Tory 50 pledges for the Council.....

[RobertT]

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?

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).

[RobertT]

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

[Simon Pieman]

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

[RobertT]

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!

[Reg Smeeton]

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

 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.

[Reg Smeeton]

Problem is that 150000 or so of the local's don't

 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.

[RobertT]

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.

[Reg Smeeton]

Far too sensible......

[JTomlinson]

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.

[Reg Smeeton]

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.

[JTomlinson]

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?

[JTomlinson]

Problem is that 150000 or so of the local's don't

 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.

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.

[JTomlinson]

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.

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

[Reg Smeeton]

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.

[JTomlinson]

Ok, I will try and find out.