Interested Parties

[Clifford]

3 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Sure about that? 

Exactly, stadium until 31. So in 9 years they can remove the club, if it still exists, and pile some lovely 4 beds on there making a fortune given current prices.

 

I can't blame him for not lowering his price in some respects, the value isn't really going down and if he's to make his money back he'll have to knock down the stadium he's part built / been maintaining. If the price is meaning we are struggling to sell (no evidence of this yet) then boycotts of the businesses in the stand will need coordination. Don't think we are at that stage yet but it may be worth trying to kill profits / rent being made from the North Stand. This may make him want to cash out early. 

[nzlatic]

19 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

So not wholly unrealistic given the proximity to the motorway network but the 2031 sporting caveat really should reduce the value significantly 

 

12 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Yes. Also, not sure a development opportunity valuation is the correct starting point.

 

The value of the stadium to the club (or any prospective owner of the club) is very different to the value for a developer…. and therein lies the problem. 

I wasn't presenting that figure as proof the valuation is correct. There are so many factors that could affect it of course, both positively and negatively.  Part of the land could be developed. Part of the land has existing immediate rental value.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that a value of several million £s is not outrageous but that's my non-expert opinion.

 

Have there been any other comparible football ground and surrounding land purchases?  Swindon's deal for their ground of £2.3m only seems to cover the stadium rather than any significant additional acreage. 

[kowenicki]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

 

I wasn't presenting that figure as proof the valuation is correct. There are so many factors that could affect it of course, both positively and negatively.  Part of the land could be developed. Part of the land has existing immediate rental value.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that a value of several million £s is not outrageous but that's my non-expert opinion.

 

Have there been any other comparible football ground and surrounding land purchases?  Swindon's deal for their ground of £2.3m only seems to cover the stadium rather than any significant additional acreage. 

Not sure. 

It is a bit irrelevant to be honest. This is business to Blitz. As far as he’s concerned he has some potential development land.
 

Blitz says he has the club at heart and was lauded as some kind of saviour and ongoing hero on that notorious ‘FLG podcast’. He isn’t. He wants a fair development valuation, because that is what he sees as his loss. If he doesn’t get it then I’d suggest he’s happy for the club to go and won’t bat an eyelid. Or, he’ll pick tue club up in admin for a song and attempt to flog the lot for even more. 
 

I don’t necessarily blame him for having that approach to be honest, he’s entitled to… but please let’s not have anyone on here saying he is anything other than a current and future problem for the club.

[Longlostfan]

The whole thing is a mess. Decisions made over years that certainly didn't have the 'club's' best interests at the centre.

A landlord with an expensive asset that is maybe a millstone until 2031 when he might be able to realise his development dreams.

A legal case (of unknown merit) that would mean any sensible buyer would sit on their hands

An owner who has no real assets- contracts for 3/4 players come June and license to play in a league that may expire in a couple of weeks.

A borough with limited land available for an alternative stadium.

Interested parties who are unlikely to pay the owner / landlord over the odds just to 'save' the club.

 

I can see relegation, followed by admin with a points deduction and probable second relegation before new better owners step in. That's a long road back.

[kowenicki]

55 minutes ago, Longlostfan said:

The whole thing is a mess. Decisions made over years that certainly didn't have the 'club's' best interests at the centre.

A landlord with an expensive asset that is maybe a millstone until 2031 when he might be able to realise his development dreams.

A legal case (of unknown merit) that would mean any sensible buyer would sit on their hands

An owner who has no real assets- contracts for 3/4 players come June and license to play in a league that may expire in a couple of weeks.

A borough with limited land available for an alternative stadium.

Interested parties who are unlikely to pay the owner / landlord over the odds just to 'save' the club.

 

I can see relegation, followed by admin with a points deduction and probable second relegation before new better owners step in. That's a long road back.

Spot on.
 

Liquidation isn’t out of the question either following probable relegation. 
 

 

[nzlatic]

19 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Not sure. 

It is a bit irrelevant to be honest. This is business to Blitz. As far as he’s concerned he has some potential development land.
 

Blitz says he has the club at heart and was lauded as some kind of saviour and ongoing hero on that notorious ‘FLG podcast’. He isn’t. He wants a fair development valuation, because that is what he sees as his loss. If he doesn’t get it then I’d suggest he’s happy for the club to go and won’t bat an eyelid. Or, he’ll pick tue club up in admin for a song and attempt to flog the lot for even more. 
 

I don’t necessarily blame him for having that approach to be honest, he’s entitled to… but please let’s not have anyone on here saying he is anything other than a current and future problem for the club.

