Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 ... 109   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Trust look to buy the CG  (Read 382052 times)
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #420 on: Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 14:13:46 »

I work in planning and was doing some research on a site in the Gloucestershire area and nearby was a site that Taylor Wimpey won planning permission for 100 homes. But the development didn't meet the criteria of the covenant so the scheme had to be stopped and the 24 houses that were built had to be demolished. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-16309548

It all depends on the covenant. Developers can try many different ways to circumvent a covenant but they are normally pretty tight.


So do I, aren't we the lucky ones..... Wink I have the double whammy of misery of being a Surveyor as well.

It has been fairly comprehensively covered on here from those who have seen it and seen advice regarding it that the covenant relating to the CG use is very woolly and getting round it fairly easily done, plus as pointed out at length those who benefit from the covenant, The Goddard Estate have no interest in the land anymore and thus there is little to stop them taking a settlement to release.

The Gloucestershire one if of interest as it seems that the locals have kicked up a stink regarding a development (well who would have thunk it Roll Eyes) and managed to get it enforced, no doubt someone along the lines PI insurance has taken a hammering in that case.
Logged
Legends-Lounge

Offline Offline

Posts: 8153

Non PC straight talking tory Brexit voter on this




Ignore
« Reply #421 on: Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 21:03:54 »

So do I, aren't we the lucky ones..... Wink I have the double whammy of misery of being a Surveyor as well.

It has been fairly comprehensively covered on here from those who have seen it and seen advice regarding it that the covenant relating to the CG use is very woolly and getting round it fairly easily done, plus as pointed out at length those who benefit from the covenant, The Goddard Estate have no interest in the land anymore and thus there is little to stop them taking a settlement to release.

The Gloucestershire one if of interest as it seems that the locals have kicked up a stink regarding a development (well who would have thunk it Roll Eyes) and managed to get it enforced, no doubt someone along the lines PI insurance has taken a hammering in that case.

It has been fairly comprehensively covered on here from those who have seen it and seen advice regarding it that the covenant relating to the CG use is very woolly and getting round it fairly easily done, plus as pointed out at length those who benefit from the covenant, The Goddard Estate have no interest in the land anymore and thus there is little to stop them taking a settlement to release.

Be that as it may, why hasn’t anyone managed to ‘get round’ fairly ‘wooly’ Covanents as you describe in the last 30-40 years? You may not have the answer but surely someone must have had the means to wrestle the freehold from the council in that time frame?
Logged
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #422 on: Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 22:00:57 »


Be that as it may, why hasn’t anyone managed to ‘get round’ fairly ‘wooly’ Covanents as you describe in the last 30-40 years? You may not have the answer but surely someone must have had the means to wrestle the freehold from the council in that time frame?

You are right I don't have an answer, however,

Has there been a willing seller at any time before now, it's never been suggested or hinted at that the council wanted to sell until the Trust took an interest 12 months back, which seems to have smoked Power out as well.....

Unexpected circumstances and all that....
Logged
Legends-Lounge

Offline Offline

Posts: 8153

Non PC straight talking tory Brexit voter on this




Ignore
« Reply #423 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 09:05:43 »

You are right I don't have an answer, however,

Has there been a willing seller at any time before now, it's never been suggested or hinted at that the council wanted to sell until the Trust took an interest 12 months back, which seems to have smoked Power out as well.....

Unexpected circumstances and all that....
Take it from a capitalist Tory boy, everyone has their price at any given time.

Let’s face it there have been times when the local authority had more tax payers money to play with compared to now. Even then the council were not prepared to invest in the site and they negotiated a lease that meant the clubs owners were responsible for the upkeep and maintenance thus reducing the rent payable and the responsibility passed over to the clubs owners. Now the with the purse strings being tighter maybe it’s dawned on the Euclid St. elite that it’s time to dispose of the white elephant. I doubt that it’s value has changed much over the years to the same extent as prime commercial or domestic property because of its limited development potential.

Regarding who has blinked first I think that the trust have been spurred into a purchasing position with the tie in that Power has with these developers which was mooted some time ago and before the trust made their move. Where I agree with you is that it would seem that this has perhaps put an impetuous on Power and the developers to expedite their plans a bit sooner than maybe they had anticipated?
Logged
Flashheart

« Reply #424 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 13:15:10 »

The trust has finally spoken, and give me the impression that they have funds for purchasing the ground only.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/16041146.County_Ground_becomes_community_asset_as_Trust_press_on_with_purchase/
Logged
hammondt1

Offline Offline

Posts: 16





Ignore
« Reply #425 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 13:20:19 »

So do I, aren't we the lucky ones..... Wink I have the double whammy of misery of being a Surveyor as well.

