Adver News: Di Canio praises Spencer role

[pauld]

My theory of why Black wants out is because there is no chance of redevelopment and therefore he will constantly be throwing his own money into a black hole. In the eyes of Swindon fans, Black and co are/were dream owners. They were obviously doing their best to boost the club in stature and position, which can only be good for the Town as a result. If the council consider them Black & co to be a nightmare also, then STFC don't really stand a chance.

You've completely missed the point. It's not that Black and Co are a nightmare, it's as I said in the bit you actually highlighted

they're always only ever going to be one change of ownership away from having the cowboys back in town

i.e. "OK so this lot are fine and actually pay their rent but what happens when they sell up to BEST/Diamond Holdings/etc etc?" then the council are back to square one - chasing debts from a tenant they can't enforce because they realistically cannot use their ultimate weapon for non-paying tenants (eviction) and any other pressure they apply is a political nightmare with half the town saying "Fuck em, they're no different from anyone else, pay up or kick em out" and half the town doing special pleading because it's our football club. Something successive previous boards knew full well and exploited to the full.

Oh and FWIW, I think your theory of why Black wants out is wrong too - as I've said repeatedly elsewhere I think it's no more complex than that he got into this with his mates, they've now fallen out and it's just not fun any more. That simple. Yes, he'll be losing money, but he always was and I don't think he ever expected it to be otherwise tbh (although I suspect he's been a little alarmed at the rate of loss and hence possibly at least part of the reason for the fallings out)

[nochee]

Fair enough, what I was trying to say was that if Black and co are great tenants and are given the go ahead (council take the risk) then STFC gets the boost it needs and the system works. Our football club can generate cash to fund the club, give the owners a business that works and the council are kept happy.

It's all about the risk I suppose. If the council won't take it then we are stuck in the same position as we always have been

[RedRag]

Ah the old Goddard Estate covenant. It does, but it can be varied/lift provided the trustees of the estate agree. ... I've no doubt the council are a pain in the arse, but I suspect they're a very minor stumbling block in the whole jigsaw if at all

Your explanation re Diamond Mike's laughable take on the situation that 100% of the profit on CG site redevelopment should be for the benefit of STFC (or more particularly whoever bought the club) is sort of funny.

I also take the point that now may not be a good time for development (but when it does again become a good time for development, the Goddard estate's position on any variation of the covenant will become stronger - at the financial expense of SBC - as well as STFC if it is still involved).

I would still expect there to be scope for perfectly achievable proposals to redevelop the STFC site.  Is it not the case that SBC sits watching the town's decline, like a rabbit caught in headlights, too timid to invest whilst commercial and residential rate payers are attracted elsewhere?

[LittleRed]

I would imagine the council may hav had some discussions with the club very recently as the rates are up for renewal. Surely the new owners would like an idea of how much they were going to be paying and also if a long term lease can be obtained then its much more likely that the new owners would invest in development. I think surely its in the councils interest that the club do well but they have to strike a balance with representing the tax payer. I would also take the county ground being owned by the council than a kassam character. He proper screws them over. The bloke's a legend in my eyes. I think we will be able to gauge the intentions of the new board by seeing their plans for redevelopment. If its short term gain then no development, if its long term with a view to taking a profit then it's ground development that will happen.

[pauld]

Fair enough, what I was trying to say was that if Black and co are great tenants and are given the go ahead (council take the risk) then STFC gets the boost it needs and the system works. Our football club can generate cash to fund the club, give the owners a business that works and the council are kept happy.

It's all about the risk I suppose. If the council won't take it then we are stuck in the same position as we always have been

Again, I think you've got it backwards. There's no risk for the council in selling the ground to the club/owners. The risk for the council is in NOT selling and keeping a potentially unreliable tenant.

More generally, I think most of the concern on here is also backwards - people are so keen to go "Yah boo sucks" at the council for being sticks in the mud that they're missing the (to us) far bigger risk. We need the council to be a bit LESS keen to dispose of the CG, that way they'd be more inclined to ensure any deal was in the wider interests of the club and the town not just in the interests of whoever ends up as owners of the club. As it is, I think by far the bigger worry is that they will be more than happy to sell to whoever can show them the money and so long as they can demonstrate reasonable value for the land deal itself, wash their hands of the club and all it's works. As all too often in these things, be VERY careful what you wish for.

[pauld]

  Is it not the case that SBC sits watching the town's decline, like a rabbit caught in headlights, too timid to invest whilst commercial and residential rate payers are attracted elsewhere?

Yes, that's a very good summation of the council's general approach to development - not enough balls to do the right development, all too keen to bulldoze through exactly the wrong kind of development. However, I'm not sure what role you think the council might play in a CG redevelopment, other than as a planning authority obviously?

[RedRag]

Not a Swindonian, so no real ideas but I had in mind the Council's combined roles of Landlord and planning authority.

Goddard Estate - powerless unless requirement to remove (or ideally just vary) covenant
SBC

[pauld]

Not a Swindonian, so no real ideas but I had in mind the Council's combined roles of Landlord and planning authority.

Fair enough, see where you're coming from. In practice, I think the dual roles hamstring them as much as enable them (as they end up with their hands tied by regulatory/legal requirements, concerns over conflict of interest etc). Although I see the point that a council with a bit more drive/vision would find a way of turning this to a positive. Sadly in Swindon we've seen what happens when they act with drive/vision - we end up with Rikki Hunt's WiFiasco and the Croft "Look no Scrutiny" School-in-a-box. Think they're (and we're) probably better off steering clear

[Bumpkin]

Great insights from Pauld.  Hope he's in with the new consortium?

