|
Post by Benny on Nov 10, 2017 15:26:54 GMT
Looking at this from another angle. If the football club and its prime central real estate were ever to fall into the hands of the kind of people who took over Dulwich, the council would have power to frustrate and limit their property developing schemes. That is, assuming the council are opposed to the overdevelopment of such sites for commercial gain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 18:29:16 GMT
Agree with the last sentence not so for the rest.
The 2m wide strip under discussion would give the club a 5m wide strip in total potentially allowing a significant development along that side. could be a major
In terms of any refinancing (or indeed financing) being leasehold could be a major hurdle. The land not being owned makes any structure/development potentially time limited and thus not so attractive an investment.
Its not a "nothing story" but its not life threatening either.
In 'stand/terrace' terms, 2 metres is nothing. At a guess it would give you 4 steps of standing terrace, or 3 rows of seats. The accepted wisdom is that we need to keep a 'road' big enough to let an ambulance/fire engine reach the EE down that side of the pitch, so that leaves very little of the existing space for terracing or a stand. Adding in an extra 2 metres makes it just about a viable proposition for expansion when all other options have been exhausted, but it would be a long way from first choice for seriously boosting capacity/seats to prepare for promotion. The obvious choice would be to replace the TE with a similar stand to the EE - perhaps designed so that later it can also accommodate offices/changing rooms/classrooms, so that the main stand can be extended, but initially just a 'bare' structure. Extending the ground 2 metres towards the river and building a pitch-long stand, probably wouldn't cost much less than replacing the TE with an EE type structure, especially if we did buy the land. The 'story', I suspect, is just the KM blowing something up to sell copies. I would imagine that the club has simply been discussing this with the council as a long-term possibility. The KM reporter would have picked it up from the council meeting, rung Terry up for a quote and, bingo, a 'Stones Crisis' story. Although announced on the front page, it was actually just a short story, buried somewhere like page 6 or 9. If they thought it was a real story, it would have been a front-page headline, and the main article on the back. On the subject of maintaining 2m wide access for an ambulance down the riverside this was never the case once the pitch perimeter fence had wide access gates included which would allow access via the pitch to emergency services to all areas of the stadium
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 10, 2017 19:09:23 GMT
In 'stand/terrace' terms, 2 metres is nothing. At a guess it would give you 4 steps of standing terrace, or 3 rows of seats. The accepted wisdom is that we need to keep a 'road' big enough to let an ambulance/fire engine reach the EE down that side of the pitch, so that leaves very little of the existing space for terracing or a stand. Adding in an extra 2 metres makes it just about a viable proposition for expansion when all other options have been exhausted, but it would be a long way from first choice for seriously boosting capacity/seats to prepare for promotion. The obvious choice would be to replace the TE with a similar stand to the EE - perhaps designed so that later it can also accommodate offices/changing rooms/classrooms, so that the main stand can be extended, but initially just a 'bare' structure. Extending the ground 2 metres towards the river and building a pitch-long stand, probably wouldn't cost much less than replacing the TE with an EE type structure, especially if we did buy the land. The 'story', I suspect, is just the KM blowing something up to sell copies. I would imagine that the club has simply been discussing this with the council as a long-term possibility. The KM reporter would have picked it up from the council meeting, rung Terry up for a quote and, bingo, a 'Stones Crisis' story. Although announced on the front page, it was actually just a short story, buried somewhere like page 6 or 9. If they thought it was a real story, it would have been a front-page headline, and the main article on the back. On the subject of maintaining 2m wide access for an ambulance down the riverside this was never the case once the pitch perimeter fence had wide access gates included which would allow access via the pitch to emergency services to all areas of the stadium Are you sure of that? The last time this was discussed, the majority on here seemed convinced that we had to maintain that strip. It would be great, if correct, as it would allow a temp scaffolding-style stand to be erected if necessary, as well as longer-term development.
|
|
|
Post by goingup on Nov 11, 2017 14:08:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by porkystone on Nov 11, 2017 17:14:29 GMT
A big thank you for putting this on the forum. So if I read this correctly, of 9 council members at the meeting, 7 voted in favour of this extremely unhelpful outcome and 2 abstained. Thanks so much guys...... Read & Note The Details.......
|
|
|
Post by goingup on Nov 11, 2017 17:27:45 GMT
Having watched the webcast, I dont think there's any deliberate attempt to be unsupportive to the club (in fact, to the contrary) - I get the impression the case just hasn't been made properly for why a freehold would be more beneficial than a leasehold to the club, and the onus is now on the club to demonstrate this. The general sentiment at the meeting was the leasehold is as advantageous to the club as a freehold. And Cllr Matt Boughton seems a big fan
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 12, 2017 1:01:39 GMT
From my experience as a consultant delivering results and recommendations to managers/directors, the key to any presentation was to give them a choice of three options, presented so that one of which was clearly the best one (i.e. the one we wanted - but not always the one they thought they wanted!) - but never to give them the option we didn't want.
