Doncaster Council Revalue The Keepmoat Stadium

This may not be exactly exciting news to many who post on this messageboard but for me at a time when our club has been criticised for our player loan deals, all of which were within FL rules, this news really pisses me off.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/30m ... entspage=1

My point is last season our club was placed under a transfer embargo for a number of reasons, HMRC and other football debts being the main reasons. But here we have a football club who are lucky enough to play at a new stadium, OK 5 years old, that cost the local authority £30m+ to build.

The Council decided to follow the model of Swansea Council by setting up a Stadium Management Company to run the Keepmoat on behalf of the landlords i.e. Doncaster Council. The results have been exactly the same in that both Swansea & Doncaster Councils have not seen a single penny in return for their investment.

With new regulations regarding Financial Reporting Standards coming into effect for Councils in England this year Doncaster Council had two options to meet these standards;

Ensure the income the Council received from the Keepmoat properly reflected the £30m value of the stadium or drop the value of the Stadium to reflect the potential income.

The Council has decided to revalue which to me is a disgrace as this allows Doncaster Rovers FC and Doncaster Rugby League Club to continue to use a £30m stadium at a lower the market cost. I say this because only once in 5 years has the Keepmoat made a profit, £2,000 last year, this is however better than the Liberty Stadium which is yet to make a profit.

Last year Swansea City Council wrote off a £2.37m mortgage to cover the costs of fitting out the Liberty Stadium, areas such as the Premier Seating and hospitality areas. In the 5 years the Liberty has been open Swansea City have received an annual income of between £600,000 - £1m, the Council who built the Stadium and fitted it out received £0.

I have no problem with local authorities building stadiums and allowing their local clubs to play in them, Hull Council also did the same with the KC Stadium but in their case the Council is considering selling the Stadium to Hull City at a knockdown price to overcome similar problems. But surely safeguards must be put in place where the clubs must demonstrate they are paying a market price for using these public assets anything else is similar to a club say not paying their tax bill to the public purse.

Is it fair that say Cardiff City, Derby County and Leicester City all of whom have built and financed new stadiums, albiet some better than others, have at various times been in administration, had transfer embargos placed on them or had to agree refinancing packages to meet FL requirements have to compete with clubs heavily subsidised from the public purse.

I don't think it is and I believe it's time that the FL woke up to the fact that clubs are taking £m's out of local authority budgets in the certain knowledge that no winding up orders will be issued, but nevertheless the local ratepayers are having to bear cost of these arrangements.

To put this into perspective I believe a reasonable return on a property investment would be 10% per annum, in the case of the Liberty / Keepmoat Stadium would be £3m per annum, split between the football and rugby clubs that would be £1.5m per year or £7.5m since the stadiums have been open.

Take £1.5m a year out of those clubs budgets and it would be interesting to see how they compete.

im making a complaint to swansea council

This may not be exactly exciting news to many who post on this messageboard but for me at a time when our club has been criticised for our player loan deals, all of which were within FL rules, this news really pisses me off.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/30m ... entspage=1

My point is last season our club was placed under a transfer embargo for a number of reasons, HMRC and other football debts being the main reasons. But here we have a football club who are lucky enough to play at a new stadium, OK 5 years old, that cost the local authority £30m+ to build.

The Council decided to follow the model of Swansea Council by setting up a Stadium Management Company to run the Keepmoat on behalf of the landlords i.e. Doncaster Council. The results have been exactly the same in that both Swansea & Doncaster Councils have not seen a single penny in return for their investment.

With new regulations regarding Financial Reporting Standards coming into effect for Councils in England this year Doncaster Council had two options to meet these standards;

Ensure the income the Council received from the Keepmoat properly reflected the £30m value of the stadium or drop the value of the Stadium to reflect the potential income.

The Council has decided to revalue which to me is a disgrace as this allows Doncaster Rovers FC and Doncaster Rugby League Club to continue to use a £30m stadium at a lower the market cost. I say this because only once in 5 years has the Keepmoat made a profit, £2,000 last year, this is however better than the Liberty Stadium which is yet to make a profit.

