Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 ... 109   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Trust look to buy the CG  (Read 382151 times)
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #885 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 10:43:48 »

Just to work through this....

a) the bricks and mortar are worthless as it would cost much more to dismantle andf move than to just build from scratch;
b) please explain why the Council owning the freehold has been an obstacle in moving using evidenced facts and not conjecture;
c) Why is a development on site not going to happen, again using evidenced facts and not conjecture;
d) so just to allow me to get this straight we are buying a site in the town centre off the Council to then expect the same Council to allow a ground to be built on the edge of town?

You haven't seen the HoT's, I haven't seen the HoT's until that detail becomes apparent (and it possibly may not) we have no idea what the process involves or what covenants existing or even additional may be attached to any such sale so to keep making statements when you don't have detail to back them up is hardly 'objective' is it, its just pressing a tired agenda.

Its telling that progress seems to have been made relatively quickly once the JV was formed to negotiate, I trust the Trust board to at the very least be acting in supporters interest, you obviously don't and each to their own. Its almost like you don't want anything positive to happen.



a.  The fact that the club owns the bricks and mortar shows that the freehold ownership has never been an obstacle to doing stuff to the ground. 

b. Those in the past like Brady and the St Modwen episode, have failed in their moves because SBC, have proved unwilling to sell the CG site at a knockdown price, to fund the new build. Had the club owned the footprint no such obstacle.

c.  Developments at the CG have happened before.... the ownership of the freehold has never been an issue.  However sourcing the $ needed, and then finding something that fits the 24/7 dream, always has been and as far as I can se continues to be.

As a planner, perhaps you could suggest something that could be incorporated into the CG that might be a runner.

d.  Who is we?  50% of the CG will be owned by Power, who just the other day said that he hopes  his ownership of assets like the CG and Highworth will attract in someone with money when he sells up.
Logged
Peter Venkman
We don't need no stinking badges.

Offline Offline

Posts: 58868


Back Off Man, I’m A Scientist.



« Reply #886 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 10:52:04 »

Are we still linked with the Australian construction firm?

Is the plan to buy the stadium and start redeveloping through them or am I being too optimistic?

Still great news for me.
Yes Clem Morfuni is taking a more active role at the club recently.

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/16891062.swindon-towns-clem-morfuni-hails-progress-of-county-ground-purchase/

https://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/exclusive-clem-morfuni-using-swindon-board-role-to-fix-pathetic-australian-pathway-4252836

The more I think about the ground purchase, the more I’m genuinely excited by it.  For whatever reason - but probably because the ground has been owned by a local authority with little incentive to sell - STFC has been badly left behind during the post-Hillsborough period.  I struggle to think of clubs similar to ours who have done as little to their grounds as we have in the last 25 yrs.

Done properly, this will give us a platform to kick on from.  Improved supporter engagement, better sense of the County Ground being our 'home' and, eventually, a better ground/experience on match days.  Really hope that people get behind this.
I concur totally.

Hopefully we can finally expand both stands behind the goals as a priority.

You have to really have a curmudgeonly outlook on life if you don't see this as being a good thing IMO.

If it stops us relocating to an out of town site with a faceless ground then I am all for it, somewhat selfishly though as the County Ground is obviously my fathers reamins burial site too.

Not sure funds will allow me to contribute in the several hundreds but I can certainly donate funds towards this to help assist making it happen.

An element of scepticism is healthy.
There are levels of scepticism though, outright total 100% negativity is as bad as 100% positivity, I am much more erring towards the positive end than the negative end of the scale whereas Reg is 0% positive / 100% negative, yes you need a balance but total negativity is not good IMO.

I think Sutton was right about the bucket of tits.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 10:58:46 by Peter Venkman » Logged

Only a fool does not know when to hold his tongue.
FreddySTFC!

Offline Offline

Posts: 1566





Ignore
« Reply #887 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 10:53:22 »

Simple answer no.  One of the great things about being retired is that you can do as much or as little as you want.

In the past I've been involved in the sort of stuff which requires meetings, agenda and minutes, so know what it's about, and it's no longer for me.

I've got a couple of projects on atm, which involve historical research, walking, cartography and generally chucking in ideas...informal, and that's how I like it.


The cop out answer that I fully expected. If, as you say, you've been involved in the sort of stuff which requires meetings, agendas & minutes you will only be too aware of how niggly & time consuming such pastimes are. Maybe some postitive words in support of those who've been arsed to do something about this would be better than the usual negativity.

Surely your time & expertise (as you have plenty to say on here) would be better spent supporting the Trust in some role rather than hijacking every thread on here with your one dimensional rhetoric???
Logged

I have a culture, I don't stop my culture!!
woolster

« Reply #888 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 11:00:21 »

the first improvement when the sale of the ground goes through is to disconnect the PA speaker,
or sack the bloke who shouts nonsense through it
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #889 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 11:17:10 »

   Any development at the County Ground will almost certainly have to be a joint venture with a developer building a hotel or something which they benefit from while the club benefit from the improved stadium. To get a development partner to commit to a £10-15m (say) project is more likely if the club / trust own the freehold. It gives them a secure tenure rather than having to renegotiate the lease with the council every so often. It also means the club would keep any additional revenue from the new facilities rather than seeing a proportion of it disappear in extra rent (the clubs rent is partly based on turnover)

   There are still plenty of hurdles to overcome before we see any major improvements to the stadium I'm sure but I do think it will come a step nearer with the club / trust owning the freehold.

   I have never regarded an out of town site as being likely because the same problem of how to fund it still exists and is likely even bigger. If you start from scratch on a new site it would probably cost £20m just to recreate what we already have. You can achieve a modern 20,000 capacity stadium at the County Ground by augmenting what is already there much more cost effectively than starting again on a new site.

 Fair enough, but that's a bit vague and wish fulfilment. In the current economic climate, will there be a queue of hotel developers looking at the CG site?  We've seen a few hotels close in recent years, but one is being chucked up on the old Southern Laundry site.  (I'm sure I can't be the only one to equate the sickly smell of boiling bed linen with the excitement of knowing an away day train is just round the corner)

As for security of tenure, surely dealing with someone like SBC, would seem more stable than the JV?

FWIW, my take is that SBC are currently involvd in a fire sale brought on by the austerity policies of central government... therefore it's important that the Trust get the freehold, as a way of preventing it falling into the hands of vultures, and there are those who specialise in sport grounds, some not a million miles away.

My preferred option would be 100% Trust owned, whilst I can see the case for the JV, I'd like to hear what safeguards are being put in place, to prevent Power or a future owner getting outright ownership.
Logged
horlock07

Offline Offline

Posts: 18726


Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost




Ignore
« Reply #890 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 11:24:31 »

a.  The fact that the club owns the bricks and mortar shows that the freehold ownership has never been an obstacle to doing stuff to the ground.  

b. Those in the past like Brady and the St Modwen episode, have failed in their moves because SBC, have proved unwilling to sell the CG site at a knockdown price, to fund the new build. Had the club owned the footprint no such obstacle.

c.  Developments at the CG have happened before.... the ownership of the freehold has never been an issue.  However sourcing the $ needed, and then finding something that fits the 24/7 dream, always has been and as far as I can se continues to be.

As a planner, perhaps you could suggest something that could be incorporated into the CG that might be a runner.

d.  Who is we?  50% of the CG will be owned by Power, who just the other day said that he hopes  his ownership of assets like the CG and Highworth will attract in someone with money when he sells up.

Its rather different flinging up a stand using grant money when compared with the fundamental redevelopment (way beyond just the sports stadia side) that the ground needs, long story short no one is going to lend a big wodge of cash to a company that doesn't own the asset and only has a short term lease, they may have done in the early 70's and look what happened then, they don't now.

Didn't the previous schemes fall over due to planning matters suggesting that funding was not the problem if they spent that much on consultants fees etc, ultimately the vast majority of commercial schemes stack up without an initial  pump priming process and a well thought out scheme with complementary development should be no different.

As I have not set foot in Swindon for about 10 years I have no idea what the market needs or would sustain, the usual suspects are hotel, residential as they have reasonable returns?

We is the JV, ultimately the club/Power will only own 50% of the holding company (you still haven't answered why you are so sure that he can proceed alone if the Trust cannot raise their 50%), likewise you have no idea of the terms of the deal the Council are offering.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #891 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 11:58:34 »

The cop out answer that I fully expected. If, as you say, you've been involved in the sort of stuff which requires meetings, agendas & minutes you will only be too aware of how niggly & time consuming such pastimes are. Maybe some postitive words in support of those who've been arsed to do something about this would be better than the usual negativity.

Surely your time & expertise (as you have plenty to say on here) would be better spent supporting the Trust in some role rather than hijacking every thread on here with your one dimensional rhetoric???


Err... exactly why I don't do such stuff any longer.

If you read my stuff... you'll find I've always been 100% pro Trust, unlike many on here.... and have always commended those making the effort as I know it's a thankless task.

As I've said before, I'd be fully in favour of a 100% Trust purchase.

Perhaps you could explain to me how Mr Power having 50% ownerxhip of the CG is a good thing.
Logged
Bogus Dave
Ate my own dick

Offline Offline

Posts: 16337





Ignore
« Reply #892 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:12:49 »

Because it lets the trust do what it otherwise couldn’t afford to do and (joint) own the football ground to give the club and the community a stable base to begin redeveloping while retaining (joint) ownership of the ground with the football club (not lee power) to ensure both a) a more attractive proposition when the time comes that the club is sold and b) a greater revenue generating entity the opportunity and need to direct funds into a property and land it has ownership of
Logged

Things get better but they never get good
FreddySTFC!

Offline Offline

Posts: 1566





Ignore
« Reply #893 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:15:12 »

Err... exactly why I don't do such stuff any longer.

If you read my stuff... you'll find I've always been 100% pro Trust, unlike many on here.... and have always commended those making the effort as I know it's a thankless task.

As I've said before, I'd be fully in favour of a 100% Trust purchase.

Perhaps you could explain to me how Mr Power having 50% ownerxhip of the CG is a good thing.
Precisely the reason why you should be supportive of what the Trust have achieved, given that you clearly understand what they will have had to endure to get here.
With regards to reading more of your stuff I'd love to but the fact it is so boring, one dimensional, agenda driven & attention seeking means I hold back as often as possible.
If you were fully in favour of a 100% Trust purchase & it was that high on your agenda then no doubt you would have tried to help out at some point in a bid to not let the evil megalomaniac get his mits on it.
& only time will tell if LP having 50% ownership of the ground will be a good or a bad thing. As Horlock alluded to earlier you are in the same boat as everybody else on here in that you have absolutely no access to any material facts over this situation & as such deal in conjecture & speculation like the rest of us. The only difference being the bulk of the forum are trying to look at the positives from this outcome whereas you, typically & desperately in need of protecting your online persona, have gone down the route of looking for negatives. The only thing your post proves is your outlook on life. As I said earlier, time will be our judge & nothing else.
Logged

I have a culture, I don't stop my culture!!
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #894 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:16:47 »

Its rather different flinging up a stand using grant money when compared with the fundamental redevelopment (way beyond just the sports stadia side) that the ground needs, long story short no one is going to lend a big wodge of cash to a company that doesn't own the asset and only has a short term lease, they may have done in the early 70's and look what happened then, they don't now.

Didn't the previous schemes fall over due to planning matters suggesting that funding was not the problem if they spent that much on consultants fees etc, ultimately the vast majority of commercial schemes stack up without an initial  pump priming process and a well thought out scheme with complementary development should be no different.

As I have not set foot in Swindon for about 10 years I have no idea what the market needs or would sustain, the usual suspects are hotel, residential as they have reasonable returns?

We is the JV, ultimately the club/Power will only own 50% of the holding company (you still haven't answered why you are so sure that he can proceed alone if the Trust cannot raise their 50%), likewise you have no idea of the terms of the deal the Council are offering.

I don't think there's ever been a suggestion from the Trust end, that redevelopment will ever be anything other than small scale.... like roof on the Bank, something to replace the TE.

Brady walked because having got preferred developer status out of SBC for house building, also wanted SBC to pay for the infrastructure for his houses.

St Modwen wanted to develop the whole CG extension, bits of park etc... they wanted the land at a knockdown price, this would pay for a new build at Shaw on contaminated land.

 As you say housing is the most likely build at theCG.... just makes playing football difficult.

SBC are selling assets, there's the thing that community use gets first dibs on the CG.... then if that doesn't work, its up for grabs. Power logically would seem then to be best placed unless some developer comes in with a more sizeable offer.
Logged
Summerof69

Offline Offline

Posts: 8598





Ignore
« Reply #895 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:16:59 »

http://truststfc.tv/the-county-ground-what-next/
Logged

BAZINGA !!

Join the Red Army Fund and donate at www.redarmyfund.co.uk

Join the Football Supporters Federation for FREE at www.fsf.org.uk/join.php
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia

Offline Offline

Posts: 34913





Ignore
« Reply #896 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:38:13 »

Precisely the reason why you should be supportive of what the Trust have achieved, given that you clearly understand what they will have had to endure to get here.
With regards to reading more of your stuff I'd love to but the fact it is so boring, one dimensional, agenda driven & attention seeking means I hold back as often as possible.
If you were fully in favour of a 100% Trust purchase & it was that high on your agenda then no doubt you would have tried to help out at some point in a bid to not let the evil megalomaniac get his mits on it.
& only time will tell if LP having 50% ownership of the ground will be a good or a bad thing. As Horlock alluded to earlier you are in the same boat as everybody else on here in that you have absolutely no access to any material facts over this situation & as such deal in conjecture & speculation like the rest of us. The only difference being the bulk of the forum are trying to look at the positives from this outcome whereas you, typically & desperately in need of protecting your online persona, have gone down the route of looking for negatives. The only thing your post proves is your outlook on life. As I said earlier, time will be our judge & nothing else.

But if you don't read it how can you interpret what I say?  Seems strange to me... however I'm used to it.

I'll repeat there's no agenda, or negativity, just looking at things as they are. 
Logged
FreddySTFC!

Offline Offline

Posts: 1566





Ignore
« Reply #897 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:49:24 »

But if you don't read it how can you interpret what I say?  Seems strange to me... however I'm used to it.

I'll repeat there's no agenda, or negativity, just looking at things as they are. 
No negativity  At least I can't accuse you of not having a sense of humour.
Logged

I have a culture, I don't stop my culture!!
flammableBen

Offline Offline

Posts: 1598




Ignore
« Reply #898 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:54:23 »

No negativity  At least I can't accuse you of not having a sense of humour.

I wonder if some of you lot have been supporting a different club for the last 25 years.

Having follwed the STFC loony bin, I don't think the points Reg is raising are particularly negative. Realistic questions.
Logged
Private Fraser

Offline Offline

Posts: 1595





Ignore
« Reply #899 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:00:11 »

If only there was a meeting being held in the next couple of weeks, in a location easy for people living in the Town to get to, where people with genuine concerns could voice them to the people best placed to provide answers. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 ... 109   Go Up
Print
Jump to: