Thetownend.com

Di Canio praises Spencer role
           
           


  PAOLO Di Canio has praised Phil Spencer for his efforts in finding a new buyer for the club, insisting his agent “cares about the causeâ€�.

           

http://www.thisisswindontownfc.co.uk/news/headlines/10187271.Di_Canio_praises_Spencer_role/?ref=rss
           
           
           

What do the following have in common?

Insurance companies, mobile phone networks, banks, debt collectors, utilities providers, solicitors and football agents.

Is your spacebarbroken Sam?

[url width=240 height=169]http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm292/CARPHEAD/FRANKSPENCER.jpg[/url]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How ironic that he wrote another piece entititled "Speed over accuracy is the curse of modern journalism" or should that be "Speedoveraccur acyisthe curseofmod ernjournalism"?

Edit: Looks like it's OK now.

You're getting confused. That's Frank. This is Phil...

[url width=200 height=284]http://www.maintainyourbuilding.org.uk/data/images/toptips/phil_spencer_v2.jpg[/url]

:)

Eh? Whatchoo talking about Willis?

He fixed that quickly!

MorningSam ;)

It seems to have sorted itself out now. The spacing wasa llove rthepalce...a bit like that.

Oh, OK. More likely to have been an error in transferring the piece to the website than errors in the original dontcha think?

Just let me enjoy my little bit of irony on a Saturday morning will you? It's all I have with no game today ::)

My missus always does the irony-ing on a Saturday morning too :)

I imagine Spencer has made a pretty penny out of PdC's time here... still not completely comfortable with him.

Me neither. We also don't know how much Patey will earn

All joking apart, neither am I. Who's Parry?

It's who my phone thinks is Patey

:D

I thought it had been reported that Parry was on a salary of 60k?

Agents.....seen as nastyness to most but it has been said that it was Spencer who persuaded Paolo to come to Swindon so if that is true then we have to show a little gratutude.

I am a little worried that the new owners maybe a mix of people who want and think they can do a job here but have very little capital to offer...if any.
I am hoping that the next owners has money and ambition...we need to swim ahead to the Championship...and not tread water.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record on this (so sorry in advance), but I'm going to be highly suspicious of any new ownership that does not have a clear intention to either redevelop or relocate.  (And personally, I have a preference for the former.)  No ground plans, for me, will smack of wanting to tread water (best case) or something worse.  Because the ground is now the elephant in the room.  You can't go on ignoring it much longer...and the Club's longer term prospects depend on bringing the stadium in to this century.

The TE was built closer to the 19th Century, than the 21st....I'm glad to see you've opted for a bit of perspective on matters, rather than the  :clap: of many on here.

It is difficult though to see how a redevelopment/relocate might be funded, without a very rich benefactor, and we've just been through some of these with nothing happening.

agree. The future of stfc has to be the no1 concern. Not convinced that will be the case for Spencer.

The thing is Reg, I imagine that every single one of has has concerns similar to Ardiles'. What we aren't doing though is acting as though our worst fears have already been confirmed, because they haven't. Not even close.

There has been no authoritative explanation of what has been going on in the boardroom (as opposed to reasoned theories) and so it is with our future. 

Surprisingly, given the quality of the board members, I do find the way the sale is being handled to have become unprofessional and Patey to be lacking in PR skills (strangely for a diplomat).

No more hints about Sheikh Wiki Waleed, shame.

How so?

I think Patey's use of the A word was naive in the extreme and helped send out a fire sale message whereas the broadening of the investment base with an opportunity for control at the beginning of the season was a much more balanced line which invited little adverse speculation.

unless you meant "how so" to the quality of the board members? ;)

I would like to think that ground development would be a priority. In order for this club to be sustainable it needs to generate extra income and it could do this through the development. As the existing owners hav found they have had to shoulder most of the financial burden. Just getting promotion alone is not enough we need to build something for the future.

I think everybody knows this...but the question remains, how can it be financed? The Board ( effectively now the ex Board), had a look at the sort of things, that might be included as an income driver and seemingly drew a blank.

I'm no fan of Patey (I don't think as fans we were ever expected to be) however how has he used the "a" word unprofessionally? I've only heard him respond when asked following Chris Wise's scaremongering article. When he did answer it was neither in the positive or negative - which I should imagine was fair enough a week ago when in early discussions on any potential takeover.

We don't know what they've drawn because they haven't said Reg.

I think the future of the club is away from the County Ground. I think SBC are unwilling to act in an adult manner when it comes to discussions over the CG.

I expect the council are being characteristically short-sighted and have no care for the club, but want the county ground to continue to provide them with income on their terms.

