chickers

Option one contains portions of the development which will be self funding, a lot of the office space and what have you will generate a lettable commercial value, as will the conferencing and banqueting suites, not to mention the extra seating which will bring in money a lot of the value of the project is in building of the houses, the hotel, gym etc etc, and as such the value will be recouped when constructed and let option two is indirectly linked to option one in that t3a want it to go ahead to achieve the full corporate plan for OAFC 2004, but for each application on its own to go ahead then there is no link to them financially option one can start tomorrow if need be, and will be finished for say august 2008....option two will only start in say may 2008. that gives them six months to submit a full outline planning application, not a watered down one as they did last nite

perhaps not directly but the fact that they didnt reject it first time as they were waiting on the HA report, and then that came and it was all ok, would have led some people into thinking it was all done and dusted

we aint that liked!

i would assume (even though ya shouldnt) that they thought it would be a easy wham bam thank you mam, and failed to prepare the case fully, should the questions be asked (and its hard to prepare yourself for the unknowns which may be asked of you!) the fact that one of the people didnt know that the clayton was shut, what a 3g pitch was, and had no idea what little wembley was summed up the kinda people the 3 a are dealing with they need the information spoon feeding to them, they know for next time!

thats is why no one likes qs's!

but if the representative (and i am not trying to have a go at anyone here) could have said no we have budgetted that they will retail about the 120k mark (say) then his argument would have been blown out of everyones mind as such by his comment, the people on the board are working out simple maths 80 million to build the WHOLE project, phase one has been approved say thats 15 mil already funded, so to do phase two will be 65 million, in which the owners are going to get a minimum of 100 million in revenue, which will give them 35 million profit its that one seed which can plant doubt in peoples minds, which is one that we couldnt blow away

the people on the panel hadnt even realised that the floodlights for the stadia were to sit within the roof space, and thus emissions were to be mininal they must have spent about 10 mins labouring over this point

went to the same business school as me then mate!

i aint educated mate, not got my degree yet!! to sum up yes, as they were both issued as separate plans it leads me to believe that they are both self funding, but both beneficial to the owners corporate plan for the football club

PQS (or ) as they are known by contractors they are the clients agent, who control monetary aspects of the job, funding, procurement, budget costs (which will be more defined as the project develops) etc they will have had to have produced a kinda cash flow forecast for the development, and showing levels of funding which have been achieved so as to ensure that the development will be completed (the last thing anyone wants is a half finished job)

the monetary side was irrelevant, but i think he was hinting at that the scale of the site was perhaps too large, ie could they take a tier off as with his calculations they could still make it pay (albeit it they are wrong calculations!)

sorry missed that one!! i have had to demonstrate in my past experience that in order to fulfil a development where the finances for that development have come from, be it private investment, eu grants, sale of assetts etc etc i wouldnt see why in the feasability study that this wouldnt have been done at FWP or R+D its one of the basic jobs of a PQS type person.

and teh front of the development couldnt confirm what allowances had been made within his proposals for the salable value!

when i have had to deal with planning issues, i have had to demonstrate that funding is in place for the development, if option 2 still has no hotel chain in place, and has no defined level of apartments how can it be demonstrated that monies from this development will be funnelled into the development pot for option 1? option one has lettable office space which has a m2 commercial value (it think it is ft2 but i aint sure) which will generate them income, conference facilities will havea commercial value all which will generate income towards progression of the club. If option 2 was to go ahead it would go after option one has finished, and would be funded by a lot of the spec properties being sold off to give it a cash boost at the start of the project i would be concerned if options one and two were to run concurrently but they are not, as i see it the client (OAFC Whoever) has circa nine months to achieve full outline planning, which is achievable

part two was for the refurb of the chaddy and assosciated works and new george hill stand which contains...6,200 seats, hotel, fitness club, 553 residential apartments 140 units of key worker housing, ancillary retail and cafe units my understanding, granted i havnt as much construction experiance as others on this forum is that the reason they were split is that option one is financed by the lettable packages contained within it as it is on a much smaller scale, and that option two will be financed by any profit made from option one, along with speculative purchases on the properties contained within it, along with any other commercial agreements which may be in place (the hotel chain is still not signed up, SC just reeled off a couple of hotel groups which may be interested)

The club turned up and wasnt prepared for what was asked of it...if that is blaming the club then so be it the club know what it has to do now to achieve this stage of planning, and hopefully it can be done at the earliest oppertunity and put back in front of teh councillors for approval one of the guys on the panel who probably has no construction experience assumed that the apartments would retail at the 200k barrier and that would generate 100 million for the development...when as simon couldnt confirm what he had assumed the resalable value of the properties would be...surely you would know that bit of information (for the record i got asked the same question in a presentation i had to give, so its not unique) apart from the traffic, which they had to take as fact as they forced them into accepting that it was correct, the other issue they had was on the scale of the site, something which simon said he was going to liaise with the residents over perhaps there was too much if buts and maybes for the council to pass judgement on such a large scheme..if the traffic hadnt been discussed at the length it was as within the presentation the facts were unclear then maybe the judgement would have been passed favourably on the club...who knows

what from that one bit of PR?

Option one contains all the "essentials" that the club needs to survive (within the application that we have been granted is a new 5,200 seater stand, conferencing and banqueting facilities (extra ££££), club facilities and lettable office space (££££), which the club will have had to demonstrate the funding for this project before it can be passed, it has a loose connection to phase two in the greater corporate plan of the club, but not for the regeneration of the stadium Option two gives the club finances to give it some "extra toys" this contains the extra dwellings for resale to finance the phase two of the project, which will be in about 9 months time....

not being cynical...just if it was going to cost me more to do something and i had a hatred for the other party then i would go for the cheaper option everytime....thats just me though

i think it costs more to pass an application on the councils part than it does to fail it

the council should the clients bid have contained all the facts would have had no issue in passing the scale and access only planning application because BRASS BANK / T3A / OLDHAM ATHLETIC turned up without all the information they couldnt pass it its as simple as that...if we had prepared for it then we would have got it, we failed to prepare and we failed...council cant be blamed for the teams incompetencies

i guess your right we went in ill prepared for a basic stage one planning meeting, and we got knocked back, it wasnt for full outline which has detailed plans, just a artists impression of what the scheme may look like if we had all the plans on board and a hotel commited and we got rejected then i would share the doom and gloom downbeat attitude that everyone seems to have taken we fell at the first hurdle, to get us over that one isnt a significant event, just doing what we should have done this evening...getting our facts together if the council wanted the club to suffer, they wouldnt have given permission for the new main stand (lookers), which holds all the conference facilities which they had concerns over with the volume of traffic

even in a project i had to do for uni i had to know the resalable assets within my development so i could commit to being able to commit to the development Someone at FWP will be getting there aris kicked tomorrow

but not full OUTLINE planning

Rubbish