Last year Swansea City Council wrote off a £2.37m mortgage to cover the costs of fitting out the Liberty Stadium, areas such as the Premier Seating and hospitality areas. In the 5 years the Liberty has been open Swansea City have received an annual income of between £600,000 - £1m, the Council who built the Stadium and fitted it out received £0.

I have no problem with local authorities building stadiums and allowing their local clubs to play in them, Hull Council also did the same with the KC Stadium but in their case the Council is considering selling the Stadium to Hull City at a knockdown price to overcome similar problems. But surely safeguards must be put in place where the clubs must demonstrate they are paying a market price for using these public assets anything else is similar to a club say not paying their tax bill to the public purse.

Is it fair that say Cardiff City, Derby County and Leicester City all of whom have built and financed new stadiums, albiet some better than others, have at various times been in administration, had transfer embargos placed on them or had to agree refinancing packages to meet FL requirements have to compete with clubs heavily subsidised from the public purse.

I don't think it is and I believe it's time that the FL woke up to the fact that clubs are taking £m's out of local authority budgets in the certain knowledge that no winding up orders will be issued, but nevertheless the local ratepayers are having to bear cost of these arrangements.

To put this into perspective I believe a reasonable return on a property investment would be 10% per annum, in the case of the Liberty / Keepmoat Stadium would be £3m per annum, split between the football and rugby clubs that would be £1.5m per year or £7.5m since the stadiums have been open.

Take £1.5m a year out of those clubs budgets and it would be interesting to see how they compete.

I understand where you are coming from, but weren't we gifted the land to build CCS by the council ? I maybe wrong though.

we might have been gifted land by CC Council but we sold it to them for 50k in mid 80s when we were up shit creak

This may not be exactly exciting news to many who post on this messageboard but for me at a time when our club has been criticised for our player loan deals, all of which were within FL rules, this news really pisses me off.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/30m ... entspage=1

My point is last season our club was placed under a transfer embargo for a number of reasons, HMRC and other football debts being the main reasons. But here we have a football club who are lucky enough to play at a new stadium, OK 5 years old, that cost the local authority £30m+ to build.

The Council decided to follow the model of Swansea Council by setting up a Stadium Management Company to run the Keepmoat on behalf of the landlords i.e. Doncaster Council. The results have been exactly the same in that both Swansea & Doncaster Councils have not seen a single penny in return for their investment.

With new regulations regarding Financial Reporting Standards coming into effect for Councils in England this year Doncaster Council had two options to meet these standards;

Ensure the income the Council received from the Keepmoat properly reflected the £30m value of the stadium or drop the value of the Stadium to reflect the potential income.

The Council has decided to revalue which to me is a disgrace as this allows Doncaster Rovers FC and Doncaster Rugby League Club to continue to use a £30m stadium at a lower the market cost. I say this because only once in 5 years has the Keepmoat made a profit, £2,000 last year, this is however better than the Liberty Stadium which is yet to make a profit.

Last year Swansea City Council wrote off a £2.37m mortgage to cover the costs of fitting out the Liberty Stadium, areas such as the Premier Seating and hospitality areas. In the 5 years the Liberty has been open Swansea City have received an annual income of between £600,000 - £1m, the Council who built the Stadium and fitted it out received £0.

I have no problem with local authorities building stadiums and allowing their local clubs to play in them, Hull Council also did the same with the KC Stadium but in their case the Council is considering selling the Stadium to Hull City at a knockdown price to overcome similar problems. But surely safeguards must be put in place where the clubs must demonstrate they are paying a market price for using these public assets anything else is similar to a club say not paying their tax bill to the public purse.

Is it fair that say Cardiff City, Derby County and Leicester City all of whom have built and financed new stadiums, albiet some better than others, have at various times been in administration, had transfer embargos placed on them or had to agree refinancing packages to meet FL requirements have to compete with clubs heavily subsidised from the public purse.

I don't think it is and I believe it's time that the FL woke up to the fact that clubs are taking £m's out of local authority budgets in the certain knowledge that no winding up orders will be issued, but nevertheless the local ratepayers are having to bear cost of these arrangements.

To put this into perspective I believe a reasonable return on a property investment would be 10% per annum, in the case of the Liberty / Keepmoat Stadium would be £3m per annum, split between the football and rugby clubs that would be £1.5m per year or £7.5m since the stadiums have been open.

Take £1.5m a year out of those clubs budgets and it would be interesting to see how they compete.

I understand where you are coming from, but weren't we gifted the land to build CCS by the council ? I maybe wrong though.

Yes the land was gifted by the council and it was sold for development and as a result the Council is now enjoying the benefit of income from business rates from the many new businesses around and including the stadium.

If you compare this to the Liberty where the club shop isn't charged rates because it's part of a council asset, the same applies to the office space all of which is rate free. Also any income from non football events is used by the Stadium Management companies of both the Liberty and Keepmoat against the stadium running costs. Last year Elton John had a concert at the Keepmoat the revenue was used the subsidise the running costs of Doncaster Rovers, How is that right?.

In June last year the Liberty Stadium held a Fathers day lunch where all the profit was either offset against other running costs or a % rebated to Swansea City. The Council received nothing although they paid all the build and fit out costs of the Stadium.

In both the Keepmoat and the Liberty all groundstaff, policing costs and match day stewards are employed and paid for by the Stadium Management Companies, this offers a massive cashflow benefit to both clubs.

In my opinion if you rent a council house in either Swansea or Doncaster you would have to pay a weekly rent, including Council Tax, every week to the landlord. How is it that both these clubs have been council tennants for 5 years but the neither council has received a single penny in rent.

Where is that money being spent?

Castleblue I can understand your point, but local authorities to have a duty to provide local amenities which can include sports stadiums. If Doncaster Council build a £30m stadium and then rent it out at a peppercorn rent to the 'local' football team (Doncaster Rovers) they can quite rightly claim that they have done so for the benefit of the local community they serve.

Also the obvious counter argument would be that it is not their fault that Cardiff CC did not provide the same service for Cardiff City FC (or the residents of Cardiff) and instead made the club finance and run their own stadium.

Therefore the financial implications of the stadiums are 'local' issues where as not paying tax is a national issue and rightly should be treated more seriously with sanctions etc.

Castleblue I can understand your point, but local authorities to have a duty to provide local amenities which can include sports stadiums. If Doncaster Council build a £30m stadium and then rent it out at a peppercorn rent to the 'local' football team (Doncaster Rovers) they can quite rightly claim that they have done so for the benefit of the local community they serve.

Also the obvious counter argument would be that it is not their fault that Cardiff CC did not provide the same service for Cardiff City FC (or the residents of Cardiff) and instead made the club finance and run their own stadium.

Therefore the financial implications of the stadiums are 'local' issues where as not paying tax is a national issue and rightly should be treated more seriously with sanctions etc.

Tony the point I am trying to make here is that under the Financial Reporting Requirements of local authorities both Councils have been warned by their auditors that the current financial arrangements relating to the public assests are unacceptable.

The problem is not that the stadiums are provided at a peppercorn rent it relates to the fact the both public assets have provided no past income and therefore no projected future income and the use of £30m+ of public money in this way is unacceptable.

If for instance the stadiums are used for concerts whoshould recieve the income, the landlord or the tennant. Also both stadiums have sold the catering contracts for significant amounts. Again who should receive the income?

In respect of the responsibilities of External auditors they are required to ensure the management of public funds meet the requirements of the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) and under these requirements what is happening in both cases is not acceptable.

Local Authorities have two main sources of income Central Government and the local rate payer and have clear responsibilities in how they manage these public funds. As a business in their own right both Swansea City and Doncaster have every right to benefit from local authrity support through low cost stadium rent, but do they have the right to decide on how other income generated by the stadiums is used. Both Stadiums have run up debts of £2m since they were opened and these debts have been underwritten from public funds.

