If you work with planning, you will know difficult getting change of use planning is. Planning is site specific. The planning environment for a specific site in Oxford has no relevance to a site in High Wycombe.
I note you have failed to answer any of the questions I asked you.
1) if not resi, what sort of commercial leisure do you see as realistic for that site?
2) if lucrative alternative uses are possible, why is the land adjacent used for once a fortnight parking rather than housing or some ill defined leisure use?
3) why similarly are some of the very secondary industrial sites adjacent not converted?
4) why are you so keen to avoid an independent property expert valuing the site with vacant possession.
Perhaps you could also clarify exactly what you are concerned about. Is the clubs new owner to close the club and pocket the value of the land or are you concerned that he will use that value to part fund construction of a new stadium elsewhere in the town.
Also perhaps you could quantify roughly what figure you think the AP site might be worth with vacant possession. I would guess it is around 6-8 acres but have to say not good at estimating size of site visually.
I've just been on the Nottingham forest site with a long email about my position on their present ownership and complaining how dim the other posters are. Have I missed anything?
@DevC - You need to realise that times are a changing and that Councils are being severely pressured by central government to find more land for housing. As time goes on this pressure will increase.
Fear of asset strippers seems to be one of the key reasons those who fear outside investment give as their rationale.
I have asked you six questions (all of which seem entirely reasonable) in an attempt to drill down to begin to determine whether those fears are just justified or misguided.
It appears you are reluctant to answer them. Could I respectfully ask you to do so.
I note that rather than answer reasonable questions from which we all might understand each other’s positions, we have instead reverted to the safety of a “play the man” strategy.....
@drcongo said:
If you really need it spelling out to you @DevC, and I’m sure you don’t but you’re pretending to be so thick that you do...
1) Buy club
2) Move club to massive white elephant stadium that the club needs to pay you rent for
3) Leave Adams Park derelict and crumbling until it’s an unsightly safety hazard
4) receive letter from council begging you to redevelop the Adams Park land with whatever planning permission you fancy
5) profit
Like I say, I’m sure you’re pretending to be so thick that you don’t understand this, even though it has happened several times to other clubs. Especially as you posted a news story about someone trying to do exactly this to your beloved Torquay. It’s an admirable attempt to appear to be even more hard of thinking than you actually are, but we’ve seen through it. Pure trolling.
Somewhere around point 3 buildings that require unlikely planning permission generally have a fire, something collapses making it unsafe, someone breaks in and does themselves some harm etc, seen it several times with council buildings. Then rezoning is the council removing a hazard doing everyone a favour and you can use it for whatever you like as long as you clean it up.
Note point 2 isn't always move somewhere bigger, sometimes it's a dispute with stadium owners over costs or some kind of safety issue (roof?). Then you are renting elsewhere and own nowt .
Okay DevC what don't you understand about the similarity between what happened with Coventry City losing ownership of their stadium and what could happen at WWFC of we sell out to a hedge fund?
Since you act like you don't know what happened at Covent
@DevC said:
I note that rather than answer reasonable questions from which we all might understand each other’s positions, we have instead reverted to the safety of a “play the man” strategy.....
(1) Maybe the new hedge fund owners of WWFC will find some way to bully the Trust to their knees by with holding payment. I know "fix the stadium roof or we won't pay the rent".
(2) Hedge fund owners offer to take over full control of the stadium from the Trust as a way out of the Trust going bankrupt.
(3) Hedge fund owners buy back the training ground from the TGF - because the TGF still want to make their profit on that particular deal - and move trading to Adams Park.
(4) Hedge fund now able to sell training ground, and with it then being a disused site will be able to obtain planning permission.
(5) Hedge fund owners now sell former training ground for an inflated profit
(6) Hedge fund now free to dispose of WWFC, even at a small loss they have still made money. And we will be up the swany.
Of course this is only my opinion of what could happen. But, and he's my point:-
If I vote in favour of selling the majority share I have to be prepared be accept that these things might happen.
@aloysius said: @NiceCarrots Bill Luby and his American colleagues manage a private equity fund, not a hedge fund. There's a world of difference - hedges are generally interested in short-term profit and asset striping, private equity (or venture capital) funds generally look to invest longer term and turn failing companies around. The latter are infinitely preferable to the former. Sisu at Coventry are a hedge fund - and that's a route we definitely don't want to go down - but most investment in English football clubs comes from private equity.
I’ve read recent posts with interest and come to the conclusion that those with no desire to seek outside investment have sincerely held views that must be respected. I doubt that anything or anyone will change their minds and that is their prerogative. I would just reiterate the Trust board’s view that the alternative of remaining supporter owned is not, in their view, sustainable.
However, for those still wavering can I ask that we just wait till we hear from the would be investors before going along with the doom laden predictions of Armageddon?
I have no idea who they are and what their motives are and I suspect that I’m not alone in that, but I’m prepared to hear them out before condemning them.
