- This topic has 57 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
This news broke on Thursday night and yet the club is still to issue an official statement on its website.
I find that absolutely astounding, and worrying in equal measure. Given that this is perhaps the most significant news in the clubs history you would naturally assume that the club would be swift with some sort of statement and a message of reassurance for the fans. I suppose it goes to show just how much contempt the club has for its fans right now!
3 users thanked author for this post.
Out of sight, out of mind!
2 users thanked author for this post.
No, the ground is now owned by Cool Silk, that is not the same as before.
If Cool Silk went into administration we could be locked out of our ground. Cool Silk could also use the ground and land as collateral for loans that are used to benefit funding for Cool Silk and not for the benefit of the club.
Whilst I don’t have any immediate short-term concerns about the change in ownership, I can think of numerous ways this could end in disaster for the club as a whole. This makes me feel uneasy, and the lack of information coming out of the club does little to address the unease.
7 users thanked author for this post.
” I suppose it goes to show just how much contempt the club has for its fans right now!”
That’s something else that hasn’t changed Daz. I’ve felt that the Club cared nothing for me and other supporters even before “Morongate.”
6 users thanked author for this post.
We shall now see what the grand plan is !!
Really.
You expect him to tell us?Of course ! Hasn’t he has always been so ready to make public statements to calm nerves…………..
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s not gauranteed 999 years on site, its just a lease for 999 years. Means nothing if SUFC go bust – which is a hell of a lot closer now the missus is tightening his purse strings and the club has no assets after giving it all to pay off the spending the owner did. The lease is between two businesses who are owned by the same people – you could write what you like to yourself and you can close it down quite easily I would’ve thought. This just makes it harder for potential buyers to come in – they would pay punitive rents or find funding to move location.
But like the chairman said nobody has been knocking on his door enquiring about the club…. he also said he is always in discussions with people but it has to be right for the club so we’ll have to pick one of those as the truth
1 user thanked author for this post.
☝️ and that’s it as far as I can see. Gradually and stealthily put over a barrel. The interests of supporters and the owner are diametrically opposed and have been since the failed Championship attempts.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Why would anyone knock on his door when they know he doesn’t want to sell? The property development is lucrative enough and screw the football.
2 users thanked author for this post.
You’d have to be completely naive not to know what’s going on and has been from day one. Most of us on here are long in the tooth supporters and understand it. The time for doing anything about it, if ever an opportunity existed, has long past. If anyone still believes he has any interest in the club as a footballing concern I’d suggest seeing a mental health expert.
3 users thanked author for this post.
How much money, and how many years to upgrade Birch Park to Football League status? Asking for a friend………..obviously.
1 user thanked author for this post.
From the Times today;
The Southend story is an all too familiar one. Reliant entirely on the patronage of one man yet trapped in a painful and predictable spiral of decline that is a result of the same man’s chronic mismanagement……
hmmmm
11 users thanked author for this post.
The Southend story is an all too familiar one. Reliant entirely on the patronage of one man yet trapped in a painful and predictable spiral of decline that is a result of the same man’s chronic mismanagement……
And how long have there been stories of them trying to build a new stadium….?
4 users thanked author for this post.
Okay, for what it’s worth, here’s my take on it (as someone not versed on legal or contractual law):
Ground ownership: Doesn’t really bother me. The debt as it stands is now out of the clubs hands and, for now at least, will save a fortune in interest payments. Going forward, the claimed 999-year lease will need careful legal analysis to ensure a fair price for that rent (surely cheaper than maintaining a whole stadium?)
Looking at the Premier League, there are obvious examples of non-ownership of grounds: West Ham, Manchester City and Newcastle in the Premier League. While in the Championship there’s Swansea and Bournemouth (the latter of which pay around £300k per annum in rent a figure way higher than could ever be justified in League 2)
Indeed, Chelsea is a particularly interesting example because although Abramovich owns the stadium the actual pitch is owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners Association (something to do with the original ownership of the allotments on which the stadium was built – indeed it’s so successful as a model it was one of the reasons Chelsea got cold feet over the European Super League was because the pitch owners we’re about to declare their objections).
Do I think Swann’s ownership of all we have is a good thing? Probably not. But it’s the best we have at the moment with such a huge debt (albeit created by the current owners). The sooner a new owner/investor comes in the better.