My point is where has all the other income gone from both these stadiums the landlords haven't seen any of it and as the auditors have pointed out income which rightly belongs to the local authority is being used to subsidise the running costs of private sporting clubs.

What do they all that - misappropriation

Castleblue I can understand your point, but local authorities to have a duty to provide local amenities which can include sports stadiums. If Doncaster Council build a £30m stadium and then rent it out at a peppercorn rent to the 'local' football team (Doncaster Rovers) they can quite rightly claim that they have done so for the benefit of the local community they serve.

Also the obvious counter argument would be that it is not their fault that Cardiff CC did not provide the same service for Cardiff City FC (or the residents of Cardiff) and instead made the club finance and run their own stadium.

Therefore the financial implications of the stadiums are 'local' issues where as not paying tax is a national issue and rightly should be treated more seriously with sanctions etc.

Tony the point I am trying to make here is that under the Financial Reporting Requirements of local authorities both Councils have been warned by their auditors that the current financial arrangements relating to the public assests are unacceptable.

The problem is not that the stadiums are provided at a peppercorn rent it relates to the fact the both public assets have provided no past income and therefore no projected future income and the use of £30m+ of public money in this way is unacceptable.

If for instance the stadiums are used for concerts whoshould recieve the income, the landlord or the tennant. Also both stadiums have sold the catering contracts for significant amounts. Again who should receive the income?

In respect of the responsibilities of External auditors they are required to ensure the management of public funds meet the requirements of the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) and under these requirements what is happening in both cases is not acceptable.

Local Authorities have two main sources of income Central Government and the local rate payer and have clear responsibilities in how they manage these public funds. As a business in their own right both Swansea City and Doncaster have every right to benefit from local authrity support through low cost stadium rent, but do they have the right to decide on how other income generated by the stadiums is used. Both Stadiums have run up debts of £2m since they were opened and these debts have been underwritten from public funds.

My point is where has all the other income gone from both these stadiums the landlords haven't seen any of it and as the auditors have pointed out income which rightly belongs to the local authority is being used to subsidise the running costs of private sporting clubs.

What do they all that - misappropriation

But isn't the revaluing of the stadiums a way of conforming (or getting around) the new regulations? I'm not saying that's right but if the regulators are happy then both Doncaster and Swansea council’s can continue to provide a service by giving the local professional sporting teams a cheap stadium to play in.

As I said I can see your point (a very clever one I might add) which is this practise is a form of 'cheating' by using public funds to artificially finance a sporting team; which in principle is the same as non-payment of VAT, NI and Income Tax and should therefore attract the same sanctions such a transfer embargo's from the FL.

That said the council's will always have the trump card and justify their actions by pointing out they are elected representatives who are 'entrusted' to responsibly (but not necessarily profitably), spend public funds on local amenities. In contrast we were a trading company who were 'obligated by law' to pay our tax but didn't.

However, you have raised a very interesting point and probably you should Email one of the MP's sitting on the football governance Private Members Committee with your concerns and question whether stadiums which are owned by Doncaster and Swansea council’s and rented without adhering to market rates is a fundamentally unfair to teams like Cardiff/Leicester/Derby who do-not rely on their local council for running costs.

under the current political climate how long will councils put up with it

Tony;

Thanks for the advice I have sent an e-mail to my MP this afternoon asking if he could provide me with a contact name for an MP sitting on this Football Governance Committee.

I know to some it may seem a little petty and I thank you for taking a more considered view of the points I'm making here. My interest is because I have a granddaughter who lives in Doncaster who likes swimming and has been having tennis lessons at her local leisure centre.

Her swimming sessions are free but this is about to change like in most areas of the country, her local swimming pool is staying open but another is closing because of financial constraints on the Council. She is also going to have to give up the tennis lessons because whilst my daughter paid the cost was subsidised by the council, this is now ending for the same reasons leaving only private clubs as an option and it is to expensive.

Doncaster Council may not get away with writing off £29m from the assest value of the Keepmoat Stadium that decision will be taken by their auditors but I think it is outrageous that a private sporting club i.e. Doncaster Rovers can receive a heavy subsidy from the local authority when my 9 year old grandaughter has to pay for swimming and give up tennis lessons. You can gaurantee the majority of this subsidy is going to pay the clubs wages, IMO it is an outrage.

The same applies out west where Swansea Council were so fed up with being asked to explain a £2.37m mortgage to fit out the Premier Seating area of the Liberty Stadium they decided to write it off 5 years after spending the money. In those 5 years the Council did not receive a single penny in repayments Swansea City received an annual income of between £600,000- £1m in the same period, more than the original loan. Where has that money been spent I bet on players wages.

This year Swansea Council are considering sacking teachers, closing schools, closing leisure centres, reducing household waste collections, switching off street lighting I could go on. Again I thinkit's outrageous.

Anyway I'm going to offer this information to this Football Governance Committee to se if anyone is interested, I hope they are.

Interesting

I dont normally bother to post on other clubs boards but was doing a google search for info about this and saw your board discussing it and hate to see people getting their facts wrong. I have no idea what the deal is at the Liberty but Doncaster Rovers pay £1m a season in rent to play at the Keepmoat. It was originally £250k but when the SMC realised how much they were loosing they forced Rovers to renegotiate in 2008. http://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/page ... 21,00.html

I dont normally bother to post on other clubs boards but was doing a google search for info about this and saw your board discussing it and hate to see people getting their facts wrong. I have no idea what the deal is at the Liberty but Doncaster Rovers pay £1m a season in rent to play at the Keepmoat. It was originally £250k but when the SMC realised how much they were loosing they forced Rovers to renegotiate in 2008. http://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/page ... 21,00.html

I think this article only goes to support the point I have made here as if you ask yourself why was there a requirement to renegotiate the contract in the first place?. £250K per season for the use of the Keepmoat was a giveaway price considering that the stadium was paying for all staff employed at the stadium, including match day stewards, policing costs etc.

Increasing the annual payment to £1m has done little to satisfy the Council auditors as the Stadium still fails to reach acceptable income levels to justify the Council investment. You should ask yourself what in real terms has been the increased cost to Doncaster Rovers as this new agreement has a quid pro quo attached i.e. the football club now has control of the income from match day parking. Why? Also the club has been given the rights to negotiate their own stadium advertising rights. Why? and how much is that worth.

The Keepmoat is a modern sports facility and offers the local community a more wide ranging group of facilities than the Liberty Stadium but still the overall income derived from these facilities has caused the council auditors to question the financial agreements in place, it will be interesting to see if the Council writing off £29m from the value of it's asset will be enough to satisfy them.

I have no problem with local authorities providing modern facilities to sporting clubs but I believe they should recieve a market value for the use of the asset. The clubs should be making their own arrangements for match day costs stewarding policing etc as any other arrangement offers the club huge cashflow benefits. In my opinion any income from stadium parking should go straight to the landlord with maybe the clubs getting a % as a rebate.

It is possible for a local authority to get these agreements right i.e. Newport Council provide a stadium for Newport County and Newport Harriers AC where suitable financial arrangements are in place which satisfy the council auditors. The difference is that Newport Council manage the facility, no middleman like Stadium Management Companies which bring with them major costs and problems.

The Board of the Stadium Management Company at the Liberty Stadium is made up of members from Swansea City, Ospreys and Swansea Council, little wonder the stadium hasyet to make a profit when the charges are set by the tennants not the landlords.

I dont normally bother to post on other clubs boards but was doing a google search for info about this and saw your board discussing it and hate to see people getting their facts wrong. I have no idea what the deal is at the Liberty but Doncaster Rovers pay £1m a season in rent to play at the Keepmoat. It was originally £250k but when the SMC realised how much they were loosing they forced Rovers to renegotiate in 2008. http://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/page ... 21,00.html

I think this article only goes to support the point I have made here as if you ask yourself why was there a requirement to renegotiate the contract in the first place?. £250K per season for the use of the Keepmoat was a giveaway price considering that the stadium was paying for all staff employed at the stadium, including match day stewards, policing costs etc.

