Thetownend.com

Been away for a while, so apologies if this has been debated, but looks like something that could stimulate thoughts.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10755613.Bid_to_protect_home_of_Swindon_Town_football/?ref=mr

Interesting. Can only be a good thing I reckon.

 I believe the Scum are one of the clubs with this in place...however their council have always been broadly supportive, often being Labour controlled or a coalition of Lib Lab and Green.  SBC have more or less always been obstructive and have a dismal record in recent years when largely under Tory control.

This should be a largely cost free exercise, so that might help.  Be interesting to see the official club line on this..in the measntime, a golden opportunity for the Trust to start looking to raise some funds by way of a future contingency plan.

When I open the link, the top of my Internet Explorer page reads

Bid to protect home of Swindon Town football (From Swindon Advertiser)

What are the Adver planning to do with the County Ground ?

Seeing as how the Adver have shunted much of their work, to Oxford, think you should be worried.

Good idea IMO!

Nice move by the Trust.

It's a nice thought, but Asset of Community Value status sadly means very little.

Just one example: campaigners trying to save the Tumbledown Dick, a historic local pub near me in Farnborough, were successful in having this status assigned to the building earlier this year.  And then the local council gave planning permission two weeks ago for large parts of it to be demolished - just keeping the facade -so that McDonald's can use it as a drive through 'restaurant'.  McDonald's will now have two drive through facilities within less than 1½ miles.

It seems that the designation means you get a 6 month window for the community to try and buy the thing. Of dourse it means little if there's no money for the purchase in the time frame.

I'm sure there are SBC councillors, who would be only too happy, to be able to claim expenses in order to facilitate MacD's getting another drive thru in Swindon

Couple of sites spring to mind.
The Mechanics Institute and the Locarno.

Obstructive to what exactly? You have to also take into account that a privately owned business all be it on council owned land has for large parts of the last 40 years owed the council (us tax payers) money and with less than 10,000 users of this privately owned business for twenty three weeks of the year. The lovely socialists councils have had an opportunity to be more benevolent than those nasty Tories to balance things out in a leftist BBC/Guardian kind of way.

Some pubs are worth losing.

 :D

So you're opposed to the community asset idea...fair play, I'm sure there are others on here, who'd also prefer to see a McD's or similar on the CG.  At least you were prepared to put your head above the parapet.

Don't believe I said I was opposed, in fact i could be a good idea but as others have commented on the agreement my not hold much clout, so comrade behave.

But with the Covenant on the ground it can only be used for sporting anyway as it stands, would it not have been the right thing for the Trust guys to speak to Jed & co before they went ahead with this and get them all on board as well or if not their reasoning for not wanting it, after all there is a need for a ground redevelopment at some point so maybe it was something that can be pushed into that as a part of it.

I may be talking bollards, but I wonder if its better not for the club to officially endorse this. Doing nothing can't upset the council :)

I thought the covenant was for recreational use, and that it was suggested that if the council was inclined they could put forward a good legal argument shopping is recreation (for 50% of the population). Not that they have said they will do this mind.

The ground and club should do all they can to protect it from any board we have and the council. Been shafted too many times. Anything that protects it for the long term is a good thing.

 Lib/Tory politicians are not to be trusted....look at this bit on proposed education policy...


Well stuff your initiative where the sun don't sign Mr/Ms/Mrs Lib Dem sauce...we don't want to be Manchester United.

Worthless. Or rather it has a financial worth but that's all it has - it is entirely in the power of the Goddard estate to vary or rip up the Covenant. So as soon as someone offers the Goddard estate a decent enough sum, that's it. It offers no protection against the ground being sold for flats etc whatsoever.

So in essence

1   asset of community status worthless?  check
2   restrictive covenant on land worthless (except to Goddard Estate)?  check

I think these two propositions may be accurate and they are helpful.

I do not think this means STFC and the Trust cannot bear significant influence.

Surely going for "asset of community value" status would help beyond pre-emption rights in establishing independently STFCs role in the community and help from a PR point of view?

Also (other better informed posters?)  ???what or who is "the Goddard Estate" - is it naked capitalism or is it a charitable trust - Even if the Goddard Estate and SBC hold the better cards, even though STFC have not been great tenants, there don't seem to have been better (sporting) tenants available than STFC and SBC and the Goddard Estate seem to have been pretty slack in cashing in on the planning gain they could have made for ratepayers and beneficiaries if turning the site into MacDs WW HQ were so easy.  Do they really have such a great hand?

One day I still hope the key will be found to develop the site, recreationally and commercially to the long term benefit of STFC especially as well as SBC, the Goddard Estate and, inevitably, any STFC holding company.

"Worthless" was probably a bit harsh re the sporting covenant. The point is though that it's entirely within the gift of the Goddard Estate to vary it, so long as their intentions remain benign, then it has some force. But the idea that a lot of people seem to have that it's some kind of rock-solid legal guarantee of protection isn't correct. Which may well be a good thing for the club if, for example, the club wanted to move to a new ground and fund it by using the County Ground for housing (although that wouldn't be a good thing for the club, IMO, so someone else probably needs to find a better example!)

But Asset of Community if I am correct only means that before it is sold there is an option for a community group (like the Trust) to purchase this should they come up with the money.

Isnt this better for clubs that own their ground to stop it being sold off by potentially dodgy owners before anyone knows about it ?

Agreed, whilst I don't see any great problem with this it does seem a little odd for the Trust to proceed with this without discussing it with the club, whats happened to the great co-operation etc?

Phil Brunnen ‏@stfcphil 24 Oct
@TrustSTFC  have any discussions taken place with the club ref ground becoming community facility ?

 TrustSTFC ‏@TrustSTFC 24 Oct
@stfcphil We've requested it, waiting for response, we'll have more on the current ground situation on the Trust website next week.

 Phil Brunnen ‏@stfcphil 24 Oct
@TrustSTFC wouldn't it have been the right thing to do to talk to the club before talking to the council ??

 TrustSTFC ‏@TrustSTFC 28 Oct
@stfcphil The Club don't own the ground. We've requested meeting with them and are awaiting response

 Phil Brunnen ‏@stfcphil 28 Oct
@TrustSTFC I know the club don't own the ground, I still believe a co-ordinated approach would be beneficial. Do you know what plans the

 TrustSTFC ‏@TrustSTFC 28 Oct
@stfcphil Will ask about Clubs plans for ground assuming we get meeting

 JedMcCoy ‏@JedMcCoy 28 Oct
@TrustSTFC @stfcphil Morning All unconventional way of asking but I have received no request but happy to meet to suit ...

 TrustSTFC ‏@TrustSTFC 3h
@JedMcCoy @stfcphil Thanks Jed,  Should The Trust contact Steve M to discuss potential times?
 
JedMcCoy
‏@JedMcCoy
@TrustSTFC @stfcphil no just let me no where and when Mark has sent emails to steve to arrange a meeting also inc the supporters group.

Why should the trust contact the club? They don't own the ground. would be a waste of time. The council will be the ones to determine if it becomes 'asset for the community' status.

Getting the current owners on board would be a positive step, but it makes much more sense to approach them once the Council are on side or at least aware of the idea.

(for full disclosure, I know quite a few of the Trust board but am not a member myself)

Very true but surely this would just have been common courtesy and might even improve relations in the long run?!

Simple common courtesy just seems slightly disingenuous to complain that the board are not being transparent then to proceed in this manner. But looks like communication lines are now open (and I thought Jed handled it very well) so really nothing to see here.

Sure they can find a way to asset strip round it anyway.  ;)

Yes it was very cloak and dagger how the Trust 'proceeded' what with putting a story in the Adver and everything.

As far as I know the Trust had asked the club for a meeting on this issue before the tweet that Jed replied to. Maybe this got lost somewhere along the line, by one or other party. Hardly the end of the world if this was the case, after all the owners have their hands full running the club and the Trust board (despite the attempts by some on here to present them as some kind of secret illuminati) are all busy Town fans with day jobs to deal with as well as Trust matters.

As a broader point, I don't think relations between the Club and the Trust are particularly poor, this isn't 2007, there is no need to pick 'sides'. What's happened here is the Trust, who I emphasise again are just a bunch of Town fans, spied an opportunity to offer some sort of safe guard for the future of our club. They happily found a sympathetic ear in Councillor Robbins and at this point told the 'Adver of the idea and approached the Club.

At some point that became muddled, but that, as I said above, was almost certainly simply a 'cock up' rather than conspiracy.

 I do feel that the Trust are damned if they do and damned if they don't with some of the posters on here.

I suspect what actually happened was that Cllr Robbins saw an opportunity for some positive political capital PR and hey presto it ended up in the Adver, I never suggested anything cloak and dagger was going on although i do like the idea of the Trust board being some manner of illuminati plotting to take over the western world (in orange hats).

To be honest the whole thing is something of token public gesture in my mind as lets be honest if someone is prepared to throw enough cash at the covenant to get rid don't for one minute think a similar approach will not be taken to remove any other status, as with so much of the localism agenda pushed by this government it is very much grand public statements to protect communities with very little legal substance to back it up.

" just seems slightly disingenuous to complain that the board are not being transparent then to proceed in this manner."

Seemed to be suggesting that you felt the whole thing wasn't entirely above board.