Redevelopment vote

[Jimmy Quinn]

How many proposals have the fanbase rejected🤔

[theakston2k]

I don’t know, but I think buying a club that operates a JV on ground redevelopment with a fanbase that has a record of rejecting proposals could be regarded as more of a threat than an opportunity to a potential new buyer.

Are you deliberately ignoring Rob’s point that Chelsea fans own their ground? A lot of grounds aren’t owned by clubs themselves, it’s the leasehold duration that matters.

The fans voting no this time will be viewed no differently than a planning application being refused, it can be remedied by consultation and amendments to the plans.

[doversparkred]

Are you deliberately ignoring Rob’s point that Chelsea fans own their ground? A lot of grounds aren’t owned by clubs themselves, it’s the leasehold duration that matters.

No, but are there any league one or two clubs that share ground ownership with fans that have recently received significant external investment?

My wider point is that, for a club already known for mediocrity, bad governance and a history of dodgy ownership, we can now potentially add ‘difficult fanbase’ to the list.

[DV]

So, if the Chelsea owner(s) decided to redevelop the stadium (that the fans own) who / how would it be signed off? What’s the process?

…is it the same as ours?

[theakston2k]

No, but are there any league one or two clubs that share ground ownership with fans that have recently received significant external investment?

My wider point is that, for a club already known for mediocrity, bad governance and a history of dodgy ownership, we can now potentially add ‘difficult fanbase’ to the list.

What difference does it make if it’s shared ownership with fans or owned by the council? An owner of the ground is always going to have a say in what gets built on the ground. All the joint ownership stops is the ground being sold off for housing by dodgy owners, it doesn’t restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment.

[Nemo]

Fans owning the ground also means the club pay a well below standard rent and get to use the rent they do pay towards ground maintenance. That is a good deal that nobody else is getting.

The JV is a fantastic thing and if it scares off potential owners, good. We shouldn't be looking for Clem to sell to absolutely anybody, that's how we got into this mess, repeatedly, ever since William Patey's fire sale.

[DV]

What difference does it make if it’s shared ownership with fans or owned by the council? An owner of the ground is always going to have a say in what gets built on the ground. All the joint ownership stops is the ground being sold off for housing by dodgy owners, it doesn’t restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment.

I mean, technically it could restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment - if the voting went against it…

[theakston2k]

I mean, technically it could restrict a competent owner carrying out a legitimate redevelopment - if the voting went against it…

But so could the council or any other owner of the ground, it’s no different to that.

[doversparkred]

But so could the council or any other owner of the ground, it’s no different to that.

I think the difference is that the council would have a fairly objective process to consider and validate a proposal, whereas what’s happened here seems to be “we like the plans but don’t trust the owner to deliver them”.

I remember a lot of talk about the Trust doing “due diligence” into Clem when he took over from Lee Power.  Did that due diligence stretch to his expertise in property development?

[theakston2k]

I think the difference is that the council would have a fairly objective process to consider and validate a proposal, whereas what’s happened here seems to be “we like the plans but don’t trust the owner to deliver them”.

I remember a lot of talk about the Trust doing “due diligence” into Clem when he took over from Lee Power.  Did that due diligence stretch to his expertise in property development?

The due diligence at the time was a sham as it was done by James Spencer and co and they believed everything Morfuni said. They completely ignored his failing U.K. business and other red flags.

Back on point, Oxford are another good example. They’ve now got wealthy owners despite the ground being owned by Kassam who is almost impossible to deal with. Yes they’ve given up on the Kassam now but it didn’t stop them buying the club to begin with.

[doversparkred]

The due diligence at the time was a sham as it was done by James Spencer and co and they believed everything Morfuni said. They completely ignored his failing U.K. business and other red flags.

Agreed, and this relates back to my original comment. IMO we (the fans) have veered wildly from believing everything Clem says (including the old Trust leadership, who I acknowledge aren’t in place now) to kicking out proposals largely due to emotional reasons. I am not a Trust member so couldn’t vote, but if I was I would have voted yes and backed the Trust to hold the owners to account to deliver them.

[Batch]

The problem is that I think the trust are pretty powerless to hold them to account once the yes vote is made. At least in the proposal in its current form.

I get there is a tendency to treat everything coming from the club as bull, and that risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In this case, and I can only speak for me, the vote came down to the risk of them cocking it up and leaving things worse than not starting in the first place. I based that on what I've seen them deliver and the struggle to do the basics right. And also the half truths they they've provided over four years.

In reality we financially probably wouldn't see a benefit for a decade, but we can't do nothing either.

Why oh why couldn't Clem have been the clean break fresh start I thought he was.
-------------
On another note, I voted in the understanding houses were not part of the consent vote.

I've seen some comment online from some that thought it was.

What's going on there.

[RobertT]

So, if the Chelsea owner(s) decided to redevelop the stadium (that the fans own) who / how would it be signed off? What’s the process?

…is it the same as ours?

Chelsea fans have already blocked a development when Abromivich was involved, and while I do not know their ownership structure in detail, it did seem they also required a 75% vote in favour to get is passed.

[Crozzer]

Ground improvements should be a no-brainer, who wouldn't want them?  Also, speaking for myself, all I want to do is watch football and forget about non-field issues.  Unfortunately, an ownership that has proved over the last four years to have been lacking makes that impossible, especially for a club that has decades of a history of finacial issues. It is not the Trust's job to police the ownership, that is the job of the EFL.  If all comes to grief, it's the fans who will suffer.  Simply put, a large percentage of the fans don't trust the ownership to be responsible stewards. That's the real issue.

[Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG]

Peoples lack of understanding is doing my head in

One bloke on fb just said ‘dont know why the trust bought the ground if they cant afford to maintain it’

I have now had to explain this is the purpose of the JV that club are supposed to pay rent to!

Fuck me