@glasshalffull said:
I’ve read recent posts with interest and come to the conclusion that those with no desire to seek outside investment have sincerely held views that must be respected. I doubt that anything or anyone will change their minds and that is their prerogative. I would just reiterate the Trust board’s view that the alternative of remaining supporter owned is not, in their view, sustainable.
However, for those still wavering can I ask that we just wait till we hear from the would be investors before going along with the doom laden predictions of Armageddon?
I have no idea who they are and what their motives are and I suspect that I’m not alone in that, but I’m prepared to hear them out before condemning them.
Aaaagh, pretty much what I typed heaven knows how many pages ago!!!!
@glasshalffull said:
I’ve read recent posts with interest and come to the conclusion that those with no desire to seek outside investment have sincerely held views that must be respected. I doubt that anything or anyone will change their minds and that is their prerogative. I would just reiterate the Trust board’s view that the alternative of remaining supporter owned is not, in their view, sustainable.
However, for those still wavering can I ask that we just wait till we hear from the would be investors before going along with the doom laden predictions of Armageddon?
I have no idea who they are and what their motives are and I suspect that I’m not alone in that, but I’m prepared to hear them out before condemning them.
No. I'd rather people did a bit of research to make an informed decision to be honest. If you don't like the speculation you don't need to read it. Whilst there is a lot of sniping here between individuals theres also some good debate that will inform the kind of questions people raise with the prospective owners and the assurances they would like to see before voting for any deal.
Do your research by all means and I agree that this debate has raised some interesting questions but there have also been a lot of posts from people with deeply entrenched views who aren’t prepared to give any time to the alternative proposal.
@glasshalffull said:
I’ve read recent posts with interest and come to the conclusion that those with no desire to seek outside investment have sincerely held views that must be respected. I doubt that anything or anyone will change their minds and that is their prerogative. I would just reiterate the Trust board’s view that the alternative of remaining supporter owned is not, in their view, sustainable.
However, for those still wavering can I ask that we just wait till we hear from the would be investors before going along with the doom laden predictions of Armageddon?
I have no idea who they are and what their motives are and I suspect that I’m not alone in that, but I’m prepared to hear them out before condemning them.
Aaaagh, pretty much what I typed heaven knows how many pages ago!!!!
My apologies but as you say it’s difficult to remember everything that’s been written.
@glasshalffull said:
Do your research by all means and I agree that this debate has raised some interesting questions but there have also been a lot of posts from people with deeply entrenched views who aren’t prepared to give any time to the alternative proposal.
If you're referring to me, I'm not deeply entrenched at all. In fact, I really only have one question of the potential investor: "How do you propose to make a return on any investment?"
And one question for the board: "The board told us that nearly all football league clubs are in the same position as us, and given that only 4(?) are supported owned, that means that nearly all football clubs are in the same financial shit that we are despite having taken outside investment, why then are they telling us this will solve everything?"
@glasshalffull said:
Do your research by all means and I agree that this debate has raised some interesting questions but there have also been a lot of posts from people with deeply entrenched views who aren’t prepared to give any time to the alternative proposal.
I don't disagree with that. There's a strange variety of posters here , amongst the interested, concerned and the whitty are some who just want to win the debate here as if that actually matters even in the context of any vote and some who are just desperate to be acknowledged as being right. Still , theres no compulsion to read everything or anything on here and I'd wager that most of those who vote , should it come to thatprobably won't have read any of it.
@glasshalffull said:
Do your research by all means and I agree that this debate has raised some interesting questions but there have also been a lot of posts from people with deeply entrenched views who aren’t prepared to give any time to the alternative proposal.
If you're referring to me, I'm not deeply entrenched at all. In fact, I really only have one question of the potential investor: "How do you propose to make a return on any investment?"
And one question for the board: "The board told us that nearly all football league clubs are in the same position as us, and given that only 4(?) are supported owned, that means that nearly all football clubs are in the same financial shit that we are despite having taken outside investment, why then are they telling us this will solve everything?"
@micra said:
With 76000 views, I’d wager that most of those eligible to vote will have read enough comments on here to have found a few crumbs of food for thought.
Possible, although @drcongo will be able to give you a better idea of how many seperate real people that equates to.
Comments
If you work with planning, you will know difficult getting change of use planning is. Planning is site specific. The planning environment for a specific site in Oxford has no relevance to a site in High Wycombe.
I note you have failed to answer any of the questions I asked you.
1) if not resi, what sort of commercial leisure do you see as realistic for that site?
2) if lucrative alternative uses are possible, why is the land adjacent used for once a fortnight parking rather than housing or some ill defined leisure use?
3) why similarly are some of the very secondary industrial sites adjacent not converted?
4) why are you so keen to avoid an independent property expert valuing the site with vacant possession.
Perhaps you could also clarify exactly what you are concerned about. Is the clubs new owner to close the club and pocket the value of the land or are you concerned that he will use that value to part fund construction of a new stadium elsewhere in the town.
Also perhaps you could quantify roughly what figure you think the AP site might be worth with vacant possession. I would guess it is around 6-8 acres but have to say not good at estimating size of site visually.
I've just been on the Nottingham forest site with a long email about my position on their present ownership and complaining how dim the other posters are. Have I missed anything?
@DevC - You need to realise that times are a changing and that Councils are being severely pressured by central government to find more land for housing. As time goes on this pressure will increase.
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/highwycombe/15775892.Reviewing_Green_Belt_land_could_find_space_for_more_housing__says_Cllr/
You can’t buy the Bucks Free Press in Devon, nor can you look out of your window and see houses in High Wycombe built on greenbelt and AONB land.
Fear of asset strippers seems to be one of the key reasons those who fear outside investment give as their rationale.
I have asked you six questions (all of which seem entirely reasonable) in an attempt to drill down to begin to determine whether those fears are just justified or misguided.
It appears you are reluctant to answer them. Could I respectfully ask you to do so.
I'd just vote for the takeover and put my feet up if I was you @devc.
He's disenfranchised.
He can't Vote unless he is a legacy member, which I doubt that he is.
I cannot believe someone with so much time to spend on this has no straw dog in the fight. I am shocked!;-)
I note that rather than answer reasonable questions from which we all might understand each other’s positions, we have instead reverted to the safety of a “play the man” strategy.....
Somewhere around point 3 buildings that require unlikely planning permission generally have a fire, something collapses making it unsafe, someone breaks in and does themselves some harm etc, seen it several times with council buildings. Then rezoning is the council removing a hazard doing everyone a favour and you can use it for whatever you like as long as you clean it up.
Note point 2 isn't always move somewhere bigger, sometimes it's a dispute with stadium owners over costs or some kind of safety issue (roof?). Then you are renting elsewhere and own nowt .
@DevC I'm not sure about anyone else but I reckon I've got a pretty good understanding of your position.
Okay DevC what don't you understand about the similarity between what happened with Coventry City losing ownership of their stadium and what could happen at WWFC of we sell out to a hedge fund?
Since you act like you don't know what happened at Covent
Since you act like you don't know what happened at Coventry read this article first
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/23/coventry-city-sisu-homeless-future-wasps-ricoh-stadium
It’s not a hedge fund.
Just make another coffee, watch the seals and relax Dev
This literally doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever
your position is an absolute irrelevance
(1) Maybe the new hedge fund owners of WWFC will find some way to bully the Trust to their knees by with holding payment. I know "fix the stadium roof or we won't pay the rent".
(2) Hedge fund owners offer to take over full control of the stadium from the Trust as a way out of the Trust going bankrupt.
(3) Hedge fund owners buy back the training ground from the TGF - because the TGF still want to make their profit on that particular deal - and move trading to Adams Park.
(4) Hedge fund now able to sell training ground, and with it then being a disused site will be able to obtain planning permission.
(5) Hedge fund owners now sell former training ground for an inflated profit
(6) Hedge fund now free to dispose of WWFC, even at a small loss they have still made money. And we will be up the swany.
Of course this is only my opinion of what could happen. But, and he's my point:-
If I vote in favour of selling the majority share I have to be prepared be accept that these things might happen.
I’ve read recent posts with interest and come to the conclusion that those with no desire to seek outside investment have sincerely held views that must be respected. I doubt that anything or anyone will change their minds and that is their prerogative. I would just reiterate the Trust board’s view that the alternative of remaining supporter owned is not, in their view, sustainable.
However, for those still wavering can I ask that we just wait till we hear from the would be investors before going along with the doom laden predictions of Armageddon?
I have no idea who they are and what their motives are and I suspect that I’m not alone in that, but I’m prepared to hear them out before condemning them.
Aaaagh, pretty much what I typed heaven knows how many pages ago!!!!
No. I'd rather people did a bit of research to make an informed decision to be honest. If you don't like the speculation you don't need to read it. Whilst there is a lot of sniping here between individuals theres also some good debate that will inform the kind of questions people raise with the prospective owners and the assurances they would like to see before voting for any deal.
Do your research by all means and I agree that this debate has raised some interesting questions but there have also been a lot of posts from people with deeply entrenched views who aren’t prepared to give any time to the alternative proposal.
My apologies but as you say it’s difficult to remember everything that’s been written.
If you're referring to me, I'm not deeply entrenched at all. In fact, I really only have one question of the potential investor: "How do you propose to make a return on any investment?"
And one question for the board: "The board told us that nearly all football league clubs are in the same position as us, and given that only 4(?) are supported owned, that means that nearly all football clubs are in the same financial shit that we are despite having taken outside investment, why then are they telling us this will solve everything?"
I don't disagree with that. There's a strange variety of posters here , amongst the interested, concerned and the whitty are some who just want to win the debate here as if that actually matters even in the context of any vote and some who are just desperate to be acknowledged as being right. Still , theres no compulsion to read everything or anything on here and I'd wager that most of those who vote , should it come to thatprobably won't have read any of it.
As it happens I wasn’t referring to you at all.
With 76000 views, I’d wager that most of those eligible to vote will have read enough comments on here to have found a few crumbs of food for thought.
Possible, although @drcongo will be able to give you a better idea of how many seperate real people that equates to.