People in these situations think they are voting on the issue at hand, but what they are actually voting for is one of the options presented, it's almost impossible to vote for something that isn't on the table. I'm not saying that anyone was trying to pull a fast one on the council, but the same basic situation applies - if the council were only given two options: no, or yes to a lease, they can't vote to sell the land.
I'm too bloody idle to read goingup's links, but I assume this is what happened at the meeting - because the people advising the council assumed the club would prefer a virtually free lease, rather than spending money, and therefore didn't bother with that option.
|
|
|
Post by hongkongstone on Nov 12, 2017 2:03:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sharpy on Nov 12, 2017 3:08:56 GMT
That`s the thing though. The club want it for basically, adding a means for access to the north stand for home supporters thus allowing easier match day segregation. So in theory a foot path. But lets be honest here, had that side of the ground already been developed, MBC would have sold it along with the free hold in a heart beat. But no, their forward thinkers, they see the master plan.
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Nov 12, 2017 8:08:05 GMT
If you don’t want to watch the entire podcast, the Maidstone discussion starts at 1.19.00, having listened to the debate I am confused why the council won’t sell the strip of land, there is a valid reason why the club should be allowed to buy it and 2 councillors mentioned that the council should sell it to the club with an agreement that if the land goes up for sale in the future, then the land reverts back to Maidstine Borough Council, I live in Bridge Ward and Cllr Pickett I believe is my local councillor, well he is for the time-being, we need to get together and vote these people out, how can a council try and stifle the development of the ground when they all agree the benefit the club is to the town, I’m tempted to run as an independent in the next round of local elections to oust him.
|
|
|
Post by pmhnot on Nov 12, 2017 8:50:01 GMT
As a "God" forum contributor Toon , you will get my vote should you wish to stand as an independent at the next Council electipn !!. 😉
|
|
|
Post by porkystone on Nov 12, 2017 9:40:42 GMT
I live in Bridge Ward and Cllr Pickett I believe is my local councillor, well he is for the time-being, we need to get together and vote these people out, how can a council try and stifle the development of the ground when they all agree the benefit the club is to the town, I’m tempted to run as an independent in the next round of local elections to oust him. Careful Toon, you'll split the protest vote......
|
|
|
Post by goingup on Nov 12, 2017 10:19:47 GMT
That's the danger - incumbents always benefit when multiple opponents split the opposition - and that's precisely why we currently have a tory government - if Labour/Lib Dems et al had formed a progressive alliance at recent elections, we wouldn't have May as prime minister at the moment.
If you're serious about opposing Toon, IMO, you either need to be one of the official opposition candidates, or to support the opposition candidates instead of standing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 12, 2017 15:22:18 GMT
If you don’t want to watch the entire podcast, the Maidstone discussion starts at 1.19.00, having listened to the debate I am confused why the council won’t sell the strip of land, there is a valid reason why the club should be allowed to buy it and 2 councillors mentioned that the council should sell it to the club with an agreement that if the land goes up for sale in the future, then the land reverts back to Maidstine Borough Council, I live in Bridge Ward and Cllr Pickett I believe is my local councillor, well he is for the time-being, we need to get together and vote these people out, how can a council try and stifle the development of the ground when they all agree the benefit the club is to the town, I’m tempted to run as an independent in the next round of local elections to oust him. Irrespective of the perceived rights and wrongs of this specific issue I thought I'd try and add some experienced based realism:
i) most people would be surprised how little real power to do anything our elected councillors actually have, including some (or most) of those who get elected; ii) the committee papers confirm a sale would be against Council policy, probably the biggest single threat to any Council is being challenged for not following its own policy, its expensive and usually doesn't end well for the Council; iii) I don't know Maidstone Council's specific rules but I'd be surprised if Policy can be changed by this Committee and stunned if it could be done without vast amounts of consultation, and thus time; iv) even for a micky mouse council like Maidstone Borough this issue is only slightly above an irrelevance; and v) its rare that a "single issue candidate" does well in trying to oust a sitting councillor, I can't see the Maidstone voters being anything other than apathetic.
But far be it for me to deny anyone the opportunity for a bit of windmill tilting.
|
|
|
Post by southwick1 on Nov 16, 2017 20:51:45 GMT
|
|