It has been fairly comprehensively covered on here from those who have seen it and seen advice regarding it that the covenant relating to the CG use is very woolly and getting round it fairly easily done, plus as pointed out at length those who benefit from the covenant, The Goddard Estate have no interest in the land anymore and thus there is little to stop them taking a settlement to release.


Indeed, 'lucky ones.'

It will be all down to the Goddard Estate and if they are happy if an application meets their definition of the covenant. When or where are there details of the covenant? 
Logged

Twitter-----@hammondt1
theakston2k

Offline Offline

Posts: 5301




Ignore
« Reply #426 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 14:22:08 »

The trust has finally spoken, and give me the impression that they have funds for purchasing the ground only.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/16041146.County_Ground_becomes_community_asset_as_Trust_press_on_with_purchase/
The more I hear of the Trust’s bid the more it feels that it’ll just stagnate us further if they manage to purchase it, the ground needs more than some dilapidation works and some cosmetic improvements.
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #427 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 14:33:13 »

The more I hear of the Trust’s bid the more it feels that it’ll just stagnate us further if they manage to purchase it, the ground needs more than some dilapidation works and some cosmetic improvements.
It does, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to get further investment once they had a tangible asset to attract investment. If the worst case of the Trust scenario is that we don't get as much investment in the ground as we like, weigh that against the worst case of Power selling up to another Jed and what would happen to the ground then. If the club had owned the ground when Jed was here, we'd wouldn't have a ground now. And quite possibly not a club either. Look at Hereford and very nearly Hartlepool.
Logged
theakston2k

Offline Offline

Posts: 5301




Ignore
« Reply #428 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 14:43:45 »

It does, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to get further investment once they had a tangible asset to attract investment. If the worst case of the Trust scenario is that we don't get as much investment in the ground as we like, weigh that against the worst case of Power selling up to another Jed and what would happen to the ground then. If the club had owned the ground when Jed was here, we'd wouldn't have a ground now. And quite possibly not a club either. Look at Hereford and very nearly Hartlepool.
I get all that but at the same time they could end up holding us back from any significant redevelopment. Also there’s nothing to stop an owner be it Power or someone else saying fuck it if I can’t own the ground I’ll take it elsewhere and we end up somewhere akin to Colchester. The Trust could easily get left with an empty ground...
Logged
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #429 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 14:51:48 »

I agree with those saying they'd like to hear more from the Trust on their plans, they've not been nearly as forthcoming as I'd have liked either, but in the current climate of increasingly disconnected and rapacious owners, I worry that the one thing that has protected us from asset strippers over the years has been not having that many assets (and even then it didn't stop Jed forward selling our catering revenue for the next decade). Transferring one very big and valuable asset into private ownership is just inviting trouble; transferring it into community ownership is the only secure option for me. If that means we don't attract a Chinese consortium with fuck all interest in our club, but lots of interest in an edge of town centre development site, well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

That said the Trust need to set out a positive vision as to why they are the best, as opposed to the less shit option (which is what I've set out). I'll vote for "less shit" personally, but a positive vision of what the Trust can achieve is still needed
« Last Edit: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 14:53:37 by pauld » Logged
derbystfc

Offline Offline

Posts: 474




Ignore
« Reply #430 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:02:41 »

I agree with those saying they'd like to hear more from the Trust on their plans, they've not been nearly as forthcoming as I'd have liked either, but in the current climate of increasingly disconnected and rapacious owners, I worry that the one thing that has protected us from asset strippers over the years has been not having that many assets (and even then it didn't stop Jed forward selling our catering revenue for the next decade). Transferring one very big and valuable asset into private ownership is just inviting trouble; transferring it into community ownership is the only secure option for me. If that means we don't attract a Chinese consortium with fuck all interest in our club, but lots of interest in an edge of town centre development site, well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

That said the Trust need to set out a positive vision as to why they are the best, as opposed to the less shit option (which is what I've set out). I'll vote for "less shit" personally, but a positive vision of what the Trust can achieve is still needed

