Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: New training ground  (Read 23685 times)
horlock07


+31251/-27163
Offline Offline

Posts: 6131


Lives up north




Ignore
« Reply #195 on: Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 17:38:29 »

The club would have to buy land to put the new ground on, guess who owns a lot of the land in the Swindon borough?


Have the Council ever refused to sell any land to the club? They don't own all the land do they?

Now lets say that the club get hold of some land, they need planning permission to build anything in on that land, guess who runs that? The club have come up with many plans to either rebuild the cg or move to a new stadium over the years and the council always step in the way e.g.

- was going to be something up by the M4 J15 - didn't happen as it's not brownfield land, but they can build a hospital
- was going to be where whitchelstow is now - didn't happen
- was going to be north swindon (shaw) - didn't happen

http://www.swindontown-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/stadium_plans_rejected_167407/index.shtml


As a Planning Consultant I am entirely aware who grants planning permissions Wink, I am also aware that in each of the cases you have outlined the case for a new ground has been very flawed in planning terms from day 1, as illustrated by the fact, I suspect, that the club have never bothered to appeal any of the refusals to PINS, as for the link you have added not sure what that actually says although it does perpetuate the myth regarding light and the Bank?

Likewise if the Council were to sell some land to the club for a new ground any planning decision would not actually be made by the Council at all as it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State (Actually the Planning Casework Unit in Birmingham) to determine as the Council would have a financial interest in the decision.


The council will do as much as they can to stop the club moving as they don't want them out of the town as they will lose 200k a year in rent, thousands in taxes and the numerous other things that the football depends on including bus users, parking etc.


Possibly so, but likewise the club have royally pissed the Council off over the years by not paying their rent and thus I suspect the feeling with many members is not as clear cut as portrayed! In terms of Council budgets 200k PA is not much more than petty cash?

I am not for a minute saying the Council are perfect, from professional experience they are really not (they are a pain!), but if the club had actually approached things better through various ownership's something could have been achieved and to lay the blame at the Councils feet ignores that fact.
Logged
garethgillman


+0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 352




Ignore
« Reply #196 on: Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 18:17:06 »

I am not for a minute saying the Council are perfect, from professional experience they are really not (they are a pain!), but if the club had actually approached things better through various ownership's something could have been achieved and to lay the blame at the Councils feet ignores that fact.


Sorry if it wasn't made clear but that was my opinion and not facts, the council have a vested interest in the club being at the CG so rightly or wrongly it seems like they have or would do as much as they can to try and keep the club in the town rather than let them rebuild elsewhere in the borough.

It's not just the 200k PA that the club pay, it's everything else that goes with it including the usability of the land, the footfall to the town and the rates charged to the businesses that rely on the football (pubs etc).

More I think about it, that was just a rant about how it seems from an outsider where as councils like Reading and Oxford seemed more willing to help their clubs. Hopefully the trust, council and Power (STFC) are able to build bridges and put something together which finally sees something done about the CG as it's in a poor state after years of failed promises.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+21/-92
Offline Offline

Posts: 28088





Ignore
« Reply #197 on: Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 18:55:20 »

Gareth... the policy of SBC under the Tories is to divest themselves of any assets, which may be seen as community useful as they don't turn a profit for their business donor chums. At the moment, they're looking to sell the CG, legally they have to abide by the ACV, but if that fails then it will go to a developer. These are dangerous times.
Logged
theakston2k


+2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 768




Ignore
« Reply #198 on: Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 19:01:10 »

The club would have to buy land to put the new ground on, guess who owns a lot of the land in the Swindon borough? Now lets say that the club get hold of some land, they need planning permission to build anything in on that land, guess who runs that? The club have come up with many plans to either rebuild the cg or move to a new stadium over the years and the council always step in the way e.g.

- was going to be something up by the M4 J15 - didn't happen as it's not brownfield land, but they can build a hospital
- was going to be where whitchelstow is now - didn't happen
- was going to be north swindon (shaw) - didn't happen

http://www.swindontown-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/stadium_plans_rejected_167407/index.shtml

The council will do as much as they can to stop the club moving as they don't want them out of the town as they will lose 200k a year in rent, thousands in taxes and the numerous other things that the football depends on including bus users, parking etc.

The only chance of the club getting anything new would be to build it out of the Swindon borough (so either down by chippenham or up by Hungerford).
You write all that and then manage to undermine your own post in the last paragraph. STFC could easily leave the borough and carry on in some guise. Hell it could relinquish its league status and play at Supermarine if it wanted to and there's very little the council could do. In terms of buying land I doubt there's that much worth having that the council haven't already sold, the golf course was bought privately for example.  I would imagine most land suitable for ground would be owned by the likes of Oxford University or private individuals.
Most of the schemes you mention above were never going to happen as they were in highly controversial locations, had parties involved with highly questions motives and most importantly the club didn't actually have a plan or money to build a stadium without including thousands of houses to finance the schemes making them even more controversial.
Logged
tans
You spin me right round baby right round


+2/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 17974





Ignore
« Reply #199 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 07:06:22 »

Erm

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/15233692.No_commitment_yet_from_Eady_Trust_to_Town_project/?ref=twtrec
Logged
Costanza


+8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 8138





Ignore
« Reply #200 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 07:22:40 »


Oooh it's like the old days.

Club statement tomorrow, please.
Logged

"Rot steht dir sehr viel besser als gelb-blau!"

