Thetownend.com

......I've alluded to this before, but no one seemed to want to comment....but this is the council vision to be sorted over the next 5 years.....no mention of CG revelopment or new cricket or athletics facility.....there are 2 pledges on  sport.....

 32) We will revitalise our sports and leisure facilities and bring forward plans to replace or modernise the Oasis and Link centre.

33) We will introduce a Sports Council in 2006 to establish Swindon as a
centre of sports excellence..... :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

 Can anyone interpret those as acommitment to STFC?

Proof again that the council has no real plan or vision, just a load of propaganda to keep the public happy. The council aren't going to do any of those things either. It is of my opinion that the council has been so poorly run in the past, that it is costing the public in the future.

Please excuse my ignorance but why would the Tory 50 pledges be relevant to a Labour council?

(I really have no clue as to the running of local Government :oops: )

 The Borough Council is presently being run by the Tories as the party with most Councillors.....so its up to them to provide leadership.

I don't think it's possible to intepret them as a commitment to STFC.
Assuming the sports council are a body set up independent of the council and are designed to assess the sporting needs of the town and advise the council on the collective opinion of local interests for future planning of sports facilities then I can only see it as a positive step by th council.

I fear they would be pre-occupied with building new swimming pools rather than the regeneration of an ailing football club. However if proposals similar to the sports villige (associated with the shaw tip plan) could be incorporated into the County Ground re-generation then i'm sure they would support the planning applications and possibly make positive recommendations to the council.

I don't think the coucil (whoever has run it) has ever held any interest of STFC as a community benefit. Sporting wise Swindon is atrocious. The football club is the one of the few full-time professional sports club in the town. Furthermore, the town has no concert facilities, no indoor arena (another reason why we don't have a top Ice Hockey club), a shit central library etc. etc..

It's farcical to think that the council would go out of their way to get rid of the football club, but that's what they are doing.

  I think you're right....its not a deliberate conspiracy, but rather a failure of leadership and collective lack of vision......you'd have thought Justin Tomlinson would have wanted at least a nod in teh direction of club.....even if left very open ended.

The 50 promises are all things that the Council can action.

In the case of the County Ground redevelopment, we cannot action an application, only the club can.

Therefore we cannot promise they will make an application by 2010, hence why it is not in our 50 promises.

HOWEVER, I very much hope they put something in, we (the Council) have been doing all we can to help them in the process.  This has been repeatadly acknowledge by the club in the programmes, on the radio and in the local media.

Oi tommo, all I can say is STFC - RIP, Cheers for 'saving us'

Re JT's post

:Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  classic......

At the end of the day, the two bodies have always existed in a state of apathy towards each other.

The club has moaned for years about having to pay rent on the land (and despite what you may believe, the amount the club pays is perfectly reasonable considering the size of the land we lease).

Likewise, the Council have never show much interest in getting involved with the club apart from promotion campaigns and when a sniff of some cash coming in is on the cards (ground developments).

Why should things be any different all of a sudden?

The club should do much more to place themselves as a valuable asset to the community, not just the fans.

The Council should be pressured, via local people & business, to do more to promote the existence of a football club in this town.  I'm not suggesting they splash cash on us, but this development could have been an ideal opportunity to work in partnership to get a decent ground with local service provision as well.

Your posts are normally reasonable.....the rent the club pay is extortionate the what is provided by the Council in return.....and nothing really to do with the size of the land.....does the cricket club, pay more its got a bigger piece.

 The club does in fact participate in a number of schemes through Football in the Community, also soccer centres and in conjuncction with the Study Centre, which are used by hundreds of local school age kids. There are a lot of links with the council at this level.

 I'm sure when Major Goddard put the land over to the Council to administer for the benefit of sport in the Town....he did  so expecting the Council to be  a benevolent landlord.

Hence why we have never considered developing on it before, because it was always an unlikely prospect (but I suppose the Front Garden being up for development has made all sites now possible).

The rent is based on SQ footage (which is normally based on the buildings as opposed to the plot, although that is also possible).

250k as I understand for annual leasehold.  Given that the old Charlie Brown building next to Tesco is available for £168,750 PA, that would seem reasonable to me.  please correct me if I am wrong :wink:

Aye but CB has a building that can be used, with parking facilities. A lot of businesses could operate out of that building. There's not many businesses in Swindon that could use the County Ground is there?

But a commercial building charges that kind of rent because a developer or company has invested into the land, and buildings.....and so seeks a profitable return. It may even provide some services as part of its rent

   SBC was given the land, with a covenent on use....and hasn't invested in the buildings (outside of the Arkell's stand ) as a gesture after the LC win....and provides no services.....as an organisation charged with serving the people of the Borough...is it so doing by forcing the FC to the edge of bankruptcy

Absolutely no reason why we couldn't sub let parts of the buildings?  Which is what we are trying to do with the redevlopment to some extent.  The club Superstore for example could easily command a rent of £20k per year (whether someone would take it is another question), based on the going rates for Swindon.  Maybe we could offer KFC a spot given their recent defeat for planning permission elsewhere in the Town.

250k is quite a low yield per sq ft based on the land size, I would guess (as I don't have the actual per sq meter or sq ft charges to hand).

Anyone know the size of the plot by the way?  Either the CG or the Shaw developments proposed size?