Increasing the annual payment to £1m has done little to satisfy the Council auditors as the Stadium still fails to reach acceptable income levels to justify the Council investment. You should ask yourself what in real terms has been the increased cost to Doncaster Rovers as this new agreement has a quid pro quo attached i.e. the football club now has control of the income from match day parking. Why? Also the club has been given the rights to negotiate their own stadium advertising rights. Why? and how much is that worth.

The Keepmoat is a modern sports facility and offers the local community a more wide ranging group of facilities than the Liberty Stadium but still the overall income derived from these facilities has caused the council auditors to question the financial agreements in place, it will be interesting to see if the Council writing off £29m from the value of it's asset will be enough to satisfy them.

I have no problem with local authorities providing modern facilities to sporting clubs but I believe they should recieve a market value for the use of the asset. The clubs should be making their own arrangements for match day costs stewarding policing etc as any other arrangement offers the club huge cashflow benefits. In my opinion any income from stadium parking should go straight to the landlord with maybe the clubs getting a % as a rebate.

It is possible for a local authority to get these agreements right i.e. Newport Council provide a stadium for Newport County and Newport Harriers AC where suitable financial arrangements are in place which satisfy the council auditors. The difference is that Newport Council manage the facility, no middleman like Stadium Management Companies which bring with them major costs and problems.

The Board of the Stadium Management Company at the Liberty Stadium is made up of members from Swansea City, Ospreys and Swansea Council, little wonder the stadium hasyet to make a profit when the charges are set by the tennants not the landlords.

Another good post. Yes I agree these Stadium Management Companies need looking into.

I think this article only goes to support the point I have made here as if you ask yourself why was there a requirement to renegotiate the contract in the first place?. £250K per season for the use of the Keepmoat was a giveaway price considering that the stadium was paying for all staff employed at the stadium, including match day stewards, policing costs etc.

Increasing the annual payment to £1m has done little to satisfy the Council auditors as the Stadium still fails to reach acceptable income levels to justify the Council investment. You should ask yourself what in real terms has been the increased cost to Doncaster Rovers as this new agreement has a quid pro quo attached i.e. the football club now has control of the income from match day parking. Why? Also the club has been given the rights to negotiate their own stadium advertising rights. Why? and how much is that worth.

The Keepmoat is a modern sports facility and offers the local community a more wide ranging group of facilities than the Liberty Stadium but still the overall income derived from these facilities has caused the council auditors to question the financial agreements in place, it will be interesting to see if the Council writing off £29m from the value of it's asset will be enough to satisfy them.

I have no problem with local authorities providing modern facilities to sporting clubs but I believe they should recieve a market value for the use of the asset. The clubs should be making their own arrangements for match day costs stewarding policing etc as any other arrangement offers the club huge cashflow benefits. In my opinion any income from stadium parking should go straight to the landlord with maybe the clubs getting a % as a rebate.

It is possible for a local authority to get these agreements right i.e. Newport Council provide a stadium for Newport County and Newport Harriers AC where suitable financial arrangements are in place which satisfy the council auditors. The difference is that Newport Council manage the facility, no middleman like Stadium Management Companies which bring with them major costs and problems.

The Board of the Stadium Management Company at the Liberty Stadium is made up of members from Swansea City, Ospreys and Swansea Council, little wonder the stadium hasyet to make a profit when the charges are set by the tennants not the landlords. [/quote]

Another good post. Yes I agree these Stadium Management Companies need looking into.[/quote]

Thanks Tony.

I took your advice and did try to contact this Football Governance Committee however my MP told me that all evidence had to be submitted to the committee before the end of January. However he did give me details to contact my AM as he believed public funding is going to be a major issue in Wales in the next few years.

Apparently the Assembly Government are very concerned about the reduction in central goverment grants and as they have no option other than to pass these cuts on thereare major concerns about how the local authorities handle the issues. I have spoken to him and we have arranged to meet to discuss my views because he thinks I have made some interesting points.

I have to say I'm looking forward to meeting him.