RobertT
 Online
Posts: 12323
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 15:45:07 » |
|
all well and good but where will the athletics and cricket clubs be moved to.
this does need addressing,i personally dont care but others will.
it may effect councillors decisions about any future development. That is the only major question that still doesn't have a proper answer form the club, It's not Rob, far from it. The club have only made outline proposals public and there could well be a hell of a lot of devil to be found in the detail - they'd need a properly put business case before they could go any further. But at this stage, all they've sought to do is (quite correctly) to put some proposals out as an initial outline. What's disappointing is how some have chosen to use this as an excuse to try and shoot the whole thing down before it gets started. Of the major questions that have been raised (which seem to be legality of land use, finance - the big picture,ownership and which land to use) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
 Offline
Posts: 57822
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 15:46:59 » |
|
Has anyone questioned the council what happens if we go bust, or move out the borough?
Will the CG become an unused ghost stadium? Will they demolish it and replace it with grass?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Online
Posts: 12323
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 15:58:50 » |
|
You get a response along the lines of something to keep it as a lesiure facility. However it's easy to say that now, but then the developers vultures begin to circle with their wads of cash then a big Ikea it is. Think that is even more lucrative than housing, but you can guess where recreation will be down the pecking order once the bids come in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:02:29 » |
|
Of the major questions that have been raised (which seem to be legality of land use, finance - the big picture,ownership and which land to use)
The financial questions are far from answered except in possibly the broadest outline - would the club treat the land donation as a loan for example and pay interest as well as rent? Or, if they are expecting to just pay rent, are they anticipating paying a higher rent (for an improved facility) or still paying at the current level? If excess profits are made from the housebuilding will the council be a true partner in that development and so get a cut or would it just be divvied up between the club's holding company and the developer? Moving on, the ownership picture is also far from clear - the club have said the council will own the ground as now. All well and good, but who will own the extra non-matchday revenue-generating facilities - the club, we assume, as the aim is to enable the club to stand on it's own two feet by having these revenues but it's far from clear. And then would they be owned by the club per se or by the holding company or the joint venture with the developers? And what guarantees would we (or the council come to that) have that these profits would go to the football club per se, rather than the private business that owns it? Because if there's not structural guarantee about this, it makes the club ripe for asset-stripping. Like I say, Rob, there's a hell of a lot of questions that still need answering and (we assume/hope) are questions the club would be able to answer when they present a detailed business case behind the proposals. These are just a few off the top of my head - there's plenty more to be asked - so it's a bit naive to say all the major questions have been answered, cos they haven't. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:07:42 » |
|
You get a response along the lines of something to keep it as a lesiure facility. However it's easy to say that now, but then the developers vultures begin to circle with their wads of cash then a big Ikea it is. Think that is even more lucrative than housing, but you can guess where recreation will be down the pecking order once the bids come in. Absolutely Rob, and you can almost hear the outraged squeals of the residents as they realise they've been stitched by the council failing to keep their promises again once the developers come sniffing. Have they learned nothing from Coate? (Rhetorical question: answer, no) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Online
Posts: 12323
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:10:32 » |
|
I thought the club said the whole development would end up being owned by the council?
The big financial question I see as being answered is that it could be done, not the details of how. For me we are still stuck at the the concept stage, let alone the details of how it would work.
Once that is out of the way, then you get into the business case, which is utlimately down to the Ltd company and Council to discuss what suits them. But if we are at that stage then we are saying a development can be made to work. We are still pretty much at exactly the same point we were 17 months or so ago when you guys got the Council to agree to the motion, albeit with a pretty picture and plenty of arguments filling the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:21:37 » |
|
Yep, fair comment. Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you were saying re questions having all been answered as there are still some very big questions to be answered, but as you say that would usually be done at the next stage. Unfortunately as someone said earlier in this thread the process has been somewhat ambushed by people trying to kill it off by seizing on every last bit of what are only intended as outline proposals. Makes you wonder which part of "outline" they didn't understand. :x
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McLovin
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:31:50 » |
|
I don't really keep up to speed with the plans and aims of the council, but i just remembered that the Oasis is going. Is there plans for a replacement? Do they not value community sport and leisure facilities, as this would be an ideal time to create an area to be proud of, be it at the CG or on a sexy bit of land somewhere nearby?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reeves4england
Offline
Posts: 16128
We'll never die!
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:39:07 » |
|
I don't really keep up to speed with the plans and aims of the council, but i just remembered that the Oasis is going. Is there plans for a replacement? Do they not value community sport and leisure facilities, as this would be an ideal time to create an area to be proud of, be it at the CG or on a sexy bit of land somewhere nearby? The Oasis is going? WHEN? I love that place! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Online
Posts: 12323
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:43:34 » |
|
I don't really keep up to speed with the plans and aims of the council, but i just remembered that the Oasis is going. Is there plans for a replacement? Do they not value community sport and leisure facilities, as this would be an ideal time to create an area to be proud of, be it at the CG or on a sexy bit of land somewhere nearby? Oasis is indeed earmarked for development - into housing I think - no current plans have been devised to replace it, just a task group I think to look at it! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McLovin
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:46:41 » |
|
Ah, right. That makes perfect sense really... lose leisure facility for housing, fail to replace said leisure facility. Perfect.
Council tax is going up again too, isn't it? Good to see we are continually getting improved services and stuff for each increase...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:49:38 » |
|
You've hit the nail on the head DB and probably the best bet for getting a redevelopment is to build an OASIS II at the CG and merge that in with the redev plans. Course that would mean a radical restructuring of the club's current proposals but if both parties (club and council) look at it as a serious scheme they're committed to make working, it could yet prove to be the way round the "asset transfer" issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RobertT
Online
Posts: 12323
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:49:51 » |
|
Ah, right. That makes perfect sense really... lose leisure facility for housing, fail to replace said leisure facility. Perfect.
Council tax is going up again too, isn't it? Good to see we are continually getting improved services and stuff for each increase... I don't know how anyone can possibly complain, I mean they put a toilet in next to The Mailcoach didn't they? what more can we want? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McLovin
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:51:38 » |
|
Ah, yes. A public toilet by the Mailcoach. Good to see someone in the planning committee has a sense of humour!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Piemonte
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Monday, February 6, 2006, 16:52:09 » |
|
Ah, right. That makes perfect sense really... lose leisure facility for housing, fail to replace said leisure facility. Perfect.
Council tax is going up again too, isn't it? Good to see we are continually getting improved services and stuff for each increase... I don't know how anyone can possibly complain, I mean they put a toilet in next to The Mailcoach didn't they? what more can we want? The've only put that there to appease the gay communities lack of cottaging facilites elsewhere. I'm sure they deem that as "leisure" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
