County Ground Redevelopment Revealed!!!!!!

[Simon Pieman]

I think they should base the stadium on the shape of a footprint.

We may have to change our name to thetoeend.com though.

[pauld]

I think they should base the stadium on the shape of a footprint.

We may have to change our name to thetoeend.com though.

Or maybe a massive cock and balls, just for the kicks of messing with the Adver's aerial photoshoots, they'd have to blank out the ground

Then we could be thebellend.com

[Simon Pieman]

Or maybe a massive cock and balls, just for the kicks of messing with the Adver's aerial photoshoots, they'd have to blank out the ground

Then we could be thebellend.com

25% Talk Talk, 80% Bollocks

[luckyluke699]

I asssume everyon'e read this, but just in case... AF stated after the game that the CG could be similar to the Reebok stadium. Link below...

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/8419690.Fitton_reveals_County_Ground_redevelopment_could_mirror_Bolton_s_Reebok/

[STFC_Gazza]

I asssume everyon'e read this, but just in case... AF stated after the game that the CG could be similar to the Reebok stadium. Link below...

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/8419690.Fitton_reveals_County_Ground_redevelopment_could_mirror_Bolton_s_Reebok/

Cheers for that!

[Power to people]

So somewhere in the negotiations with the council will likely come a request to purchase the CG and adjoining land, this may just be the right time, the council are complaining they have to find money from different sources and save money so an injection of moneys from selling the CG may help them to look good and take a bit of pressure of them.

[jonny72]

So somewhere in the negotiations with the council will likely come a request to purchase the CG and adjoining land, this may just be the right time, the council are complaining they have to find money from different sources and save money so an injection of moneys from selling the CG may help them to look good and take a bit of pressure of them.

I thought SBC have always been prepared to sell the CG, with the sticking point being the price. SBC would want more than its current value, to take in to account the increased value that any future developments bring - so if apartments were built there they would want they cut of it.

[pauld]

I thought SBC have always been prepared to sell the CG, with the sticking point being the price. SBC would want more than its current value, to take in to account the increased value that any future developments bring - so if apartments were built there they would want they cut of it.

No, the sticking point was that Diamandis expected the council to give him the whole lot (including the athletics track, cricket ground, car park etc) for nothing. But yes the council have always been prepared to sell us the ground and would probably be glad to get us off their books as a troublesome tenant

[jonny72]

But now they haven't got a problematic tennant they don't have any problems to worry about.

SBC have always said they won't "give it away", which to them means selling it for less than it would be worth once any re-development is completed. At present based on the current rent it's probably only worth say 2-3 million, but no way would they go with a figure that low. I'm sure they will try and screw Fitton for every penny they can.

[Summerof69]

I also understand the club has been in discussion with the Goddard Estate in regards to the Sporting covenant on the CG.

[pauld]

But now they haven't got a problematic tennant they don't have any problems to worry about.

Looked at from the outside, I think it takes more than a couple of years of a reasonably good board to wipe away the memory of the previous 20-odd years of problem tenant history. And whatever their faith in the current board they have no guarantee they will remain in place. I'm sure the council would still dearly love to be rid of us as a tenant. Albeit not at any price, you're right about that.

SBC have always said they won't "give it away", which to them means selling it for less than it would be worth once any re-development is completed.

They have a legal obligation to ensure value for the taxpayer. So when the plan was to put hundreds of houses on the site, they had to take into account the potential value of the land once developed in the sale price undeveloped. (ie you can't sell off land that is going to be developed for commercial use at a market value as if it was going to be used for agricultural use even if that is its current use)

At present based on the current rent it's probably only worth say 2-3 million, but no way would they go with a figure that low. I'm sure they will try and screw Fitton for every penny they can.

They were a couple of years ago. And yes of course they will. As they are legally obliged to. But that may not just be in terms of the sale price, they can also reasonably claim to have obtained value for the taxpayer if (for example) facilities for the local community that the council would otherwise have had to provide are provided/greatly enhanced by any development.

[Reg Smeeton]

They have a legal obligation to ensure value for the taxpayer.

This was why Terry Brady did one...

Like all these projects, I'll believe it when I see it.

[jonny72]

They have a legal obligation to ensure value for the taxpayer. So when the plan was to put hundreds of houses on the site, they had to take into account the potential value of the land once developed in the sale price undeveloped. (ie you can't sell off land that is going to be developed for commercial use at a market value as if it was going to be used for agricultural use even if that is its current use).

I've never fully believed this and am convinced to a large degree it comes down to how much the council wants to support the club. If no planning permission has been given for re-development then the land is worth what it is worth, plus there are pre-existing conditions regarding the lands usage in the case of the CG. At the moment that would make the land worth maybe 20 times the income they get from it.

Saying the CG is worth xx millions on the basis of planning permission being granted, the funds being raised, the re-development being completed and everything being worth what it is at the moment when it's completed and so on is a lot of ifs, buts and maybes. What happens if planning permission isn't given or the re-development falls through, will SBC give a refund?

I'm not sure of the exact details of the deal that was done between Reading and their local council but from what I've read it sounds like they got a very good deal as the council wanted to support them. I'm sure there are ways and means for SBC to support the club if they wanted to, unfortunately I don't think they do and they just want to get as much money out of it that they can and if that means the whole thing going tits up then so be it.

Maybe with the state of the economy and the rest of the town centres re-development stalling they will be a bit desperate to get the CG re-development to happen. They could also consider the fact that the clubs owners are never going to make a massive profit from the club no matter what happens and the financial risk they've already taken. I doubt it though.

[ahounsell]

I've never fully believed this and am convinced to a large degree it comes down to how much the council wants to support the club. If no planning permission has been given for re-development then the land is worth what it is worth, plus there are pre-existing conditions regarding the lands usage in the case of the CG. At the moment that would make the land worth maybe 20 times the income they get from it.

Its true whether you believe it or not and councillors can be personally liable for losses if council assets can be shown to have been sold on the cheap.

You have to be careful about some of the figures with Readings deal for the Madjeski too. They paid almost nothing for the land but a lot of money had to be spent decontaminating the site before it could be developed. They got a good deal, but it wasnt a giveaway.

I think there is a deal to be done at the County Ground as long as the club can get planning permission for enough new facilities to make it pay.

[Talk Talk]

So somewhere in the negotiations with the council will likely come a request to purchase the CG and adjoining land, this may just be the right time, the council are complaining they have to find money from different sources and save money so an injection of moneys from selling the CG may help them to look good and take a bit of pressure of them.

It depends what you mean by being cash strapped and where additional money comes from. The council have two pots of money, revenue and capital. Funds from selling an asset like the CG land would go in the capital pot. It is illegal to move money between the two so it can only be spent on another project such as say the compulsory repairs to the Mechanics. It could not be used to ease the shortfall in government grant or council tax.

Reading's stadium was built on a disused tip so the land value was low, it was not 'sold on the cheap'. As mentioned that would make the local councillors personally liable for the difference. And yes, the remediation costs were significant.