Whilst not with regards to the actual ground, you could say as tenants now of our training ground we could be in the same situation as Kingstonian, with having to find somewhere to train if the owners decided to sell it off. I wonder what safeguards there are in place to ensure this could not happen to us?
We have a legally enforcable lease for i believe it was 10 years. Assuming we comply with the terms of the lease and there is no breal clause to the landlord. then we have right of tenure.
Actually history doesnt matter as long as we are back on track now. realistically given the land is green belt I understand, very hard to see what owners would do with land if not rented to the football club. Of the many things in life this doesnt seem like one to get too concerned about.
Green belt land is no longer sacred due mainly to the housing shortage.
In 2014/5, 11,977 new dwellings were approved on green belt land. In the last year alone, the number of approvals for development has DOUBLED and Government delegates such approvals to the local planning authority.
If there is any evidence at all to suggest that the land could be used for residential purposes , the owners of the club should
1) discuss this with the local authority planning department
2) if favourable, talk to Barratts and others and pre-sell land to them
3) exercise option to repurchase land using (say) Barratts cash
4) Do a deal with a local football club/facility (Marlow, Flackwell, Prestwood) to rent their facility as a training ground.
Overnight solve the financial issues for many a year to come. Sadly option highly likely to fall down conclusively on point 1.
There will no doubt be an update on this in the upcoming Trust meeting. I'd be careful about talking about it now. The chairman doesn't like people 'apparently' talking about this subject very much. I presume that must be because he has a passion for green belt land. To be honest, is not like the person who owns the land will have the resources or the know how to build houses on the land.
meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones.
What makes you so sure that both a) and b) still apply Mr Devc ????
Perhaps thats why there are 3 candidates standing on a platform for more transparency, of which one of them you were trying to do down.
Perhaps you should actually attend a Trust meeting DevC, get to meet the Trust board and prospective candidates rather than just pontificate from your Keyboard.
Well I could. But it would need time off work plus a 400 mile round trip (£200 cost if you believe AA costings) which frankly to me seems a little excessive for a meeting. Personal choice though.
@DevC If you think that Wycombe can still buy back the training ground from Ivor and chums, I'm afraid you will be in for a very rude shock. But don't worry Andy will put a plastic pitch in at Adams Park so don't worry your little mind when Ivor and chums put houses up at Booker.
Why do we hold the training ground so sacred? I understand Adams Park, but who cares really where we train, as long as it's commutable and the facilities are good? Why not sell the training ground for housing, rent Bisham Abbey or some other training ground, and reinvest the majority of the profits in restarting the youth team?
Not very often we agree Eric but on this occasion I think you are right.
HG asked for some legal clarification which I happen to have expertise in so I gave him the answer. I stated the legal position as it is known.
The conspiracy theorists (CTs) jump in with wild theories that the actual position is not as it as been reported. Asked for evidence to support their view, there is predictably none.
So the next line of attack for the CTs is to heap on some personal abuse.
And so some readers will go away with the impression that it is only a matter of hours before houses are built by Ivor Beeks trousering a huge profit on land that almost certainly would never get residential planning consent, on which according to all the information available we have a valid lease on for an extended period, that we may well have extended tenure rights unless we have opted out of the landlord and Tenant Act provisions and which all available information tells us we have a right to buy back in the extremely unlikely event that it would be commercially advantageous to do so.
So what is the problem of selling our ground? It's not as if it's got any real history and it's stuck at the end of an industrial estate with no real option for expansion if required and there are 3 different stand designs. I think AFC are spot on and the fact that they are planning a 20000 seater stadium at least shows that they have some AMBITION. They don't look like a team happy to stay in league two forever...and good luck to them. If the same thing happens to us then I would always vote to sell and move to a better location.
There are clearly issues with the location of the ground which must impact on attendances to an extent. There is a massive difference between the training ground and the football ground itself in terms of importance. No retention of the ground in its current place should not be sacrosanct, but an hoest appraisal of any decision to move would be required.
So before any decision to sell would be credible, we would need an honest appraisal of what we could raise by selling the ground. Given its location at the end of an industrial estate with poor access and no obvious way of improving that access, npt to mention planning constraints given the sites designation is likely to make the Ground a pretty hard sell.
Then you would need to consider the cost of building a stadium elsewhere plus issuies re access and location.
Assuming new stadium would cost more to build than old stadium raised (almost inevitable in this case) how this gap be funded and if by borrowing (if available) how would additional income be raised to service the debt.
Frankly it feels highly unlikely that the business case would stack up in WWFC case. I suspect we are where we are for the foreseeable future.
For me the Wimbledon situation is pretty unique as they have a stated aim of returning to Merton and this looks to help that aim.
More generally speaking though I think the MK Dons fiasco has made all supporters more wary of ground moves than they really should be. The Steve Hayes attempt to move Wycombe was wrong on lots of levels but the theory of moving from Adams Park is not a big issue for me. Debt, funding and ownership are much bigger issues.
On a slightly different note I am amazed how little protest West Ham fans put up on moving to the Olympic Park.
I'm not expecting you to follow my West Ham comment. And maybe there is the answer I am looking for. I would have expected more to be annoyed about moving from a great atmospheric historic ground with the pitch right in front of you to a souless athletics stadium miles from their home.
Maybe Premier League fans have keyed in on the money aspect like you have.
I still prefer the more romantic aspects to the sport.
I cant say I have been there but by all accounts the converted Olympic stadium will be an amazing stadium for football - full of atmosphere, great sight lines , crown right by the pitch. It is three miles away from the current stadium with brilliant public transport links (obviously crucial in London).
I would agree with ypou with some new stadia developments. For example while I am sure it will be practical, it seems to me a great shame to see York move out of the city centre to an out of town generic site by a dual carriageway. But with WH, sounds to me like you are desperate to find reasons to hate it to fit in with your own agenda. WH fans appear to have looked at the realities and like what they see. Some not all progress can be good.
I went to a few of the recent rugby world cup games there. The seats behind the goal are a long long way from the pitch. I'm not sure they're going to like it
@DevC No agenda with West Ham's move. It's a Marmite situation for them. Love it or hate it. Personally I would hate it and don't get me started on the taxpayer stumping up 85% of the move! I am 100% against modern football and modern stadiums http://www.standamf.com/ If we had the same outlook on all out heritage then why dont we knock down all buildings that are 100 years old or more, Start with the house of parliment. We have been sold the same crap for 20 plus years now about a need for progress, but to be honest it's nearly always about lining pockets. Gold, Sullivan and Brady will be out of West Ham within three years of the move. They will sell it to the highest bidder for a king's ransom. Just remember who lined their pockets, London Taxpayers.
Comments
Whilst not with regards to the actual ground, you could say as tenants now of our training ground we could be in the same situation as Kingstonian, with having to find somewhere to train if the owners decided to sell it off. I wonder what safeguards there are in place to ensure this could not happen to us?
We have a legally enforcable lease for i believe it was 10 years. Assuming we comply with the terms of the lease and there is no breal clause to the landlord. then we have right of tenure.
I wonder if we have complied with the terms of the original lease ???????
Actually history doesnt matter as long as we are back on track now. realistically given the land is green belt I understand, very hard to see what owners would do with land if not rented to the football club. Of the many things in life this doesnt seem like one to get too concerned about.
Yeh, DevC..."Just leave it to Steve".
Green belt land is no longer sacred due mainly to the housing shortage.
In 2014/5, 11,977 new dwellings were approved on green belt land. In the last year alone, the number of approvals for development has DOUBLED and Government delegates such approvals to the local planning authority.
If there is any evidence at all to suggest that the land could be used for residential purposes , the owners of the club should
1) discuss this with the local authority planning department
2) if favourable, talk to Barratts and others and pre-sell land to them
3) exercise option to repurchase land using (say) Barratts cash
4) Do a deal with a local football club/facility (Marlow, Flackwell, Prestwood) to rent their facility as a training ground.
Overnight solve the financial issues for many a year to come. Sadly option highly likely to fall down conclusively on point 1.
There will no doubt be an update on this in the upcoming Trust meeting. I'd be careful about talking about it now. The chairman doesn't like people 'apparently' talking about this subject very much. I presume that must be because he has a passion for green belt land. To be honest, is not like the person who owns the land will have the resources or the know how to build houses on the land.
meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones.
What makes you so sure that both a) and b) still apply Mr Devc ????
Perhaps thats why there are 3 candidates standing on a platform for more transparency, of which one of them you were trying to do down.
Is there any reason to believe it doesn't.
Remind me again DevC in the 'real word' why we are appointing 3 new candidates?
???
Perhaps you should actually attend a Trust meeting DevC, get to meet the Trust board and prospective candidates rather than just pontificate from your Keyboard.
Careful, Chas, or he'll start asking who you are going to "vote off"!
Are we? It might be the 3 existing members who get reelected.
Well I could. But it would need time off work plus a 400 mile round trip (£200 cost if you believe AA costings) which frankly to me seems a little excessive for a meeting. Personal choice though.
@DevC If you think that Wycombe can still buy back the training ground from Ivor and chums, I'm afraid you will be in for a very rude shock. But don't worry Andy will put a plastic pitch in at Adams Park so don't worry your little mind when Ivor and chums put houses up at Booker.
Why do we hold the training ground so sacred? I understand Adams Park, but who cares really where we train, as long as it's commutable and the facilities are good? Why not sell the training ground for housing, rent Bisham Abbey or some other training ground, and reinvest the majority of the profits in restarting the youth team?
this thread sums up DevC's contribution to this message board in a nutshell
Not very often we agree Eric but on this occasion I think you are right.
HG asked for some legal clarification which I happen to have expertise in so I gave him the answer. I stated the legal position as it is known.
The conspiracy theorists (CTs) jump in with wild theories that the actual position is not as it as been reported. Asked for evidence to support their view, there is predictably none.
So the next line of attack for the CTs is to heap on some personal abuse.
And so some readers will go away with the impression that it is only a matter of hours before houses are built by Ivor Beeks trousering a huge profit on land that almost certainly would never get residential planning consent, on which according to all the information available we have a valid lease on for an extended period, that we may well have extended tenure rights unless we have opted out of the landlord and Tenant Act provisions and which all available information tells us we have a right to buy back in the extremely unlikely event that it would be commercially advantageous to do so.
Ah the joy of internet forums.
So what is the problem of selling our ground? It's not as if it's got any real history and it's stuck at the end of an industrial estate with no real option for expansion if required and there are 3 different stand designs. I think AFC are spot on and the fact that they are planning a 20000 seater stadium at least shows that they have some AMBITION. They don't look like a team happy to stay in league two forever...and good luck to them. If the same thing happens to us then I would always vote to sell and move to a better location.
If we owned the better location then Yh...
With respect Frijid, this is a bit simplistic.
There are clearly issues with the location of the ground which must impact on attendances to an extent. There is a massive difference between the training ground and the football ground itself in terms of importance. No retention of the ground in its current place should not be sacrosanct, but an hoest appraisal of any decision to move would be required.
So before any decision to sell would be credible, we would need an honest appraisal of what we could raise by selling the ground. Given its location at the end of an industrial estate with poor access and no obvious way of improving that access, npt to mention planning constraints given the sites designation is likely to make the Ground a pretty hard sell.
Then you would need to consider the cost of building a stadium elsewhere plus issuies re access and location.
Assuming new stadium would cost more to build than old stadium raised (almost inevitable in this case) how this gap be funded and if by borrowing (if available) how would additional income be raised to service the debt.
Frankly it feels highly unlikely that the business case would stack up in WWFC case. I suspect we are where we are for the foreseeable future.
For me the Wimbledon situation is pretty unique as they have a stated aim of returning to Merton and this looks to help that aim.
More generally speaking though I think the MK Dons fiasco has made all supporters more wary of ground moves than they really should be. The Steve Hayes attempt to move Wycombe was wrong on lots of levels but the theory of moving from Adams Park is not a big issue for me. Debt, funding and ownership are much bigger issues.
On a slightly different note I am amazed how little protest West Ham fans put up on moving to the Olympic Park.
Think I hit go just before you. but agree with most.
Dont understand your point re WH. It is a stonking deal for them. Why do you think WH fans should be protesting?
I'm not expecting you to follow my West Ham comment. And maybe there is the answer I am looking for. I would have expected more to be annoyed about moving from a great atmospheric historic ground with the pitch right in front of you to a souless athletics stadium miles from their home.
Maybe Premier League fans have keyed in on the money aspect like you have.
I still prefer the more romantic aspects to the sport.
I cant say I have been there but by all accounts the converted Olympic stadium will be an amazing stadium for football - full of atmosphere, great sight lines , crown right by the pitch. It is three miles away from the current stadium with brilliant public transport links (obviously crucial in London).
I would agree with ypou with some new stadia developments. For example while I am sure it will be practical, it seems to me a great shame to see York move out of the city centre to an out of town generic site by a dual carriageway. But with WH, sounds to me like you are desperate to find reasons to hate it to fit in with your own agenda. WH fans appear to have looked at the realities and like what they see. Some not all progress can be good.
I went to a few of the recent rugby world cup games there. The seats behind the goal are a long long way from the pitch. I'm not sure they're going to like it
@DevC No agenda with West Ham's move. It's a Marmite situation for them. Love it or hate it. Personally I would hate it and don't get me started on the taxpayer stumping up 85% of the move! I am 100% against modern football and modern stadiums http://www.standamf.com/ If we had the same outlook on all out heritage then why dont we knock down all buildings that are 100 years old or more, Start with the house of parliment. We have been sold the same crap for 20 plus years now about a need for progress, but to be honest it's nearly always about lining pockets. Gold, Sullivan and Brady will be out of West Ham within three years of the move. They will sell it to the highest bidder for a king's ransom. Just remember who lined their pockets, London Taxpayers.