Adver News: Di Canio praises Spencer role

[Paolo69]

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.

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

[Barry Scott]

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.

[nochee]

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.

[Arriba]

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?

[Barry Scott]

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.

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.

[Paolo69]

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.

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

[Barry Scott]

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?

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

[Peter Venkman]

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.

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

[pauld]

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.

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

[nochee]

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?

[pauld]

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

[RedRag]

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

[Barry Scott]

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?

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

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.

[pauld]

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?

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)

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.

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

[nochee]

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

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.