web analytics

West Ham mortgage training grounds and Stadium lease

rushgreen2West Ham have borrowed money secured against the remaining property and leases they own.

A charge filed at Companies House on Thursday shows that the Hammers have borrowed money from Rights and Media funding thought to be financed by West Ham fan Michael Tabor secured against Chadwell Heath, Rush Green and Little Green.

In addition, they have used shop leases at Romford and Lakeside as security as well as the 99-year lease of the London Stadium to get access to the cash.

Effectively they have mortgaged the training grounds and leases.

Previously West Ham has borrowed money from Rights and Media funding secured against future TV payments from the Premier League instalments similar to pay day loans. The Premier League have outlawed loans of this type where the funding comes from offshore and West Ham appears to be a casualty of the new regulations.

West Ham borrowed £30m last season to help with cash flow over the summer which was repaid in July and this new loan secured against the training grounds and stadium lease is almost certain to replace that funding which has recently been settled.

Click Here for Comments >

About Sean Whetstone

I am Season Ticket Holder in West stand lower at the London Stadium and before that, I used to stand in the Sir Trevor Brooking Lower Row R seat 159 in the Boleyn Ground and in the Eighties I stood on the terraces of the old South Bank. I am a presenter on the West Ham Podcast called MooreThanJustaPodcast.co.uk. A Blogger on WestHamTillIdie.com a member of the West Ham Supporters Advisory Board (SAB), Founder of a Youtube channel called Mr West Ham Football at http://www.youtube.com/MrWestHamFootball, I am also the associate editor here at Claret and Hugh. Life Long singer of bubbles! Come on you Irons! Follow me at @Westhamfootball on twitter

16 comments on “West Ham mortgage training grounds and Stadium lease

  1. Have the owners put ANY money into the club that they have not made as loans. I am confused whether they want to be owners or just lenders of last resort. I see opportunities that created cash inflow…or should have….but we are always talking about debts.
    In this day and age I think that we need owners that are willing to pay off everything and invest for the future. If this is not possible with Gold and Sullivan then I think we need to part ways because you cannot run a team on the cheap.

  2. Loans but lower rates of interest than before. The interview with Gold that Sean did covered it if you can find it.

  3. This is starting to become uncomfortable …

    Déjà vu.

  4. Bilic in liars put

  5. Smells ike asset stripping to me

  6. I think they’re trying to squeeze every penny out!

  7. Where has the money gone???
    According to reliable sources, the club has made a NET transfer spend of just £4 mil over the past 3 windows.
    We have had good payouts for finishing 7th and 11th in the PL.
    We have received enormous payouts from TV revenue.
    Our season tickets are sold out.
    So, where the hell has the money gone to justify hocking everything the club owns???
    The way this club is being run makes me wish we could find owners who really want to take this club to the next level.
    Everton, Chelsea, Man City, Man United, etc are just some examples of what can be achieved.

    • £4m, where the hell has take come from.

      Excluding this window as i don’t know the impact on totals, since 2010, we have been the 6th biggest spenders.

      The last four summer windows and the winter ones in between has seen us spend just under £110m net.

      The club is not hoarding money.

      As for the clubs you list:
      Man U – massive worldwide support for generations and success – stupid to compare
      Chelsea – took £1.05Bn of losses to get where they are not
      Man City – similar to Chelsea but about £400m and dodgy sponsorship
      Everton – they have not spend more than us other than this window – they are still spending within their income not a sugar daddy although they also now have a dodgy sponsorship deal via the 2nd main shareholder which likely plugs a funding cap

      You cannot spend what you want. You can only spend the income you have or sponsor yourselves like a few clubs have done. There is no sign that someone is out there waiting to step in. Where were they went the club was put on the market in 2009?

      • where do you get 110 mil from,that’s boardroom pr figures,we have borrowed money against everything we own and even future rights,

        • We have spent £110m, it’s all there to see for players in and out. Check any decent transfer site, Soccerbase, Transfermarkt etc.

          We have no future rights sold (we have in the past and the current and past owners) and we do not know whether money has been drawn on the mortgage facility set up. The recent this is down is because when you buy a player, you have to pay anything from 35-50% (Carvalho for instance was going to be paid in three equal installments so if we were going to pay say £32m, then that’s £11m due straight away – we don’t have £40m sitting in the bank but would have the money in a few months as the money comes in from PL hence the overdraft to manage cash flow) of the transfer straight away and if you were to invest a major sum, the money would not be there. Approx 60% of our income if from TV rights and that sum is not received in advance but staggered over the year. This facility is purely for cash flow purposes and many clubs use such facilities. Many use use a traditional overdraft via their normal banks but WHU because of their past high debt, were seen as a risk, not many traditional banks are in this market. I recently worked at one of the big players in this short term market and can tell you they generally do not touch football clubs.

          So i’m not stating their PR. It’s public knowledge from filing to Companies House. That’s how people find out about this new facility as documents appeared on the system last Thursday.

          The accounts clearly show what the debt is and what makes it up whether third party loans or money owed on past transfers.

          • Yes correct JFK.There is a 31 page PDF available concerning the latest deal as well.
            Everything is available for fans to see at companies house but they prefer to shout and scream without reading up on something that is freely available to any of them.

  8. I thought Man United were financed entirely by loans,, didn’t the glazers remortgage the club to fund their takeover?

  9. Man United are actually still running a £400 million debt if you look in to it.
    But in the grand scheme of things it is nothing for them.But a £400 million debt nonetheless.

  10. Yes Man Utd’s takeover was fully funded by their own income.

    Man Utd financing took out £76m one year out the club. It’s around £30m now.

    The Glazers own 85% and it’s likely they could walk away with £1.5Bn having never put a penny in the club. But the club is well run and their primary and secondary sponsorships deals are second to no one in the league. The Chevrolet, Adidas & Aon combined deal can bring as much as some clubs entire turnover at £170m. Our income in 15/16 was only £145m. Figures not out yet for 16/17.

    Arsenal for the record still pay £12m towards their debt despite some thinking they have no debt.

    WHU finance costs about £7m a year and this will hopefully start to come down as bank debt gone leaving only the shareholder loans at 6-7%.

    When it has been quoted as having £100m debt in the past, most of this debt was not backed by any assets, ie players.

    A rough guess is we only own around £30m net (with perhaps a further £10m in add ons) for the players purchased but the squad is currently worth more than £200m.

    This window we sold four players that cost £1m for £22m . Even with Valencia, the way accounting rules work, he will go down as a minor profit even though in real terms we lost a few million.

    In the past we were buying players and getting very little or nothing when they left. Even when we did get money such as Bellamy’s deal, the old owners had sold off the debt at a discount.

  11. The 4mill being quoted is accounted bye the money we spent and taking off the money for players sold !! thus over 3 windows we had a net spend of 4 mill hardly tops six spending??

Comments are closed.