- Niemals Allein
horlock07


+31251/-27163
Offline Offline

Posts: 6131


Lives up north




Ignore
« Reply #201 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 08:31:42 »

Sorry if it wasn't made clear but that was my opinion and not facts, the council have a vested interest in the club being at the CG so rightly or wrongly it seems like they have or would do as much as they can to try and keep the club in the town rather than let them rebuild elsewhere in the borough.


Sorry to keep picking you up but again you don't appear to have provided any firm evidence to support this supposition.


It's not just the 200k PA that the club pay, it's everything else that goes with it including the usability of the land, the footfall to the town and the rates charged to the businesses that rely on the football (pubs etc).


Does match day bring that much footfall, as an outsider (but home supporter) I have only ever walked from the station to the ground and back on a match day, never been into the town centre (in fact cannot remember lat time I was in Swindon town centre, probably 30+ years ago to be honest), and away fans will do the same if they travel by train?

As for business rates the Council has the cost and ball ache of collecting them but only keeps a comparatively small proportion, the majority goes to central government?

Finally I think we sadly have to face the fact that the club does not mean that much to the overwhelming % of the population of the Borough, and thus is not a high priority for elected members, based upon the 2011 census the Borough has a population of c.209,000 and at a high estimate we get say 7,000 home fans per game.... thats c.3%....


More I think about it, that was just a rant about how it seems from an outsider where as councils like Reading and Oxford seemed more willing to help their clubs. Hopefully the trust, council and Power (STFC) are able to build bridges and put something together which finally sees something done about the CG as it's in a poor state after years of failed promises.

In terms of Reading the Council were not that helpful as the club had to fund and build a bloody great road a part of the deal, plus the site was one which was a ballache to develop due to its former use, I would suspect that if SBC had a former dump that needed remediation for development they would be happy to offer it to STFC for a new home, likewise I would rather we did not end up on an industrial estate next to a sewage works (there is a definite trend here). In both cases Councils appear to have identified pain in the arse sites and seen the football club as a method to kick start development, whereas STFC have gone for sites with substantive planning issues - does Swindon have any such sites?
« Last Edit: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 08:37:42 by horlock07 » Logged
Batch
Thingie


+31/-21
Offline Offline

Posts: 34101





Ignore
« Reply #202 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 08:47:40 »


The club statement itself was very non committal "considering..." and (the Eady money) "could be used" stating it could be 2 years before its ready.

This article just put the timeline in place. Its very very early in the process and as Reg says - I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't however think its a bad thing for the club. The devil is of course in the detail - is the land suitable, will it get through planning. what else is Power proposing for his own land as part of the development, is he selling back to the club at cost or taking the piss and looking for profit...
-------------------------------
The thing that has pissed me off, he made a big song and dance about buying this and developing it for the club (for this year?). He's seemingly done fuck all in reality.

Either he's realised he's bitten off more than he can chew, or he's full of shit.
Or he's executing an exit strategy, but I think that's a bit optimistic/pessimistic*.

* delete as appropriate dependent on fullness of your glass.
Logged
Don Rogers Sock


+19/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 559




Ignore
« Reply #203 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 08:58:07 »

Just backs up my theory really. This is just a very public for sale advert by Power in my opinion
Logged
Flashheart


+10/-10017
Offline Offline

Posts: 23426


FUCK YEAH!



« Reply #204 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 09:13:14 »

The club's statement was carefully worded. The Eady's statement does not contradict it, although that wont stop many acting as though it does.

As for everything else... I duuno.  
Logged

I like it firm and fruity.
Panda Paws
Tel!


+4/-13
Offline Offline

Posts: 3017





Ignore
« Reply #205 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 09:51:15 »

Just backs up my theory really. This is just a very public for sale advert by Power in my opinion

A growing consensus - has he got what he wanted all along, the plot of land out at Highworth? The club's certainly in a better position for sale if wheels are in motion for assets at the training ground and a fan-owned stadium (obviously completely depending on the terms of both of those, which none of us know).

A long and interesting road ahead I'd imagine, but seems to me too that this is another step on the exit strategy (Waterford being the first one).
Logged

twitter.com/telpierce
twitter.com/Newsflare
Batch
Thingie


+31/-21
Offline Offline

Posts: 34101





Ignore
« Reply #206 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 10:54:26 »

could be

but equally could be a no cost to power solution to improving  his academy turd polishing model. better training facilities= better chance of recruitment .
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+21/-92
Offline Offline

Posts: 28088





Ignore
« Reply #207 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 11:17:44 »

 This is all getting distinctly weird.

 DRS and PP, could you explain why you think this is Power flagging up a sale of the club?
Logged
pauld


+40/-33
Offline Offline

Posts: 16863





Ignore
« Reply #208 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 11:19:40 »

Just backs up my theory really. This is just a very public for sale advert by Power in my opinion
Or DPDS jumping the gun as usual, same as they did on the TipStad fiasco
Logged
Don Rogers Sock


+19/-6
Offline Offline

Posts: 559




Ignore
« Reply #209 on: Thursday, April 20, 2017, 11:27:30 »

Or DPDS jumping the gun as usual, same as they did on the TipStad fiasco
Would usually go that route but the fact the club issued a statement this time suggests Power has a lot more to do with it.

Reg it is literally just a gut feeling i have.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15   Go Up
Print
Jump to: