Trust look to buy the CG

[horlock07]

Agree Trust have not handled things well, but would still rather keep the ground in some form of collective/public ownership. Once it goes into private hands we are wide open and vulnerable to the very many asset strippers hanging round English football. Sorry but I just don't trust most club owners, no matter how good their PR.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but it doesn't remove the fact that the Trust have had an 18 month run at this so far and after getting a lot of goodwill have contrived to potentially lose a large proportion of it, which is possibly careless....

Ultimately I would love a non commercial organisation to own the ground, but if they don't have the cash nor ability to carry it through and sustain long term its pretty irrelevant.

[horlock07]

For horlok07, on Phipps - a good guy.  Knew him when younger and his family.  He built up a local telecoms company and has done well personally as a result.  Lifelong Town fan.

To be honest, if it is him and his money behind it then I am confused why they don't want to disclose it.

They've done a shocking job of managing this, but this is the problem when you rely on people with day jobs.  I don't doubt they have been working their nadgers off, but it helps cement the idea of part time fans with a lack of knowledge.  I think they should have appointed and paid for a Consultant to run this.  Could have been one of the group if needed and they had the experience, pay for them on a two year contract to get them to give their day job up or get an external professional.

Read your first paragraph and said in my head 'why the fucking hell don't they say so then', then read your second paragraph 

As per my earlier, literally an email once a fortnight saying 'we have met with x, y & z over the last couple of weeks, all going well, we have presented a,b & c to the Council and are awaiting their response which they have promised by...' would show progress and be more palatable than we have a secret investor and secret developers comunicated once every 6-8 months. It would literally take 30 mins a fortnight, I assume they have someone on the committee in charge of PR who could do it. 

[theakston2k]

Picking up on Theakston2k's point above, someone raised the question last night of what might happen IF the Trust became owners of the ground and Power subsequently decided to throw his toys out of the pram and move the Club elsewhere, leaving the Trust owning a ground without a Club to play in it.  The Trust's answer was that they thought the Council wouldn't make it easy to relocate elsewhere in Swindon and believed the Football League's rules (post-Wimbledon/Franchise) meant it would be most unlikely he would be allowed to move the Club further afield.  This is what the relevant rules state:

"13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with The League and no Club shall remove to another ground (whether on a temporary or a permanent basis) without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld and the Board shall be entitled, if granting consent, to impose such conditions as it deems appropriate in all the circumstances.

13.7 In considering whether to give any consent to a permanent relocation, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case (including, but not limited to the factors set out in this Regulation 13.7) and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:

13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;

13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;

13.7.3 would not to any material extent adversely affect such Club’s Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;

13.7.4 would not have a material adverse effect on visiting Clubs;

13.7.5 would not to any material extent adversely affect Clubs having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location; and

13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.

13.8 The Club must disclose, as soon as practicable, plans and details of any proposed future move to a new stadium.

13.9 Subject to any dispensations granted by the Board, a Club shall either own its ground or have a legally enforceable agreement with its ground's owner for its use by the Club, expiring not earlier than the end of the current Season.

13.10 Each Club shall, provide The League with full copies of such documentation as The League may reasonably require to demonstrate the Club's ability to play fixtures at its ground. By way of example, and without limitation, this may include copies of HM Land Registry entries, copy leases, any licence to occupy and any sub-leases or licence relating thereto. The League shall maintain a register of Clubs and the basis upon which that Club occupies its ground. 13.11 Without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation 13.6, a Club shall forthwith notify The League of any proposed change in its circumstances relating to the occupation of its ground. By way of example, and without limitation, a proposed change may include a sale of any freehold interest (with or without subsequent leaseback) or any surrender or variation of a lease or licence."

Pretty sure you could get around all that pretty easily with the help of a decent legal team.

[derbystfc]

Another devels advocate but..

What if Lee Power is actually looking for his exit plant (and why wouldn't he with the criticism he's getting), if the club owned the ground, then its an asset, and a club with an asset relatively debt free/low debt becomes an attractive proposition to a buyer?

Or is this simply not the case

[Oaksey Moonraker]

Another devels advocate but..

What if Lee Power is actually looking for his exit plant (and why wouldn't he with the criticism he's getting), if the club owned the ground, then its an asset, and a club with an asset relatively debt free/low debt becomes an attractive proposition to a buyer?

Or is this simply not the case

Lee Power pretty much said all of that in recent interview with BBC Wilts that owning the ground attracts 'blue chip' (his words) investors.

If SBC only want approx £2m and the club is paying approx £150k rent a year and all the maintenance costs, then if LP has the cash it's a no brainer. Save on rent and get your money back when the club is sold on.

I doubt whether LP would redevelop the ground significantly because some of the loans Andrew Black wrote off were repayable on sale of the club or ground redevelopment. I think it's a £2m loan still sitting in the accounts for the last few years.

Sent from my HTC U11

[Hoboken]

They gave these out last night.

[Hoboken]

I’m having trouble posting both up but you should be able to get to both sides of that document here...


https://twitter.com/nyc2sn1/status/976911341519802369?s=12

[theakston2k]

I’m having trouble posting both up but you should be able to get to both sides of that document here...


https://twitter.com/nyc2sn1/status/976911341519802369?s=12

So are they saying the developer has the backing to build the “£15 million Town end” without the need for any other investment?
Also I’m still intrigued how this matched backing would work, if it is Phipps and he’s putting in £1 million does that mean he will have to agree to anything on the ground going forwards as his holding will count for 50%+ of the shares in which case it’s not really Trust ownership is it if there is a single individual with the power of veto.

[pauld]

So are they saying the developer has the backing to build the “£15 million Town end” without the need for any other investment?
Also I’m still intrigued how this matched backing would work, if it is Phipps and he’s putting in £1 million does that mean he will have to agree to anything on the ground going forwards as his holding will count for 50%+ of the shares in which case it’s not really Trust ownership is it if there is a single individual with the power of veto.

Why don't you put these questions to the Trust directly?

[Hoboken]

Nope on the Phipps thing. He gets 1 share, same as your £50 gets 1 share.

Note: I attended last night but I’m not on the board, but this is what I understood. They said there will be no hierarchy of shareholders.

[Private Fraser]

Why don't you put these questions to the Trust directly?

....or you could just read the summary of the AGM which is now up on the Trust’s website.

[theakston2k]

....or you could just read the summary of the AGM which is now up on the Trust’s website.

Which is what I’ve read and still have the questions..

I guess it all boils down to my main concern in how does this benefit the actual football club other than a nicer ground to play in. The one thing we all agree on is the club needs 7 days a week income in order to move forward in any way and I can’t see how this will achieve that. It’s sounds like any redevelopment will require outside investment so things like hotels or a NHS centre (like at Deepdale) will pay for any new stands and then sign a lease with the Trust. In this scenario not only would the club receive no increase in revenue they’d end up with parts of the ground they have no access to which if I was in the clubs position doesn’t sound very appealing to me.  Forgetting who the owner is at least if the club owns the ground they might get a better deal with sponsorship, naming rights, shares etc and obviously would benefit from any rent.
Unless the club is issued with a massive lease and get all income associated with the ground then as a football club surely nothing changes and we just stagnate further other than maybe getting a bit more matchday revenue.

[Bogus Dave]

Yeah, maybe I’m being thick but say the trust did buy the ground and developed it to a state where it generated income 365 days of the year, what and how would those profits be put back into the club??

That might well have been covered already tbf

[pauld]

Which is what I’ve read and still have the questions..

So ask the Trust then. And when you get an answer, post it here and then we can all benefit from, or dismiss, the answers. Rather than ask a load of folks on here who either can't answer your questions or at best can paraphrase what the Trust would say directly. So ask them

[theakston2k]

So ask the Trust then. And when you get an answer, post it here and then we can all benefit from, or dismiss, the answers. Rather than ask a load of folks on here who either can't answer your questions or at best can paraphrase what the Trust would say directly. So ask them

Did that already but the responses are ambiguous and don’t really give any answers hence posting on here for other views.

As we discussed last night, all income generated by the ground (in whatever form) will be put back into Swindon Town FC and specific developments can see adjustments to the lease accordingly. The Trust will not benefit, but will maintain an interest and keep the legacy protected.

I hope they’ve spent their £50k on a good PR firm as based on info to date it’s difficult to work out if it’s the best thing for the club and worth giving money to.