chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I admire your optimism chickers, but having just spoken to someone who was there who has 40 years experience in planning matters, and then read the club's immediate response on the official site, I'm afraid I am totally pessimistic. I genuinely fear this could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back as far as TTA are concerned. (Our appalling attendances this season being another major factor.) Get ready for bottom tier football at best, and oblivion at worst. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane89 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 i WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I TOOK MY ANGER OUT ON THEM THAT ARE OLDHAM COUNICL ON THERE ONLINE COMPLAINTE I SUGGEST OTHERS DO SO THEY KNOW WHAT PPL THINK OF THEM complain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 If you don't like the way the Trust is run oafc0000, why not stand for election and help make changes? I dont belive I would stand ANY chance of being voted on. Its all hand sakes and people who know other people etc.....Hear that line said alot, but we both know how these things work.......dont we.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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 Or you could be more cynical and say that they backed the redeveloped stand 11 - 0 knowing that they were going to reject the second application, on which the whole thing stands or falls. That way they look like they have tried to help the club. Cynical, yes. But then I'm a cynic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Or you could be more cynical and say that they backed the redeveloped stand 11 - 0 knowing that they were going to reject the second application, on which the whole thing stands or falls. That way they look like they have tried to help the club. Cynical, yes. But then I'm a cynic. i think it costs more to pass an application on the councils part than it does to fail it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) 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 Its celever politics...... The counci l 100% know that option 1 depends on option 2......by granting option 1 and not option 2 they have a pre-made excuess when people say they dont like the club....celever....but i can see right through it... Edited November 14, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 i think it costs more to pass an application on the councils part than it does to fail it Now who's being cynical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Now who's being cynical? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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 was actually joking but never mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 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.... Part two included a Gym (££££) and office space (££££) did it not ? Also wasnt the flat development going to help over the costs/loan/pay back investment for option 1 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 so.in plain english(!!!) the TTAs have to show they have money to cover phase 1,without the intention of using phase 2 monies to cover for everything. have i got this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I dont belive I would stand ANY chance of being voted on. Its all hand sakes and people who know other people etc.....Hear that line said alot, but we both know how these things work.......dont we.... I'd say you have little to no idea how it works. At the moment there is actually space for a number of directors to come on board. As such (assuming we don't get a large number of candidates standing!) anyone who stands is likely to get on board. The struggle has always been getting people to come forward, rather than finding space for those who do. PM me if you want more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Part two included a Gym (££££) and office space (££££) did it not ? Also wasnt the flat development going to help over the costs/loan/pay back investment for option 1 ? I really don't think there can be an option 1 without option 2. Otherwise, why would they be talking of walking away? The main cash generator is the apartments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaw_blue Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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.... I really hope that is correct but i was under the impression that option two had to be approved for option one to go ahead and looking at the official site so was the webmaster at the club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Part two included a Gym (££££) and office space (££££) did it not ? Also wasnt the flat development going to help over the costs/loan/pay back investment for option 1 ? 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) 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) So if option 1 has everything the club needs to survive why is the club painting this as the possible end ?? Now im reading between the lines here but that would suggest that option 2 is needed just as much as option 1 for the club to survive...or...the 3As are over playing this....which I dont see how that benefits anyone ?? Hence why I dount they are over playing it.. Edited November 14, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 So if option 1 has everything the club needs to survive why is the club painting this as the possible end ?? Now im reading between the lines here but that would suggest that option 2 is needed just as much as option 1 for the club to survive...or...the 3As are over playing this....which I dont see how that benefits anyone ?? Hence why I dount they are over playing it.. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 so.in plain english(!!!) the TTAs have to show they have money to cover phase 1,without the intention of using phase 2 monies to cover for everything. have i got this right? bump! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 bump! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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. lol whats that#???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 lol whats that#???? 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 so,that a yes to my original post? bloody educated types!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickers Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 so,that a yes to my original post? bloody educated types!!! 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 and that situation is considered very risky? if that is so,did the TTAs know about that and did they not provide full info into fundings? seems the more you delve into this,the more they got their case wrong. doesn't help when you're trying to convince a band of idiots who "run" this town though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.