Solutions: I’m hearing/reading a lot of blow-hard shouting, complaining and words of disapproval, but is anyone offering any alternatives? Here’s an idea, and it is only and idea and one for which I have no genuine knowledge of how it would work, but hear me out:
Okay, here goes: Take a brownfield site near the town centre and have the council build a new community stadium/sports & education hub. Let them hold it as a community asset with a voting veto right given to a club supporters group to prevent any nefarious dealings by (even more) unscrupulous future councils. The net result could (and I really do only mean could) have a good impact on the town centre, bringing in more footfall and business for up to 25 weekends of the season (including cup ties) plus the option for use as a concert venue. My initial thought would be for the area east of Crosby – close enough to town to make a difference (but I’m very much open to any other suggestions).
The club can be future-proofed with the right contract and the above mentioned supporter veto. As a possible extra-bonus, a community-owned asset would take control away from The Swanns. They can they do what they probably wanted all along and sell their underhandedly acquired land and do what they want with it. Indeed, a deal with the council COULD even see part of the costs for a new home met by the sale/lease of further council land around GP.
Anyway, look these are just a few thoughts. Happy to be shot down or backed. Thoughts?
5 users thanked author for this post.
Despite Swann’s attempts at reassuring supporters, I find myself becoming gradually more concerned about the issue. Few Rambling thoughts:
1a) At what point can they club afford to pay rent? This is a vague statement; is there contractually a point in which the club is obliged to pay rent.
1b) At this point- how much is the rent?2) What happens when the land inevitably rises in value? The Gallagher retail park has expanded ever since its creation 20 years ago; Couple this with the potential of the Lincolnshire Lakes project and Glanford Park/Land could worth a significant amount more than the £11million debt wiped off- a debt mostly accumulated due to reckless spending by the owner.
3) Will the club see any profits made from the development of land or does this go into the Coolsilk pot?
4) What are the actual plans for the ground? I attended the consultation some years ago now in which the club released a blueprint and a couple of architect impressions of the exterior- since then however, as far as I’m aware, nothing else has been shown. No interior impressions, nothing. What are we actually building?
Good post above, Josh. The suggestion about the club moving to a Brownfield site is something that has always appealed to me. My only other suggestion for location would be the land where Brumby Hall currently sits- I have no ideas if there are covenants protecting the facility etc but it would put the club right back at the heart of the community again.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Some interesting points raised by Josh, the biggest issues I can see to that would be the fact that most councils are seriously cash-strapped and just don’t have the money for a project like this, plus I seem to remember that relations between the club & the council aren’t exactly rosey….
1 user thanked author for this post.
The Council has a few potholes to fill and can’t even afford to do that. It’s not a Town Council either. I don’t think the residents of Killingholme eg would be too chuffed if their council tax was used to build a stadium they would never use.
It would appear we now have a landlord and tenant agreement where the landlord and tenant are effectively one and the same. Does the 999 year lease have anything written in to it protecting the club against any development/change of use by the present or any future landlord? Who knows. Maybe supporters who kept their shares should group together and ask to see the lease agreement. If it’s as simple as the chairman claims he should be only too happy to oblige.1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m pretty sure the idea of relocating to a brownfield site has been discussed on here before (probably pre-Swann). And several were identified. I’ve always liked the idea, as I felt the club lost something when it moved out of town. Although a lot’s changed in thirty years.
It would be great if it happened, but it won’t.
2 users thanked author for this post.
I think what’s required is an independent audit into the value of the assets/land transferred to the Swanns. IF that shows the value matches the debt covered then so be it, job done and as I mentioned above that’s a sensible way to manage the debt without increasing it. At least for now.
If the value is LESS than the quoted £11m then we all have to say (albeit begrudgingly) thank you, Mr Chairman. And we get back to the real job at hand which is getting our club back up the table and beyond.
However, if the valuation shows the value is higher than the quoted £11m then there are serious questions to answer. I’m have no legal knowledge, so if anyone knows if the freedom of information act makes it possible to get this question answered I’ll be happy to work with them in submitting the application.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I have been told by a very good source that the Stadium & surrounding land is probably not worth £11 million as a development site.
When JSW was here, I believe the club estimated it to be worth approximately £4 million. That said, the planning permission and development over the past few years will no doubt have increased it’s value.
Can you cite any examples of when this sort of arrangement has worked out well for a football club in the lower leagues?
1 user thanked author for this post.
‘And we get back to the real job at hand which is getting our club back up the table and beyond.’
The only problem with this is the ‘we’ aspect Josh. There isn’t and hasn’t been a ‘we’ for a number of years and doesn’t look likely to be.
3 users thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.