What's fresh with these new plans?

[Dazzza]

Anyone know what the difference is to the originals and who is responsible for them?

Today’s Adver suggests that new plans are on the horizon yet Mark Devlin in the same article gives the impression there's a lot to be discussed and negotiated still.

[DiV]

ask pauld  

[pauld]

We (ie the Trust plus a couple of L&P and "unaligned" fans) have been looking at coming up with some alternative proposals in case (as now seems likely) the club's proposals fail (as the large element of housing renders them unacceptable). To that end, we've been talking to the various groups involved (council, residents, club etc) and trying to work out a framework that would satisfy everyone's needs and whether it would be possible to achieve what the club want (ie a stable non-football revenue stream) as well. And to date, it looks pretty positive - we believe that we're close to a viable framework that will work for all parties. But it's still early days and we don't have some kind of "secret plan" as the Adver seem to be implying - one of the reaons we've been able to make the progress we have is by being open with all parties and listening to what they want rather than cooking up secret plans. But it seems that's a bit too subtle for the Adver's need to jam it into a "New stadium plan soon" story - sadly, they seem more interested in creating a story than they are in genuinely getting the ground redevelopment progressed. It takes more than sticking a logo next to the story.

[RobertT]

A crack group of commando's......or  a few fans including the king of the pessimists!

Not completed yet, hence the talk of much work still to do.  Basically they provide a set of proposals (a bit like a menu) for the club and Council to pick from and then build on,  Self funded development, although the club may have investors lined up to add a few bits on themselves and it should be acceptable to the residents due to the land usage.  Council would have no legal objections and would also benefit to varying degress depending on the involvement they require/would like.  The good thing is the Council, residents and football club all seem to have liked the concepts so far.  Probably be a few weeks before detail can start to be released.

[pauld]

ask pauld  

Actually your original, pre-edit comment, "basically no housing" was a much better summary than my load of waffle. Perhaps add "no loss of open space" as well.

[DiV]

ask pauld  

Actually your original, pre-edit comment, "basically no housing" was a much better summary than my load of waffle. Perhaps add "no loss of open space" as well.

Wasnt sure how much detail I was allowed to go into to, so I kept it simple...then saw your waffle and thought...I guess we can waffle on about it then   and left you to it

[pauld]

A more useful summary:
1) We basically stick to the current footprint for the stadium, but build up and out to increase available floorspace (partly for stuff to fund the dev, partly for revenue generating facilities)
2) No loss of open/green space on wider CG site
3) Potential for a "leisure hub" on the site - ie multi-sports/leisure use
4) Council/community get spanking new leisure facilities (plus potentially some stuff for local businesses); club gets stable non-football revenue stream and modernised stadium; local residents don't lose open space but get current open space preserved and enhanced.
5) Everyone wins
6) There's a lot of discussion still to be had, a lot of detail to be negotiated, but early signs are encouraging

[Dazzza]

Very good, very good Gentlemen.

Not going into specifics can you reveal if the original estimated cost of £50 million for the stadium development would remain there or thereabouts the same and if this cost includes the cost of the financial bolt-ons?

Again, with the £25 million of investment the club originally had lined up, any idea as to what the original conditions of their investment was and in terms of slice of the cake what do they see in return?

[DiV]

The new plans would certainly cost alot less than 50million....alot less....

[RobertT]

The plans would vary in cost depending on what is included by the parties involved.  The club may well add a few things on to what we propose (and there is room to do so) which they would have to fund themselves and the Council may wish to use the opportunity to include a large amount of leisure related facilities, which they could fund themselves (as they would have to do when losing the Oasis soon).

Basically the core ideas and add ons are self funded and a significant amount below £50m.

[Dazzza]

Cheers, what scale are we talking on the actual development of the stadium and stadium facilities (exec boxes etc) then?

£50 million seems to be the going rate for a full stadium re-development nowadays and it was never particularly  clear if the £50 million quoted in the original plans included the cost of the additional revenue making facilities (e.g. Hotel etc) attached to the project as well as the fundamental stadium.

I understand that you can’t go into details but without the housing can the club still raise the required funds and attract the same level of investment without gifting a far larger slice of the additional revenue pie away to a third party?

[RobertT]

There are ways to keep development costs down.  A case for using some of what already exists?

Madjeski was quoted today as stating £1000 per new seat in a stadium and our research suggested anywhere between £800 and £2000.  That shows it doesn't have to be expensive.  Swansea's cost £25m for example.  I think the original club proposals included a huge cost for the hotel and conference centre, we've included a bit of this but basically left it up to them if they want to finance a large scale Hotel.  Our proposals/ideas suggest a way of developing what is essential at lowest cost.  We've basically allocated x sq m of space to be used to raise capital and/or ongoing funds.  It's up to the club and council which routes they take, but it provides a minimum and maximum level of finance being raised.

[pauld]

So far as we can tell, the £50m in the original plans was the total cost of the whole project (ie stadium, hotel, housing everything). So for starters if you take 600 houses out of the equation you cut down quite substantially on the build costs. But we're confident that there's room for the club to achieve their objectives in terms of the revenue-generating facilities (exec boxes, conferencing etc).

[The Grim Reaper]

Without sounding to negative here, is there any danger of the 'new County Ground' being something along the lines of what Northampton town have? A smallish stadium which looks like it was made from Lego?

[Reg Smeeton]

Without sounding to negative here, is there any danger of the 'new County Ground' being something along the lines of what Northampton town have? A smallish stadium which looks like it was made from Lego?

 At the moment we have a 14,500 capacity its rarely used so doesn't generate income....much more sense to have say a 10,000 capacity, then the Bank could be used for development.