Not a tax or pension expert by any stretch, but to square the circle you are referring to - I believe it is because the asset (the land and stadium) is listed as a certain value as part of the pension fund, as required by tax law.
It’s value is partly derived from its potential rent yield.
It’s kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. As you say, if WFC cease to exist, the rental potential of the stadium is minimal, and thus the value is much lower. With a football club “willing” (read coerced and tied in to) pay £400k a year, it’s value as an asset is around £4-6m.
On the rental value, a mate of mine maintains it was designed for easy conversion to a warehouse, minimising the risk should the club go out of business and no sporting tenant come forward.
The critical point in all of this is JWBs exit plan. He refuses to talk a about it (for reasons I’ve shared before), but this is critical. So the trust should be focusing on forcing him to reveal his exit plan by force/unpleasentness, if neccessary.
Are these the same pension experts ,who when I constantly said turn said rent payments, into some sort of morgadge payment that would ultimately lead to club regaining freehold back, said it was an imposobility,and out the question
Yet when I asked the same question at last months working party meeting, was told that, it could be done by a member of the board, but it would involve a higher payment than the one currently,being paid, but would be over a shorter period,rather than a never ending one, and would ultimately see the freehold return to club
I
This smacks of the clubs imput, to quell discontent, no wonder the trust didn’t turn up to working party meeting on Monday, and Issa where used as a smokescreen, as in trust aren’t prePared to work with genuine fans, and ruffle feathers, and ask important questions on behalf of the very ones they are supposed to represent, and won’t sit with those who will, but are happy to sit in private and rejoice in the fact that they have been a major player in discovering a loophole that may result in a thirty Bob rent decrease, No wonder fans are against them,
Not going to comment on these statements, but on a personal note, I do regret agreeing to post them on behalf of the Trust.
The next time the Trust need a statement published on this website I think it’s important they sign up and join the conversation like any other user would.
We ask for better communication from the club, we should expect it from representative bodies.
A SIPP is a strictly controlled tax vehicle allowing people to manage their own pension pot, they can’t just become mortgage lenders overnight on the say so of “a board member” (presumably you mean of the club, most of whom have nothing to do with JWBs SIPP).
Should the club buy the land and the stadium, I imagine it would need to be first loaned the money (by either JWB personally, or a bank, possibly even Suffolk Life), a mortgage schedule and agreement put in place, and the deeds of the land changed with WFC as the legal owners, but with the lender having a charge over the land (to the value of the mortgage). All of this would need to be registered in the clubs’ accounts as it would mean a major restructuring of the clubs’ assets.
At least with a mortgage, Phil, there would be an end date where the club actually owned the ground. Under the current arrangement, we just keep paying rent to Jeef’s money-making vehicle forever or until the club goes into liquidation, with no hope of ever owning the ground.
If things don’t improve, and if we were to fall out of the football league then I see no point for the existence of Walsall FC in its current form under the current ownership. We might as well pack it in and us true fans get together to form AFC Walsall and leave Jeef with his money. He will only have himself to blame.
Are we paying rent on the stadium and the land or just the land? I was under the impression that a leasehold was just the land the stadium sits on and not the building itself.
I agree that a mortgage is a way forward/out of the mess Jeff has got us in to. I just doubt the assertion that a SIPP can switch to being a mortgage provider.
Although a mortgage would, as you say, give us light at the end of the tunnel, with interest, the club would probably end up paying roughly £7-8m (a conservative estimate), for an asset that is worth £4-6m now. By the time the payments were complete, the value of the ground would have depreciated, and upkeep costs increased.
I think the only palatable way forward is for JWB to sell the land to the club for a nominal fee, as a gesture. It’s made him very wealthy.
Question was asked mate, and we where told that they believed this to be possible, but would do further research and get back to us,
We where always told it was impossible to ever even consider a rent break, yet now although it apears it would contain a financial penelty of which mr bonser would be responsible for it is no longer impossible but could actually be done
Same as he can draw down on funds to purchase assets,from said fund, so can’t he sell an asset contained in said fund, by staggered payments in return
I’m not an expert mate by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve suggested for years that this may be a possibility, and up untill recently after constantly asking trust to look into it, to no avail, I decided to ask direct, and was given a totally different answer, I’e they believe it could be an option
In 1989 when WFC began building at Bescot the club said that it had taken out a 99 year lease on the land. If a tenant builds on land that he does not own the ownership of the buildings goes to the landlord not the tenant, so by default that lease included the stadium.
In 1995 Severn Trent sold the land and stadium to the Bonser SIPP, at this point it seems a new 33 year lease was drawn up which began on 24 June 1995 with the parties involved being WFC on the one hand and Jeff and Robert Bonser on the other. This lease will end on 24 June 2028, but there are probably options for extension of up to a further 66 years available.
In 2007 the lease was transferred to the care of Suffolk Life, who now administer the Bonser pension.
Not quite so simple. The £440,000 goes into Bonser’s pension tax free, but when he takes money out of his pension it is, after a certain amount, taxable as income. So it really would not make sense to take rent and then put it back into the club.
This is different from renegotiating the rent to a level that the tenant can afford, which is a normal business operation that happens every day up and down the country.
That is my understanding too. We own the fixtures and fittings I think (and hence it’s listed as such in the accounts). Meaning we own, in theory, everything that isn’t materially part of the building. (Paintings, toilets, fryers, curtains etc).
Technically I think we own the bricks and mortar too, but dismantling a building for its raw parts is obviously not cost efficient in any way.
I’m not doubting that the question was asked, just that the response was accurate.
What you’re describing would be akin to me buying a car off you, using funds loaned to me by you. When you wrap this hypothetical situation in strict tax/pension/loan law, it becomes fraught with fraud issues.
All of this is immaterial anyway - the first step is to get JWB to talk about his exit plan and whether he plans to re-unite the club with the land. This should be the sole target of any fans association. As owner and beneficiary, he is way too unaccountable, it’s time that changed.
It has been stated that the rent went up to cover borrowings taken on by the Pension plan. The question is how much was borrowed. and is the club paying over the odds as a result. Would anyone like to take a stab at the cost of the freehold + Advertising Screen + ground improvements
This is where people have to be very careful and make sure their understanding of the situation is correct.
My understanding is that the rent went up to cover improvements paid for by the Pension Fund - that, as far as I am aware, is not the same as borrowing money from the Pension Fund.
explains a lot
