New beginnings - 25% Truth, 80% Bollocks

[Honkytonk]

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.

If you're actually trying to long term improve the facilities, you're not fixing the SB because it's commercially a priority, you're doing it because once you do so;

1) you have experience of the process of redeveloping the ground with a smaller scale construction, and all the pitfalls that can happen so planning for future projects is better
2) you have a viable stand to move home fans to if needed when getting to your long term objectives of redeveloping the town end/DRS/Arkells

Those are the reasonable ones, but there's a few extra Clem-ajacent ones that are probably also worth considering from his perspective;
3) You're providing potential investors an example of the type of job you're doing at the club in as short a timeframe as possible so you can get more moneeeeeyyyyy
4) You're developing a stand that you can dump away fans in so if it's done a bit shit who cares, the home fans won't see it!
5) "Look, we're doing stuff!" to keep the fans mollified
6) Construction on a stand that is barely used can overrun without affecting your main match day income, meaning plenty more money can be moved through the club for a perfectly reasonable reason which definitely is all absolutely above board.

I could go on, but from a commercial perspective it not being used isn't the be all and end all.

[STFC_Manc]

If you're actually trying to long term improve the facilities, you're not fixing the SB because it's commercially a priority, you're doing it because once you do so;

1) you have experience of the process of redeveloping the ground with a smaller scale construction, and all the pitfalls that can happen so planning for future projects is better
2) you have a viable stand to move home fans to if needed when getting to your long term objectives of redeveloping the town end/DRS/Arkells

Those are the reasonable ones, but there's a few extra Clem-ajacent ones that are probably also worth considering from his perspective;
3) You're providing potential investors an example of the type of job you're doing at the club in as short a timeframe as possible so you can get more moneeeeeyyyyy
4) You're developing a stand that you can dump away fans in so if it's done a bit shit who cares, the home fans won't see it!
5) "Look, we're doing stuff!" to keep the fans mollified
6) Construction on a stand that is barely used can overrun without affecting your main match day income, meaning plenty more money can be moved through the club for a perfectly reasonable reason which definitely is all absolutely above board.

I could go on, but from a commercial perspective it not being used isn't the be all and end all.

The key objective is to make more revenue for the club, so it's more sustainable than it currently is now.  Your points all make sense but don't really drive additional revenue, as we aren't filling all the seats currently.

[RobertT]

The key objective is to make more revenue for the club, so it's more sustainable than it currently is now.  Your points all make sense but don't really drive additional revenue, as we aren't filling all the seats currently.

I agree - which is why I am not fundamentally against the concept, although I think it needs work.  What I am not seeing is how this achieves the sustainable bit - it's disjointed on it's own and, while I can see some incremental revenue from the facilities, the cost element is a huge worry.  Adding Revenue is only valuable if done so in a profitable way - this has the ability to saddle the business with a ten plus year debt that needs paying and does it really deliver enough extra Revenue to offset that given it is providing similar facilities to those already available and not at capacity?  One of my worries was that the goal was to use the club as a way of tying up contracts, or capital finance commitments.  Think Man Utd on a mini scale.  I don't see how it can proceed without the outline of a business plan (I accept the finer details are never likely to be shared).

[reeves4england]

I agree - which is why I am not fundamentally against the concept, although I think it needs work.  What I am not seeing is how this achieves the sustainable bit - it's disjointed on it's own and, while I can see some incremental revenue from the facilities, the cost element is a huge worry.  Adding Revenue is only valuable if done so in a profitable way - this has the ability to saddle the business with a ten plus year debt that needs paying and does it really deliver enough extra Revenue to offset that given it is providing similar facilities to those already available and not at capacity?  One of my worries was that the goal was to use the club as a way of tying up contracts, or capital finance commitments.  Think Man Utd on a mini scale.  I don't see how it can proceed without the outline of a business plan (I accept the finer details are never likely to be shared).

I don’t agree that the facilities are similar to those already on offer. There’s a bar, cafe, 10 executive boxes and a significantly improved wider hospitality environment. There will be economies of scale which could make some of the offerings more affordable than current hospitality, and there’s massive potential for non-matchday revenue through conferencing, business meetings, party bookings etc. I’ve already mentioned PNE’s equivalent as an example of how valuable the facility could be, but it’s frustrating that the club have not put forward a business case as yet to help us see the potential value in facts and figures.

For me, the question is not about what’s being proposed or the order in which stands are developed. That all makes sense. It’s a question of where the money is coming from, which contractors are being used and who is influencing procurement decisions.

[4D]

Scam and Scamability
(Lack of) Persuasion

Nob and No ability

[4D]

Kids for a quid next Monday

[Batch]

Kids for a quid next Monday

Good stuff, feels like its been a while. Might be wrong

[Audrey]

Kids for a quid next Monday

Oh shit. I’ll have to dress up again.