[Oaksey Moonraker]

I believe the way forward is a partnership between the club and SBC with the club taking a 50% share of the CG and SBC providing the site for the club to redevelop. Clubs such as Swansea and Huddersfield have done similar arrangements, although with their local rugby teams involved. A 50/50 ownership would protect the people of Swindon from a Kassam situation where the ownership of the ground is moved away from the club. The council benefits from an improved facility that benefits the people of Swindon.

Until the club has some ownership of the CG either the freehold or long term I.e 100 year lease can redevelopment be funded. This gives potential club investors a tangible asset to finance/borrow to pay for building new stands. Will need some form of conference facilities, hotel or concert venue to provide an income to repay borrowings or provide a return for investors throwing in the cash to fund.

If the potential investment in buying and funding reinvestment will generate sufficient return over the risk of taking on this project then someone will do it. Would suggest that reaching and sustaining Championship football will help.

[[email protected]]

Didn't the club announce that they were lose to agreeing something like a 99 year lease with the council which would enable them to somehow turn the ground (not the land) into a capital asset, which would make the balance sheet look a bit healthier and in turn make redevelopment more financially viable?

[fatbasher]

Very Insightful Pauld.

As you put it (as i read it that is) the council are caught between a rock and a hard place. However, these part-time politico's are paid to represent the citizens of the borough and that means making hard choices. No-one said being in local politics was easy, if it was we'd all be up for election and don't forget they have some very clever, astute lawyers and advisors for everything that the council have to end up doing.

That said, I think we the fans should be asking questions of everyone who ulimately will make the deal happen in whatever way that my be, but from a different angle. eg not as a fan as we all do but as a new investor, current investor and the council.

So I'll start with these.

As a potential investor/s what am I looking to gain out of this deal? How much is it going to actually cost me? How quickly will I see a return on my investment? Clearly there are a miriad of questions to answer, but you should then start to get a flavour of what everyone is up against WRT their own interests.

From a SBC perspective. What do we really want from the CG? Do we want ownership of the land or do we want to sell lock stock and barrel? Do we want to be landlords and offer a lease? Do we want to be part owners of a new company with the new inverstor/s.... and so it goes on

I suppose as a fan if you had the money and lord knows how much that would be, what would you want to do? So lets assume you max out on the euro millions rollovers and are the lucky recipient of around £170m as the only winner.....   

[horlock07]

Fair enough, see where you're coming from. In practice, I think the dual roles hamstring them as much as enable them (as they end up with their hands tied by regulatory/legal requirements, concerns over conflict of interest etc). Although I see the point that a council with a bit more drive/vision would find a way of turning this to a positive. Sadly in Swindon we've seen what happens when they act with drive/vision - we end up with Rikki Hunt's WiFiasco and the Croft "Look no Scrutiny" School-in-a-box. Think they're (and we're) probably better off steering clear

I am involved in 2-3 projects at the moment where the Council is both landowner and planning authority, its not a rare position and as they are careful to ensure decisions are taken in accordance with development plan etc (I won't bore with details) it's not a difficult process.

The issue of the tenure is key in terms of both securing the clubs investment and obtaining bank funding to do the job, 100 years provides much greater opportunity.

Taking account of the shysters they have been required to deal with previously I don't blame the Council in being a little circumspect, I imagine they have wanted some assurances before entertaining proposals. Also worth bearing in mind that I suspect not much has happened since Mr Black decided to sell up!

Finally their period of ownership has coincided with a stagnated property market, with funding difficult to come by - no wonder its been awkward....

[Ardiles]

Thanks for the insight, fellas.  Tricky situation, as we all know.  But as mentioned above, I'd sooner the Club was reliant on the local council than a Kassam-style 3rd party landlord.  (No surprise that Oxford fans are pinning their hopes that, with help from London Welsh, they may be able to put a deal together to buy Kassam out.  Theirs is not a happy situation.)

One factor that may play in our favour during potential negotiations with the council is that the council also has a vested interest in something decent happening to the site.  The town centre has been in a slow decline for decades - and while the County Ground site is more inner suburb than town centre, it's central enough that the regeneration benefits could spread.  The council needs a good news story to tell in that area.  The Club could hand that to them on a plate.  Certainly scope to cut a deal that could be sold to the local electorate as 'good for the town'.

[Reg Smeeton]

Thanks for the insight, fellas.  Tricky situation, as we all know.  But as mentioned above, I'd sooner the Club was reliant on the local council than a Kassam-style 3rd party landlord.  (No surprise that Oxford fans are pinning their hopes that, with help from London Welsh, they may be able to put a deal together to buy Kassam out.  Theirs is not a happy situation.)

One factor that may play in our favour during potential negotiations with the council is that the council also has a vested interest in something decent happening to the site.  The town centre has been in a slow decline for decades - and while the County Ground site is more inner suburb than town centre, it's central enough that the regeneration benefits could spread.  The council needs a good news story to tell in that area.  The Club could hand that to them on a plate.  Certainly scope to cut a deal that could be sold to the local electorate as 'good for the town'.

If someone came along with a sack of cash and the intention, they could buy the CG and build a new ground easily enough. Similarly if someone wanted to build a new facility elsewhere, had the cash, it could be done.

However, as long as the the owners wish to work out a "deal" with SBC...nothing will happen.