Paul as someone well versed in trust affairs with the orange consortium etc, do you think that the Trust not revealing its backers (as yet) can be seen to be a negative, because at present we still do know who that is, and the intentions of the backers?
Logged
theakston2k

Offline Offline

Posts: 5301




Ignore
« Reply #431 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:06:57 »

I agree with those saying they'd like to hear more from the Trust on their plans, they've not been nearly as forthcoming as I'd have liked either, but in the current climate of increasingly disconnected and rapacious owners, I worry that the one thing that has protected us from asset strippers over the years has been not having that many assets (and even then it didn't stop Jed forward selling our catering revenue for the next decade). Transferring one very big and valuable asset into private ownership is just inviting trouble; transferring it into community ownership is the only secure option for me. If that means we don't attract a Chinese consortium with fuck all interest in our club, but lots of interest in an edge of town centre development site, well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

That said the Trust need to set out a positive vision as to why they are the best, as opposed to the less shit option (which is what I've set out). I'll vote for "less shit" personally, but a positive vision of what the Trust can achieve is still needed
The same thing that has ‘protected us’ has held us back as well though as owners haven’t owned the ground so done fuck all over the last 20 years and left us with a crumbling heap. If Axis are behind this and want to prove themselves as a main contractor then I think that’s my preference as we might actually see more than some crap roof on the Stratton Bank. If the trust don’t have the ability to finance building at least 2 new stands (which is the minimum the ground needs) then it would be pointless them owning the ground.
I cancelled my trust membership a while back as didn’t feel I get anything for my money; pretty much zero communication and won’t even tell their own members who they are supposed to represent who the backers are. They’ve become a closed shop and haven’t been acting like a supporters Trust IMO.
Logged
Sippo
Living in the 80s

Offline Offline

Posts: 15582


I ain't gettin on no plane fool




Ignore
« Reply #432 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:10:55 »

I don't think Axis have invested. They are a design company and would be employed for redesigning the CG?

I think Power got them in as a sponsor for that reason.
Logged

If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
pauld
Aaron Aardvark

Offline Offline

Posts: 25436


Absolute Calamity!




Ignore
« Reply #433 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:12:26 »

Paul as someone well versed in trust affairs with the orange consortium etc, do you think that the Trust not revealing its backers (as yet) can be seen to be a negative, because at present we still do know who that is, and the intentions of the backers?
If you remember, we had a period where we had backers but couldn't say who (when Bob Holt "knew" that they were un-named Americans). Ideally you'd want to be open and transparent about everything as early as possible; sometimes that isn't always possible. There may be (e.g) good legal or commercial reasons why the Trust's backers don't want to be named at this stage. I look at it like this - the guys involved in running the Trust now are:
a) bona fide long term fans
b) all pretty smart and fairly successful in their chosen fields and there's a decent amount of business experience in there.
That gives me sufficient confidence that their motives are good vis a vis the club and that they have the experience/knowledge to assess that the route they're pursuing is a viable one. Whereas I think Power's end game is more opaque and that of any 3rd party who chose to sell to is necessarily at this stage unknowable.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #434 on: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:15:10 »

I agree with those saying they'd like to hear more from the Trust on their plans, they've not been nearly as forthcoming as I'd have liked either, but in the current climate of increasingly disconnected and rapacious owners, I worry that the one thing that has protected us from asset strippers over the years has been not having that many assets (and even then it didn't stop Jed forward selling our catering revenue for the next decade). Transferring one very big and valuable asset into private ownership is just inviting trouble; transferring it into community ownership is the only secure option for me. If that means we don't attract a Chinese consortium with fuck all interest in our club, but lots of interest in an edge of town centre development site, well, that's a risk I'm prepared to take.

That said the Trust need to set out a positive vision as to why they are the best, as opposed to the less shit option (which is what I've set out). I'll vote for "less shit" personally, but a positive vision of what the Trust can achieve is still needed

When you're stuck between a rock (Power) and a hard place (SBC) the least shit option looks most inviting.

Do those advocating Power seriously believe he and his chums will swan in stump up about 15 mill, conservative estimate, to build us a few new no doubt steel and breeze block stands?  

Why would they?
« Last Edit: Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:18:54 by Reg Smeeton » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 ... 109   Go Up
Print
Jump to: