Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 17   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: 'Chang - not funny' - Adver  (Read 80453 times)
dalumpimunki

Offline Offline

Posts: 1075





Ignore
« Reply #45 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 13:38:19 »

I think we own the DR as it wasn't built when we sold the ground to the BC, and the club paid for it to be constructed from the monies we made from our one season in the PL and selling the likes of Summerbee and Moncur following relegation. I'm sure it's been listed as an asset on balance sheets in the past. Not sure about the rest of the ground, but regardless I'm sure the lease would have been on a full repair basis.

However, all that is pretty irrelevant as we all know that currently there is no lease. That ran out a year or more ago, and we've been working on a bit of an ad hoc basis month by month ever since. Presumably the club have been trying to initiate discussions on the issue of the state of the ground and agreeing a new lease and have been deliberately withholding rental payments to "incentivise the prioritisation" of such discussions.

I'm not remotely concerned we're in any danger of being evicted or even getting to court. This is not a cash flow issue. Like the policing bill business this is simply part of a commercial negotiation.
Logged

..never go back.
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #46 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 14:24:52 »

I think we own the DR as it wasn't built when we sold the ground to the BC, and the club paid for it to be constructed from the monies we made from our one season in the PL and selling the likes of Summerbee and Moncur following relegation. I'm sure it's been listed as an asset on balance sheets in the past. Not sure about the rest of the ground, but regardless I'm sure the lease would have been on a full repair basis.

However, all that is pretty irrelevant as we all know that currently there is no lease. That ran out a year or more ago, and we've been working on a bit of an ad hoc basis month by month ever since. Presumably the club have been trying to initiate discussions on the issue of the state of the ground and agreeing a new lease and have been deliberately withholding rental payments to "incentivise the prioritisation" of such discussions.

I'm not remotely concerned we're in any danger of being evicted or even getting to court. This is not a cash flow issue. Like the policing bill business this is simply part of a commercial negotiation.

No idea what you're on about here.

The second bit has some merit though.
Logged
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel

Offline Offline

Posts: 27137





Ignore
« Reply #47 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 14:58:12 »

However, all that is pretty irrelevant as we all know that currently there is no lease. That ran out a year or more ago, and we've been working on a bit of an ad hoc basis month by month ever since. Presumably the club have been trying to initiate discussions on the issue of the state of the ground and agreeing a new lease and have been deliberately withholding rental payments to "incentivise the prioritisation" of such discussions.

I'm not remotely concerned we're in any danger of being evicted or even getting to court. This is not a cash flow issue. Like the policing bill business this is simply part of a commercial negotiation.

I hate it when I agree with you.
Logged
manc_red

Offline Offline

Posts: 349





Ignore
« Reply #48 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 15:20:40 »

 Just like home owners don't own the ground under their houses.

They do. The basic principle of freehold ownership is that you own "everything from the heavens to the centre of the earth", which includes any minerals under the land and mining rights etc (vaguely recall there being a Latin maxim but fucked if I can remember it). There may be statutes that give others or the crown certain *rights* over parts of the land for specific purposes, but that doesn't change the fact of *ownership*.

No idea what the position would be regards the CG though. Suspect its more complicated than that.
Logged
RobertT

Offline Offline

Posts: 11649




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 15:32:59 »

No idea what you're on about here.

The second bit has some merit though.

My understanding from previous accounts that were published is that the DR stand is an asset of the club as it is one of the few things debts have been secured against (the lease and the lawnmower being others!).  It was a modular design to allow it to be easily dismantled if ever needed or changed in future developments.  The other stands never appear in the accounts from memory which would suggest non ownership and entirely part of the leasehold.

The rent is a % of turnover deal, so if we do well the council benefits, but if we get less revenue we pay less rent.

Seems like reasonable negotiations.

Think the Council are keen to deflect a series of recent poor publicity for themselves and prepare the way for the cuts they will be putting in place with various central government grants drying up.  Some stats on Council Tax "Dodgers" will no doubt surface in the New Year.
Logged
Flashheart

« Reply #50 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 15:57:50 »

Quote
BBC Wiltshire Sport ‏@BBCWiltsSport  36s37 seconds ago
FOOTBALL: In response to @Official_STFC's earlier statement http://tinyurl.com/prca8g4  SBC says #stfc is responsible for maintenance of the CG
Logged
kerry red

« Reply #51 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:01:47 »

If that is the case then the club must own the entire infrastructure of the CG.

If the council, as landlord, owned it they would be responsible for its upkeep
Logged
Flashheart

« Reply #52 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:10:30 »

As you were. Just wanted to nip another political thread hijacking in the bud.  Smiley
Logged
Levi lapper

« Reply #53 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:33:31 »

Yeah because councils are nothing to do with politics right
Logged
Flashheart

« Reply #54 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:36:40 »

Umm, not in this case. No.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #55 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 16:44:05 »

Yeah because councils are nothing to do with politics right

The point I was trying to make is that ownership when it involves political expediency, may not be what people assume to be the case...however this place is now more Don Heath than Don Rogers, so censorship is to be expected.
Logged
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 19:22:36 »

If that is the case then the club must own the entire infrastructure of the CG.

If the council, as landlord, owned it they would be responsible for its upkeep


My understanding from previous accounts that were published is that the DR stand is an asset of the club as it is one of the few things debts have been secured against (the lease and the lawnmower being others!).  It was a modular design to allow it to be easily dismantled if ever needed or changed in future developments.  The other stands never appear in the accounts from memory which would suggest non ownership and entirely part of the leasehold.


I would assume the DRS appears in the accounts as it has a theoretical value, however I cannot see it being worth anything as whilst it may be modular i just cannot see it ever being worth the cost of stripping it down to move. Equally I would assume that the other stands have depreciated to zero for accounting purposes anyway.

If the rent is based in attendances i can see much opportunity for argument, I  assume there is a formula that allows the club to deduct maintenance from the attendance income but how? The club say repair 'x' cost so much and must be deducted but council say prove it etc?

Equally it's potentially the case that the maintenance was in a grey area, a favourite being utilities is that maintenance or is it not? Who is responsible? Great fun for surveyors....

Sure will be sorted just some pre Christmas willy waving by the council, possibly to bury some bad news re wider budgets.
Logged
JayBox325

Offline Offline

Posts: 1546





Ignore
« Reply #57 on: Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 02:54:36 »

I don't really know what to make of this. What has anyone got to gain from publicising any of this crap?

At least it's given our friends over on OTIB another reason to bust out the 'Swindle' word again. We all know how much they love that.
Logged

Swindon Town Displays. Can you help out?
http://www.gofundme.com/STFCDisplays
Levi lapper

« Reply #58 on: Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 05:49:18 »

 
Umm, not in this case. No.
Hmmm
Logged
Levi lapper

« Reply #59 on: Wednesday, December 24, 2014, 05:56:16 »

The point I was trying to make is that ownership when it involves political expediency, may not be what people assume to be the case...however this place is now more Don Heath than Don Rogers, so censorship is to be expected.

Totally agree. Censorship, on a football discussion forum. Scary stuff.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 17   Go Up
Print
Jump to: