New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[4D]

Match day, i'm not sure it does generate much more, though the bar could help. I think it would have a siginificant effect on non match day revenue though. A new, modern hospitality area (with easy parking) would likely generate way more than the current crappy rooms in the Arkells.

Not sure how a TE development generates more? What would it contain for that to be the case?

Wasn't there talk of a hotel?

[Peter Venkman]

Wasn't there talk of a hotel?

The statement suggests a hotel on the SW of the ground linking to the executive boxes somehow.

"Our future plans include a hotel sited in the south west corner which can connect directly into the hospitality suite to expand and improve the range of catering and conferencing offer we can provide.

"Subject to structural adaptations, a number of pitch view corporate boxes are positioned along the north side just above the steps to the lower concourse.

"These boxes along with the hospitality suite are vital to creating future revenue streams for the club."

[Oaksey Moonraker]

As a few have said the plans look more ambitious than expected with the new reception block.

The Moonraker article suggested 130 seats for the boxes but the other lounges could seat 450 so are the 9 rows being sacrificed to include prime seats for those paying for a hospitality package?

Selling 500+ hospitality packages on 6000 home attendances seems very ambitious unless we are playing Wrexham again? Will those seats be vacant on match days or could season ticket holders move back in after redevelopment?

The club needs to be clearer and honest why so many seats are being moved and the commercial to the club?

[Reverend Spooner]

Looks cheap, looks tacky. Will leave restricted view seats right next to the boxes.
Absolute minimum the Aussie chancer could come up with in order to keep the county ground from slipping out of his hands.
The Town end and Bank should be priory for redevelopment, they both look like a scrap metal yard.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

The reality just won’t look anything like these, realistically we need to be able to vote on whatever actually goes to planing as under this lot there’s a significant chance of design alterations and thing getting scaled back. There’s a real risk of voting yes to these pretty pictures then ending up with something completely different.

Also with the rest of the ground in a state of disrepair you can’t consider this in isolation, where does it fit into a master plan, is there even one. At the moment this would amount to nothing more than polishing a turd.

It can’t make economic sense to have hospitality in 2 stands, so you assume that means it will be removed from the Arkell’s, what is happening to that stand then?

Oh and good luck to them trying to cut down some of the trees down the back of then DRS, can’t see that going down well!

Exactly this. Plans look good but zero faith in this mob it'll look anything like that. Everything they do it smokes and mirrors.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

Also, this shouldn't even get to vote without them confirming how its being finances and the contractors.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

Thing is we already have hospitality in the North Stand, would this change to the DRS really generate more income? The talk of the TE development is obviously much larger scale but is likely to generate more income than a few boxes in the DRS. My worry is the DRS will be developed and plans for the TE and Bank will change.

Might be able to do something with the current hospitality rooms in the Arkells if we refurbished them and there was no more hospitality in those stands.....just thinking out loud there and don't expect any of this to happen anyway.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

Looks cheap, looks tacky. Will leave restricted view seats right next to the boxes.
Absolute minimum the Aussie chancer could come up with in order to keep the county ground from slipping out of his hands.
The Town end and Bank should be priory for redevelopment, they both look like a scrap metal yard.

The corner between the DRS and Stratton Bank is abysmal. Looking like a scrap metal yard would be an improvement.

[RobertT]

I have never had any real issue with this sort of proposal, and given the relative cost of doing any work, it was always going to be the first stand to tackle if you didn't have deep pockets.  I imagine this could be combined with a conversion of the existing facilities in the Arkells into a lower cost mid-tier type of deal for fans.  Slightly higher cost for entry and some pay as you go offerings for an introduction to hospitality.  It also then enables those facilities to be given a lick of paint to be used on non-matchdays without impacting the much better revenue stream of sponsorship and full hospitality.

The issue I have is the evidence of projects delivered thus far and how it will be financed.  Don't get me wrong, many club owners would not reveal such things, so it is not an expectation, more further evidence that the things they originally promised were simply PR bullshit.  Given the past work and the people hanging around the club, you'd be mad not to worry about the funding method and project delivery process.  Entirely legitimate businesses manage to "rip off" people funding projects (I present the car park at Whalebridge), and funding projects itself can be the way people make money (I present to you Thames Water, well, the water industry as a whole and it's capital financing slant with foreign ownership via offshore funding vehicles).  Oh, and there is the Northampton stand development debacle.

[Honkytonk]

Replace/repair the bank so it can be used and has a roof. Stick your hospitality suites next to it, in the corners next to the DR and Arkells so the prawn sandwich brigade have a commanding, unobstructed view across the stadium. Fuck it, make half of the SB a hotel of that's what you want to make money. Or make the whole top tier of the SB hospitality boxes or something and pop your hotel in the corner where it meets the Arkells or DRS.

Then replace the Town End and move all the ST holders to the newly refreshed bank, or other places in the ground if there's not enough space, whilst work is carried out.

Then go for the stands which actually work and are supposed to make money if you could be bothered to have enough stock to feed, water, and clothe your fans on match day.

The constant operational failings of day to day activity at STFC, led by Clem and Hall, don't fill me with confidence of this lot in charge of a redevelopment of the best stand we have. They can hire someone who makes good plans, but can they actually see them through?

At this juncture, evidence points to 'No'.

I will be delighted to be proved wrong, we've been crying out for a redevelopment for decades and maybe, finally, the plumbers will find something they know how to do?

[4D]

A reduced playing budget next season due to £200k worth of pitch costs also leads me to ask how this is being financed.

[Legends-Lounge]

And how many extra games are we planning above the normal?

Quadruple is on for 25/26 season don’t you know!?

[Nemo]

Agents' fees declaration is out, we shelled out just under £44k Feb 24-Feb 25.

Only Newport, Bromley, Crewe and Accrington below us.

Fleetwood paid out nearly £300k, Carlisle £200k, Vale £250k. Most a lot lower.

Chelsea spent sixty million pounds in the same timeframe. On agents' fees!

[Riddick]

Replace/repair the bank so it can be used and has a roof.

Aesthetically sure, why not. Commercially though its not a priority is it? How many matches would it be used for a season, 2? As sad as it is, its not the prioirty while we are where we are.

[RobertT]

Aesthetically sure, why not. Commercially though its not a priority is it? How many matches would it be used for a season, 2? As sad as it is, its not the prioirty while we are where we are.

I agree, it is not a priority, if we have to schedule this over years, which we likely do.  However, it not being a priority is a symptom of the overall issues - it is seen as a stand, for fans to watch the game in.  That happens 23-25 times a year.  As hard as it may be for us fans to consider, it is actually a commercial structure, which has square footage available to be utilised and earn revenue (it doesn't today, hence why it is a liability).  Some basic structure with barely more facilities than it has today, with a roof to keep some nutcases dry when watching the football is not money well spent.  That much I agree with.  But viewing at just that is part of our problem.  Not just us by the way, many clubs, although we seem to be uniquely shit at it.

It is why the plans for the DR stand are not offensive to me - I simply have no faith that we have any idea how to operationally maximise the opportunity and worry about how it gets created in the first place.  The experience I had in January on attending a rare game for me these days suggested a business that is far from trying to maximise revenue.  It smacked of a business keeping the creditors at bay with everything trimmed to the bone.  

The DR plans alone do not give me enough sense of the business case going forward - what becomes of the Arkells facilities has to be interwoven into this development, otherwise we simply move revenue generation from one stand to another, at great cost.  Then you ask, why?  Who gains from that?  That's too many open and big questions to have and I am not sure we get the answers.