Re: Richard Wright : Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:32 pm  

Fully wrote:

In reality, though, an asset is part of a valuation. If you own 10 properties each worth £100,000 you don't say you're worth less do you?

The value of WR is now about £5m I believe. What the new ground costs is not relevant but I would guess that the delivery of a new stadium is taken into consideration too when the value of the club will significantly increase with a new facility. Equally, do the players have values that can be taken into consideration (realistically they can be sold).

I guess the true valuation of a club is its financial situation+assets minus debts. It probably is simple but I'm guessing to establish an accurate valuation there are a number of factors to take into consideration.

Really, WR or the ground is an asset the club needs to conduct its business. To sell it a replacement is needed for CT to continue to conduct said business.
The now £5M is small potatoes in order to build another owned stadium to replace WR, hence my point.
In this day of the sport business crossover an asset such as a ground is nothing but a red herring, it's only worth the money to someone who was happy to buy the club and leave you without an owned home, this trousering the money.
Nobody is going to come in pay top dollar for a club like Cas thinking "not to worry, I've got £X Million tied up in WR" as the replacement cost is way higher.
It's basic math's really and that's why I think it's a red herring, as it doesn't really exist.

Re: Richard Wright : Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:24 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

It's only worth (or was worth) £8-10M if you sell it, that then makes you homeless. To build a new ground it will take double that, so really the ground (WR) is a red herring, although I take 100% what you are saying.
It's only worth the money if you aren't worried about Cas being homeless or you can share/rent a ground? In laymens terms.

Kinley, its "worth" is the total of all the clubs assets plus a bit of good will.
Some of the assetts have a tangible value and others a perceived value.
The origanal share value of £1 (or whatever it was) is only a nominal value.
Even with this in mind, you would still need a buyer who agrees with the valuation.

Re: Richard Wright : Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:47 pm  

Absolutely wrencat, among its assets is WR not GH or anywhere else.
To realise it's value as £££, means either becoming homeless or a tenant, it's value as land for development of whatever type, can never be realised in relation to building a replacement ground as it is only a fraction of that needed to replace it.
SL "demands" that all grounds are upto date, therefore anyone coming in to replace RW cannot realistically be expected to pay for something that has no significant real value, i.e the ground in its present form will not permit CT to continue in SL and the land value is far less than its replacement cost.
Undoubtedly it has value, but like when you sell a car and need to replace it with a new one, you are usually left with a short fall, as will any investor in CT be.
The belief that WR can make CT worth more is IMO misleading, it exists bat has no real value in the situation/circumstances.
CT will only really benefit from its sale (if that ever happens) if they sell and then lease. I would suggest that would actually put them in a far stronger position, a RL club with £5M in the bank is rarer than a woman who understands the LBW rule.

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:28 am  

Resigned.

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:49 am  

Towns88 wrote:

Resigned.

Who towns, You or RW ?

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:56 am  

captaincaveman wrote:

Who towns, You or RW ?

Unfortunately, I'm at work in 2 hours, so not myself!

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:09 pm  

Towns88 wrote:

Resigned.

Based on what source?

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:26 pm  

Looking on Casforum there is a lot of cryptic messages going on. It could be any of the following:

A buy-out of his shares by another shareholder
A consortium bringing in investment but only if RW steps down
A total take-over of the club (this was suggested in League Weekly)

My guess is the second one.

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:30 pm  

If Robbo is involved in any way, shape or form say goodbye to the stadium because he has a vested interest in not having a Supermarket and has already nailed his colours to the mast of objecting it.

Re: Richard Wright : Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:37 pm  

Robbo is behind the takeover Gronk. We will be either staying at WR or taking a loan to get GH started. PROBIZ offered 5 million to start the GH build in the shape of a loan which was knocked back by the B.O.D. I also wouldn't be surprised if the long term plan for WR goes back to housing.