We differ on degrees of blame on various parties I think which is fair enough. I’d like to see Blitz tested with a proper offer to see where he stands. Preferably from the fans - that Swindon stadium purchase is 50% owned by club, 50% by fans. Stuff of dreams. 

[deyres42]

Not that it will get that far but as if the council is just going to wave it through and let him do what he wants. Not going to happen.

[wiseowl]

23 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Not that it will get that far but as if the council is just going to wave it through and let him do what he wants. Not going to happen.

Memories are short. The council effectively promised the rugby club a "new ground" as part of the deal for Watersheddings to become yet another very bland and boring housing estate.

[kowenicki]

30 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Not that it will get that far but as if the council is just going to wave it through and let him do what he wants. Not going to happen.

If the club is gone, how would they be able to stop him? Sentiment? Don’t think so. 

[LaticMark]

12 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Here we go.  £7m. Which is actually  a ”significant discount”… mates rates! Jesus wept! 
 

Admittedly this is part of the bollocks spouted by the FLG mob, but they are mates with Blitz so it should be accurate…(does anyone still give these clowns any creedance at all!?)

 

What are the group’s intentions for the stand, stadium and land?

The group are purchasing 14 acres of land, which is the footprint of the stadium and car park behind the North Stand. The remaining land will remain under the control of Brassbank, including the “Little Wembley” training pitch (which is not in the club’s current lease agreement), who intend to use it for housing development. Indeed, it was revealed that the club was notified in May that it has access to the training pitch until December.

This deal is valued at £7 million, which Mr Whitehead stressed was at a significant discount due to his relationship with Mr Gazal and Mr Blitz. 

 

 

It's also been rumoured that AL wants around £3m for the club. Even if someone, or some consortium, has £10m to spend they would inherit a run-down stadium where two of the stands need replacing sooner rather than later - not to mention any debts or liabilities.

 

If anyone wants to refresh their memory about the original FLG 'plan' it's here.

 

[deyres42]

5 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

If the club is gone, how would they be able to stop him? Sentiment? Don’t think so. 

Loads of people want to buy football clubs we keep being told so should be no issues there.

[underdog]

3 hours ago, Pidge said:

Wasn’t the OASF talking about getting a commercial  valuation at one point?

If my memory is wrong, maybe it’s something they should do and publicise. Yes it would cost some money which would essentially be wasted at this stage, but at least the collecting of funds from fans would have a target.

Hi Pidge. Yes it is part of a pre-ACV trigger plan. Once you have the ACV in place (which has now been successfully re-applied for another 5 yrs and another first for the borough thanks to OASF volunteers), the advice is next to be ready for it to be triggered.  This is part of the 21 step strategy issued 12 months ago........It includes:

• Get a RICS survey (£800.00 per hour?)
• have a discussion with the landlord see open to discuss the intentions for site,  running costs
• Is it viable to place a bid?
• Have a 3yr business plan to run the asset (minimum...most lenders ask this).

This is one use of the 1895 fund. Although hoping an SOS, for volunteers has rustled up qualified skillsets to help.

General rule of thumb, I believe, is allow 10% of any funding pot, be for costs, like admin, legal etc.

 

I left OASF with a FOI request with the commissioner as part of the intel gathering.  To get the SAG meeting notes. Just in case they flagged anything in them, like...replacing a stand. Some councils publish them openly like Hammersmith & Fulham. OMBC upheld our appeal called in internal review but still denied OASF the information. Hence it now with the commissioner for a ruling.

 

Cheers

 

[underdog]

1 hour ago, Longlostfan said:

The whole thing is a mess. Decisions made over years that certainly didn't have the 'club's' best interests at the centre.

A landlord with an expensive asset that is maybe a millstone until 2031 when he might be able to realise his development dreams.

A legal case (of unknown merit) that would mean any sensible buyer would sit on their hands

An owner who has no real assets- contracts for 3/4 players come June and license to play in a league that may expire in a couple of weeks.

A borough with limited land available for an alternative stadium.

Interested parties who are unlikely to pay the owner / landlord over the odds just to 'save' the club.

 

I can see relegation, followed by admin with a points deduction and probable second relegation before new better owners step in. That's a long road back.

Well summed up

 

OASF briefed the Fan Led review committee last year. 

 

Chosen topic "assets seperated from club"

 

Philippa called it a "dysfunctional set up".

 

Hoping incoming EFL reform, learns lessons from our situation, as well as other clubs and their supporters too. its a good 18 months off. Might be too late for us, hoping other clubs and their fans not go through this like we have

[Clifford]

1 hour ago, deyres42 said:

Not that it will get that far but as if the council is just going to wave it through and let him do what he wants. Not going to happen.

You know little about planning law if you think the council could stop housing going on a derelict stadium.