Are we allowed to sub let? It wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway

Depends on the term of the lease, normally it wouldn't be a problem but I guess the Covenant may have an impact.  Part the redevelopment proposal seemed to depend on this being a sourc of future income, but whether that includes current buildings or not I don't know.

I know the point you were making, hence my bit about the yield per sq meter.  The CB site is very small in comparison, so allowing for the difference in likely tenants, I'd still say we aren't that badly done by.  I'd hazard a guess at 15000 sq metres, which works out at £16.67 per sq metre, compared to £150 to £200 for normal commercial rent.

Reg, I know where you are coming from, the argument I suppose is that the Council may see us as a business and not some local gathering like the Cricket Club and Athletics Club.  They can then legitimise charging us more in rent as we are supposed to be out for profit (!!!!!!!) as a business with shareholders.  You, as many others will also (including me), view the Club as something more than that, as something of a Community service.  Problem is that 150000 or so of the local's don't!

 There used to be a betting shop on the corner of the Arkell's I would have thought  it was sub let.....for a while we were the only club with such a facility.

 Has anybody asked them.....most of these people have arrived recently on the scene, whereas the FC has been at the CG for a hundred years +.....in that time making a hugely significant contribution to the life and culture of the town, through wars and economic depression.

 I'm sure if it was explained most peoplle would accept a small pro football club is not an essentially commercial venture.

Here's an idea.

The Council has long held the idea of demolishing one or both of the Link/Oasis and creating a new an improved Leisure centre for the town.

As the current owners of all 3 sites (inc CG), would have not been within their powers to have pushed for a Community Ground and moved the Leisure Centre onto the Cricket Ground land & track.  Combined with a small amount of commercial development for the club, sufficient to meet our goals from the CG redevelopment proposal as it stand.

The Council then has 2 large plots of land they could sell to developers, both in sought after locations for business and housing (the funding for the development).

Council meets targets for Brownfield redevelopment, gets a new leisure centre, helps the club out, creates housing to meet it's plan.  The devil would just be in the detail for how the club could get sufficient income out of the deal, but a new rent agreement or 100% discount would be possible.

Far too sensible......

It would be unlikely the Council would support losing The Link, though there is the potential for a new 'Oasis' in the future, as the current Oasis site is part of the proposed Town Centre redevelopment.  The main problem is, the 'club' will be wanting a large amount of development to make money, of which some will be used to redevelop the ground.  If an 'Oasis' was placed there, it would leave very little (if any) ground for development.

 Yeah....but what hapened to the previous post about finding out how much the cricket club pays.....I shall await with interest.

On a personal level, I think the principle of an Oasis, combined with a stadium would be great.

In theory this could be used to upgrade the stadium, with the facilities within.  (We need a way to find a way for multi-use for the pitch)

The one downside for the club would be this scheme would replace development, which means they couldn't make a short term profit, not a problem for the club, but perhaps a problem for some of the people involved?

Interesting this.  I always presumed strength of feeling for the club was positive, in my mind the benefits for the town are great, and far beyond football on a Saturday - however, Council surveys, Shaw Forest, Council letters etc etc... always seem to suggest otherwise.

When I have met with the club, and the Supporters Trust I have always emphasised that more should be down to promote the club.  In fact this is one of the main reasons why I have pushed for a fan to be on the board, as they could use local knowledge to lead and focus on this very issue.

I then realised RTaylor had answered the question - ie the commercial activities.

Whatever....but in fact you said you'd look into how much the cricket club pays for its patch relative to the football club for its smaller patch.

Ok, I will try and find out.

reg i dont want to start a argument but this poor fucking bloke has answered nearly every question he can. give the bloke some leway here, me for one have found out some interesting facts since jt decided to do this thread you probably knew most of them anyway but im not as in the know as you are when it comes to the politics side of things. i dont see no one else on here trying to answer these questions so come on reg play nice ,,,,please :D  :D

Deano I could start an argument in an empty room......the thread was startd by me, about the Tory's commitment to STFC and whether their 50 pledges suggest as much.

 Now JT is a big player in this group..... losing candidate at the last election. Has he answered the question......does the 50 pledges suggest the Tory group is commited to a CG redevelopment?

Reg, I admire your resolve to bemoan the Council at every turn (FWIW, my own feelings towards the Council are not generally positive).

But to offer a flip side, related to my off the cuff proposal earlier, how much has the club done to investigate a joint partnership with the Council or to look at financial arrangements?  My guess is little more than badgering them to let them develop the land and complaining for about 10 years on the rent issue.  Most of the clubs financial mess is down to the people running it over that period (and even going back to the late 70's)

I have never heard any noises, from either side, about creating a Community ground.  And until that happens, why would either side look to help the other?

jt answer the bloody question please then its over :D  :D

Reg - I have an answer for you!

As the cricket club is not a commercial club (ie with a bar, club shop etc), nor is it actually their land, they don't pay rates like the club does.

One advantage of the County Ground scheme could be that we are able to move the cricket pitch to a new location which will allow us to provide the extra 1 metre so they can move upto County level.  Seems silly, but at the moment due to fire access, we cant squeeze the extra 1 metre onto the site!

 Fuck me I got pissed in  a cricket club without a bar back in the autumn.

 So in other words they pay bugger all for using a sporting facility provided by the Council, and the FC  pays big bucks.....because its the peoples' sport, and can therefore be screwed.