If that is the case, then we need to move away and let the council kill that golden goose and have to deal with another white elephant of their doing.

I've said so before and I'll say it again, I think the council are the stumbling block regarding the redevelopment. Even if we move to another site, the council still have to agree with the plans.

Not convinced its all the councils fault. I think club owners and prospective ones hope to redevelop the surrounding area of the county ground, as this would be the way to make money.  Maybe the council won't allow that?

That's true. I suppose they are able to hold the club to ransom, either by CG rents or refusing a new site on any grounds that take their fancy. Rock and a hard place.

Yeah, sort of the way planning permission works unfortunately (well for us anyway).

So surely that's the council's fault, no?

Which is why the previous owners said it would be easier to build a new ground in Chippenham or somewhere else outside of SBC control.

http://www.swindon.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=43041

Having been involved in such discussions with the Council (albeit 5 or so years ago) I can tell you that's not the case. If anything the council regard the club as nightmare tenants and would gladly get rid. But they can't just give the land away, they have legal obligations to demonstrate they have achieved best value for the council tax payer

5 years ago we had different owners. Did they see them as nightmare tenants or the club itself?

Both. Obviously Wills/Diamandis were a complete nightmare, but even under decent owners from the council's point of view they're always only ever going to be one change of ownership away from having the cowboys back in town. And this council has shown itself more than happy to sell off assets (e.g Oasis etc). There's no lack of willingness there. Whether a deal can be done on terms that fulfill the council's legal obligations and are still commercially viable for the club in these economic times is another matter

Be interested to know more about the sporting use covenant....assuming speedway or school kids sports aren't better bets for income than STFC, I would have guessed that there is a negotiable situation where STFC's owners and SBC could sort something out, in conjunction with developers.

I may be entirely wrong (I have never lived in the Town) but posts here seem to indicate a long-term, deep seated timidity and lack of imagination on the part of SBC in how to develop the town centre as a whole including the potential for the CG site to be part of any such plan

Paul, are they allowed to sell the CG land though? Isn't there something somewhere (I'm sure I recall something about caveats meaning it alwys has to be a sports venue) which prohibits such a thing?


Well, that's failry reassuring and understandable. Although I'm guessing that due to the location the land price is too prohibitive for it to be viable as a football stadium. Although if SBC continue down their path of turning the town centre into a ghost town, maybe the land will soon be cheaper.

Ah the old Goddard Estate covenant. It does, but it can be varied/lift provided the trustees of the estate agree. Which they will do if sufficient folding is shoved their way. It's never been seen as a blocker or an especially viable protection (as it was intended to be)
No, again that's not really the case (or it wasn't). The problem with Diamond Mike's "Give us the whole CG area for free and let us turn it into a housing estate" scheme was that then the council would have to value the land at the commercial rate for land to be developed for housing which at the time was c£25m. Whereas DM thought the figure should be rather more like £0, leaving a tidy profit. Except, as everyone kept trying to tell him, the council couldn't do that, it was unlawful. Whereas if the land stays as sporting/leisure use, that has a considerably lower value and so, the council could sell the footprint of the stadium for (e.g.) £2m. I suspect the stumbling block is the desire to have enabling/linked development on the surrounding land and so then the problem of whether the Athletics and Cricket Clubs wish to move, if they do (or could be persuaded to) where they can go to, how much (in terms of hard cash or paying for developing their new site) they want for it to be worth their while to move them etc etc. Oh, and ensuring you maintain an acceptable level of open/green space in Central area, while you're at it.

Then there's the probably rather more salient point that the arse has fallen out of the development market since then so probably the main issue is finding a developer willing to underwrite the whole shebang at all. 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

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.

As I said its just my theory and probably well wide of the mark.

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
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)

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.....   

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....

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.

Wherever we bought land the council would hav to approve whatever we had planned and I'd imagine they would flatly refuse. Why grant planning permission for something that is going to result in a loss of income for the tax payer. That's why so many clubs that hav done this have moved outside the council boundaries.  Our best chance is to work with the council , they would be open to anything that made the club more sustainable and increase revenues both for the club and the council. What is needed is a long term lease.

You'd imagine wrongly then, all planning apps have to be treated on their merits, according to the planning guidelines.

Just like the Honda wind turbines then. The planning comitee gave its approval and the council refused it. Yes they are all taken on an individual basis but the vision of us owning our own stadium within this councils boundaries are pie in the sky.

[url width=250 height=306]http://blog.acornonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Pie-in-the-Sky-Series-3-no3.jpg[/url]