FC will be tied in with the stadium developers at a boardroom level.

I think the plan is to set-up a new compnay to be in charge of the stadium being built, i.e. they will choose who builds it etc. This same company will then be involved in the running of the stadium. The club will be one of the parties involved in this new company.

 

[Seagullible]

Though McAlpine had already been confirmed as the construction company?

 

[Easy 10]

I think the plan is to set-up a new compnay to be in charge of the stadium being built, i.e. they will choose who builds it etc. This same company will then be involved in the running of the stadium. The club will be one of the parties involved in this new company.

News to me.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I thought that Insider had said that the building work has to go to tender to at least 6 companies, or am I mis-remembering ?

 

[The Large One]

I asked this question on another thread but nobody seems to want to answer it and it is not asked with a 'hidden agenda' ior as a knock against anybody.

DK changed the rules so that no 1 person could own the club.

If a Roman Abramovich, Mlacolm Glazier Sheik El Maktoom or even Ardilles bought the new company that will be formed to build a new stadium wherever it may be Falmer/Sheepcote Valley/ Withdean could they change the rules again to suit themselves.

If not why not?

He didn't 'change the rules', he stated, which was agreed with by common consensus that no one person ought to control the club. This is an edict he will live by all the while he is chairman. He is not the largest shareholder (altough I stand to be corrected). If, however, you became the majority shareholder, there is little anyone could do to if you wanted to change the rules to suit yourself.

However, the stadium itself will be owned in a joint partnership with the club, the City Council and the Universities of Brighton and Sussex. So any Albion consortium would still not be allowed to own the stadium.

Seagullible: it is illegal to appoint a construction company in a project this size without it going out to tender. However, logic dictates that McAlpine will bid for the contract.

 

[Curious Orange]

Wardywonderland is correct I think. The other investor in the company that'll build and run the stadium is the City of Brighton & Hove I believe.

I seem to remember that the new company will have to reimburse the club for the planning stuff to date too.

This makes sense in a lot of ways. If the stadium and club are kept separate, and the club AND the City own the stadium then this should deter any other wouldbe Archers.

(what TLO said a minute earlier!!)

 

[The Large One]

Wardywonderland is correct I think. The other investor in the company that'll build and run the stadium is the City of Brighton & Hove I believe.

I seem to remember that the new company will have to reimburse the club for the planning stuff to date too.

Correct. Once Prescott says YES to Falmer, the club can re-claim the money spent on the planning process (around £2.5m).

 

[Wardy]

Correct. Once Prescott says YES to Falmer, the club can re-claim the money spent on the planning process (around £2.5m).

Though they will then use that to fund part of the clubs share of the stadium.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Correct. Once Prescott says YES to Falmer, the club can re-claim the money spent on the planning process (around £2.5m).

Great! That means we can buy buy buy in January

 

[The Large One]

Though they will then use that to fund part of the clubs share of the stadium.

Depends on whose bills need paying most urgently.

 

[Wardy]

Depends on whose bills need paying most urgently.

Agreed what i meant was that the money will not be free to spend on players.

 

[Gazwag]

I think the plan is to set-up a new compnay to be in charge of the stadium being built, i.e. they will choose who builds it etc. This same company will then be involved in the running of the stadium. The club will be one of the parties involved in this new company.

Thats what I though was happening, so in other words a company will own the stadium and I guess lease it to the football club (as will probably be more tax efficient), but I assume the club will be a shareholder in the new company possibly to maintain control.

Guessing and assumptions though

 

[The Large One]

No, it's an equal share of the four parties. Or at the very least, no one single entity will own the stadium.

 

[BensGrandad]

So as the rules stand, and it appears from the posting by Large One it can be changed, If I won £100m in Las Vegas I could give me 3 sons £10m each for them to buy 17%of the shares each and I buy the remaining 49% which means that I do not own the company completely but my family do and with the help of one of my sons to vote with me, I buy the eldest with a promise of leaving my shares to him, I then have complete control of the company/club.