Trust look to buy the CG

[Don Rogers Sock]

How much £££ do the trust think they will get the county ground for?

Around the £2m figure i have heard

[RobertT]

In terms of security of the club it's a good move but my main concern here is that we will now spend the next 20 years in an increasingly dilapidated stadium as a result.

Ashton Gate cost £45 million to redevelop and with the best will in the world there's no chance the Trust would ever raise that sort of money, that kind of redevelopment will only happen under a rich owner (we can wish).

So what happens with improving the ground and by that I don't mean putting a roof on the existing Stratton Bank stand as that is a complete waste of money in my opinion. To bring the ground up to standard at the very least we need a new stand to replace The Townend and a new stand to replace the Stratton Bank and also desperately need executive boxes so based on the logistics of the ground the Arkell's Stand needs doing as well. So whilst I'm for the purchase in the short term I struggle to see any significant improvements being made to it under this kind of ownership.

I know previous Trust Boards did some redevelopment plans but it was never really clear where the money would come from....

None of our previous owners were ever basing a development off of their own capital, they were all relying on some proceeds from either land sales or from external financial capital investment.

Take Northampton (bad example because the developer ran off with the money it seems) but essentially they were loaned money by the Council at a commercial rate.  The Council were able to provide funding without worrying quite so much about the risks (maybe they should have!) but the point is that funding sources can be fond for developments, provided the business case stacks up.  The Fitton/Wray development proposals were based on external funding and on using spaces within the development to make the return, which as it happens was the concept the Trust worked on in 2006/7.  it's the sale of leases and on-going increases in revenue that cover off the financing costs.  If they can't, then you don't have a viable development and you don't get the funding.  I think the Fitton era struggled because external funds dried up - post 2008 people became much more wary about who they were giving large chunks of cash to.

So, in summary, the Trust doesn't need any money (some would help to show willing) to eventually push through developments at the ground.

[Arriba]

Around the £2m figure i have heard

Yes me too. That was some time ago though. Is that the figure discussed last night or were figures not mentioned?

It's nowhere near enough by the way

[Don Rogers Sock]

Yes me too. That was some time ago though. Is that the figure discussed last night or were figures not mentioned?

It's nowhere near enough by the way

Publicly both parties have said that is the rough figure

[Batch]

If the Trust are looking to buy the site off the council and are also looking to buy the actual ground, who gets the proceeds of the infrastructure sale - does the club, therefore Power, own that?

I may be misrepresenting what was said, but the impression I got was that buying the land included the stadium and was one and the same, i.e. the club don't actually own it but have a 'maintaining lease' - i.e. are responsible for the upkeep.

But its probably best to ask the Trust directly.

Also there was a reasonably useful info booklet given out on the door. I've not had chance to read it yet but its worth asking if it is going to be on the Trust website (may be already).

[pauld]

Also there was a reasonably useful info booklet given out on the door. I've not had chance to read it yet .

How do you know it's useful then?

(Unless you're using it to prop up a wobbly table leg or as a draught excluder or something)

[theakston2k]

None of our previous owners were ever basing a development off of their own capital, they were all relying on some proceeds from either land sales or from external financial capital investment.

Take Northampton (bad example because the developer ran off with the money it seems) but essentially they were loaned money by the Council at a commercial rate.  The Council were able to provide funding without worrying quite so much about the risks (maybe they should have!) but the point is that funding sources can be fond for developments, provided the business case stacks up.  The Fitton/Wray development proposals were based on external funding and on using spaces within the development to make the return, which as it happens was the concept the Trust worked on in 2006/7.  it's the sale of leases and on-going increases in revenue that cover off the financing costs.  If they can't, then you don't have a viable development and you don't get the funding.  I think the Fitton era struggled because external funds dried up - post 2008 people became much more wary about who they were giving large chunks of cash to.

So, in summary, the Trust doesn't need any money (some would help to show willing) to eventually push through developments at the ground.

Gut feeling just tells me that an 8 figure redevelopment (which is what we need) will be difficult to finance without some internal funding. Purchasing the ground is one thing but I'm more concerned about the long term plan to bring it up to standard as there needs to be a strategic vision in place. If we just continue to play in a delapidated stadium (albeit owned by the fans) with a bit of tin chucked over the top of Stratton Bank then I don't think it'll make much difference to the club as a whole.