[tans]

Pesky freeloading children. Bet that was done through gritted down

[Batch]

Oh shit. I’ll have to dress up again.

They could be taken the wrong way.

You haven't worked as a BBC TV presenter have you ..

[Batch]

So at what point does the lease clause for improvements get dropped?

As soon as the spade hits earth.

It's an aside I know. But I think I'd be in favour of the development with trusted and capable owners.

Just wondering if they (Clemco) can pause it.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

I agree - which is why I am not fundamentally against the concept, although I think it needs work.  What I am not seeing is how this achieves the sustainable bit - it's disjointed on it's own and, while I can see some incremental revenue from the facilities, the cost element is a huge worry.

Mark my words, we'll never be anything close to sustainable under this ownership. Despite seemingly costs cut in every direction and very little money being spent anywhere other than on a literal pitch, peoples fingers in pies will mean it just isn't possible to get there.

If revenue increases, so will the admin fees.

[Power to people]

So where I am at with this, the picture look nice and all that but in reality we all know it wont look like that comes the end, and could we trust Clem & Hall etc to not make huge modifications to make it cheaper, then there is the huge issue of how will it be funded and at what cost to the football club - i.e. saddled with a huge debt over 20 years which hampers things like further redevelopment and playing budgets or it bumps the price that Clem will want to sell for.

I understand corporate in the Arkells is rarely a sell out, while you have to look to the future and IF we went up then there is a chance of filling it but is that if's but's and maybe's.

Then there is also no plan anywhere for future development, so you would guess the plan is to put the boxes into the DR and leave the rest of the ground falling down and failing as the criteria has been met and it the council cant do anything to claw the ground back (and then sell it to someone else).

Looking at the bigger picture of this unless something happens that blows everyone out of the water that is really positive I'm an inclined to vote no when the time comes.

The other thing I wonder the 'stitching the pitch' how hard wearing does this make it and what maintenance is required to keep it decent for years to come, and can Clem & Hall be trusted to keep the funding level up.  I notice they are bringing the ladies games to now play at the CG (assuming cheaper than paying to play elsewhere) does this have an effect on the wear of the pitch, playing an extra 20 games a season on it ?

[Batch]

  I notice they are bringing the ladies games to now play at the CG (assuming cheaper than paying to play elsewhere) does this have an effect on the wear of the pitch, playing an extra 20 games a season on it ?

Well of course it does. I missed that. Now Mancs comments of "extra games" makes sense. More sense than predicting a cup run

If this is the overriding reason to get it done then wtf are we doing moving them onto the CG.

[reeves4england]

So where I am at with this, the picture look nice and all that but in reality we all know it wont look like that comes the end, and could we trust Clem & Hall etc to not make huge modifications to make it cheaper, then there is the huge issue of how will it be funded and at what cost to the football club - i.e. saddled with a huge debt over 20 years which hampers things like further redevelopment and playing budgets or it bumps the price that Clem will want to sell for.

I understand corporate in the Arkells is rarely a sell out, while you have to look to the future and IF we went up then there is a chance of filling it but is that if's but's and maybe's.

Then there is also no plan anywhere for future development, so you would guess the plan is to put the boxes into the DR and leave the rest of the ground falling down and failing as the criteria has been met and it the council cant do anything to claw the ground back (and then sell it to someone else).

Looking at the bigger picture of this unless something happens that blows everyone out of the water that is really positive I'm an inclined to vote no when the time comes.

The other thing I wonder the 'stitching the pitch' how hard wearing does this make it and what maintenance is required to keep it decent for years to come, and can Clem & Hall be trusted to keep the funding level up.  I notice they are bringing the ladies games to now play at the CG (assuming cheaper than paying to play elsewhere) does this have an effect on the wear of the pitch, playing an extra 20 games a season on it ?

On the current hospoitality, I don't think current levels of take-up are indicative of potential. The current product is very limited, partly due to facilities. This development opens up a much wider range of hospitality options, ranging from corporate boxes, to table service and buffet service in a purpose built facility, to the general admission bar. It's opening up new products for the club to sell which are not comparable to the current offering. The facilities will also be much better suited to non-matchday activities as I've mentioned above somewhere.

As for the women's team, I imagine the idea is less to cut costs on extwernal pitches and more to generate revenue by bringing the crowd to the CG. If the shop, kiosks etc are open this is well worth doing.

If this is the overriding reason to get it done then wtf are we doing moving them onto the CG.

I think it's more of a tangential benefit that the overriding reason. Holloway's been banging the drum about the pitch for months now.

Totally share the reservations about funding and the long-term strategy though. The club need to come up with that information if they want to see it voted through.