[Clifford]

47 minutes ago, wiseowl said:

Memories are short. The council effectively promised the rugby club a "new ground" as part of the deal for Watersheddings to become yet another very bland and boring housing estate.

Wasn't that sports park 2000 but a change of the party running the council killed that? If the oldham rugby wanted a new ground they could have bought land and built one. Never fully understand the soppy shite from that re the rugby. I assume the then owner made some cash from selling the ground. He's the villan.

[Chaddyexile84]

39 minutes ago, deyres42 said:

Loads of people want to buy football clubs we keep being told so should be no issues there.

 

Don't recall Bury's council being too fussed why should ours be any different? Especially when Oldham Council have overseen the deterioration of the town as a whole, they make Blackburn with Darwen look competent 

 

Edit - I replied to the wrong comment  meant the council one apologies 

[deyres42]

2 minutes ago, Clifford said:

You know about planning law if you think the council could stop housing going on a derelict stadium.

It isn't going to be derelict, it isn't a club with huge debts, it's a easy buy.

[Clifford]

Just now, deyres42 said:

It isn't going to be derelict, it isn't a club with huge debts, it's a easy buy.

 

IF he is the big bad wolf he'll stop the club playing there when he can. If the club doesn't own it by 2031 meaning Blitz has had his asking price met why would Blitz not cash in then?

 

The club doesn't get to choose if it stays at BP.

 

The club won't make 2024 IMO in it's current state.

[Clifford]

4 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

 

Don't recall Bury's council being too fussed why should ours be any different? Especially when Oldham Council have overseen the deterioration of the town as a whole, they make Blackburn with Darwen look competent 

 

It's almost impossible to stop housing developments, let alone on brownfield sites. The council would just end up being taken to court at a cost to the taxpayer facing a guaranteed defeat. 

 

They can't judge applications on whether they fancy it or not. There are legal tests to be applied.

[deyres42]

2 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

 

Don't recall Bury's council being too fussed why should ours be any different? Especially when Oldham Council have overseen the deterioration of the town as a whole, they make Blackburn with Darwen look competent 

Bury was a carcrash with their debts and whatnot, our circumstances are different, we have high profile MP's in the area, the EFL took huge criticism for the way they handled Bury and Macclesfield, there's no way they are going to let another one go bump on their watch.

[Chaddyexile84]

4 minutes ago, Clifford said:

 

It's almost impossible to stop housing developments, let alone on brownfield sites. The council would just end up being taken to court at a cost to the taxpayer facing a guaranteed defeat. 

 

They can't judge applications on whether they fancy it or not. There are legal tests to be applied.

 

Oh I know having just been on the losing side of a committee trying to protect some beautiful fields at the back of me from housebuilding which are now just mud and excavators.  That wasn't even brownfield.

 

It's also been my first face to face experience of councillors...

 

Fuck me is all I can say

[Bobledgersheart]

4 minutes ago, Clifford said:

Wasn't that sports park 2000 but a change of the party running the council killed that? If the oldham rugby wanted a new ground they could have bought land and built one. Never fully understand the soppy shite from that re the rugby. I assume the then owner made some cash from selling the ground. He's the villan.

Think the rugby were so much in debt that any monies made from the sale of land merely covered them.

 

The club was mismanaged ( see the parallels here ! ) making short term decisions to tackle long term problems, the demise of the rugby club; doubling the lease price of the dog track thus losing that income whilst attempting to run it themselves and resorting to taxi-ing bar staff in from Bradford and a manager with little if any previous experience; paying for a JCB to be permanently on site ( owned by a Director ) and paying a Chairman a salary when most thought he was doing the job gratis.

 

The Council can be blamed for many things but the people running the rugby club are not exempt from blame. 

[Andy b]

47 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

 

Oh I know having just been on the losing side of a committee trying to protect some beautiful fields at the back of me from housebuilding which are now just mud and excavators.  That wasn't even brownfield.

 

It's also been my first face to face experience of councillors...

 

Fuck me is all I can say

The Foundation is taking steps to secure a planning policy allocation for BP which reflects its social and community value to the Borough and so protecting it as a sports stadia. 

[JoeP]

1 hour ago, deyres42 said:

Bury was a carcrash with their debts and whatnot, our circumstances are different, we have high profile MP's in the area, the EFL took huge criticism for the way they handled Bury and Macclesfield, there's no way they are going to let another one go bump on their watch.

 

We won't be the EFL's problem in a month's time. Like Macclesfield, they've left it too late to do anything. They've failed again. 

[wiseowl]

2 hours ago, Clifford said:

Wasn't that sports park 2000 but a change of the party running the council killed that? 

No - 1997 when Sheddings went