[Reg Smeeton]

£500 probably prices me out.

That was about my investment in shares, under various former regimes.  Basically a donation, for which I got to go to an AGM and have a set of accounts.

I'm not sure I'd bother again...  but as AB points out, several people could chip in, if minded.

[pauld]

Gut feeling just tells me that an 8 figure redevelopment (which is what we need) will be difficult to finance without some internal funding. Purchasing the ground is one thing but I'm more concerned about the long term plan to bring it up to standard as there needs to be a strategic vision in place. If we just continue to play in a delapidated stadium (albeit owned by the fans) with a bit of tin chucked over the top of Stratton Bank then I don't think it'll make much difference to the club as a whole.

While I'd agree that that scenario won't make a lot of difference to the status quo, it makes a HUGE difference to the scenario that needs guarding against - if the Council put the ground up for sale and the Trust don't purchase it within 6 months, then any Tom, Dick or Jed can buy it. Which leaves the club massively vulnerable. That alone makes this a scheme we, as fans, have to back and invest in. But I do also think there's a "sunny side" here that the Trust as owners of the stadium will be able to act as catalyst for redevelopment AND protect the asset for the club, in a way that the club/owners acting alone haven't been able to.
Nick Watkins is no fool - he won't have publicly nailed his colours to the mast if this was a non-starter

[horlock07]

While I'd agree that that scenario won't make a lot of difference to the status quo, it makes a HUGE difference to the scenario that needs guarding against - if the Council put the ground up for sale and the Trust don't purchase it within 6 months, then any Tom, Dick or Jed can buy it. Which leaves the club massively vulnerable. That alone makes this a scheme we, as fans, have to back and invest in. But I do also think there's a "sunny side" here that the Trust as owners of the stadium will be able to act as catalyst for redevelopment AND protect the asset for the club, in a way that the club/owners acting alone haven't been able to.
Nick Watkins is no fool - he won't have publicly nailed his colours to the mast if this was a non-starter

Have the Council actually stated that they will sell to a third party (i.e. not the Trust) whilst they have to give the Trust first dibs as its an ACV there is nothing to stop them not selling it at all if the Trust either cannot raise the cash, or choose not to proceed?

My concern with the £500/share price is that it will price a heck of a lot of the fan base out of the scheme and leave it liable to just become dominated by a small group? 

[Reg Smeeton]

Have the Council actually stated that they will sell to a third party (i.e. not the Trust) whilst they have to give the Trust first dibs as its an ACV there is nothing to stop them not selling it at all if the Trust either cannot raise the cash, or choose not to proceed?

My concern with the £500/share price is that it will price a heck of a lot of the fan base out of the scheme and leave it liable to just become dominated by a small group? 

SBC under the Tories do not have the best interests of the Town at heart... it would be very naive to assume that the CG won't go the way of the Abbey Stadium.

[horlock07]

SBC under the Tories do not have the best interests of the Town at heart... it would be very naive to assume that the CG won't go the way of the Abbey Stadium.

So in conclusion you don't know?

[Reg Smeeton]

So in conclusion you don't know?

I err on the side of scepticism as regards SBC... they do things like impose a 10% increase in Council Tax, when central government says there's a 4.9% limit without a local referendum. Central government's imposition of austerity cuts is now hitting hard, leaving SBC desperately short of cash and more or less any fund raising sale of assets is fair game.

[RobertT]

They haven't explicitly said it is for sale, but they have gradually offloaded or looked to offload every other sports based asset they own.  They also have zero interest in providing money towards maintenance, as shown by recent arguments with the club.  The only thing keeping it off front and centre for them will be because they do not have to provide any subsidies and receive rent.  I doubt it would take much for an external company to make it look appealing to sell in the coming 4/5 year cycle where the same crowd will be in office locally I imagine.

[Reg Smeeton]

They haven't explicitly said it is for sale, but they have gradually offloaded or looked to offload every other sports based asset they own.  They also have zero interest in providing money towards maintenance, as shown by recent arguments with the club.  The only thing keeping it off front and centre for them will be because they do not have to provide any subsidies and receive rent.  I doubt it would take much for an external company to make it look appealing to sell in the coming 4/5 year cycle where the same crowd will be in office locally I imagine.

Exactly.