|
Post by Hatboy on Feb 20, 2015 7:24:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 9:28:15 GMT
petition is a good idea, as long as its not a petition that benefits mcgowan / levy above everyone else
fans are the lifeblood, if mcgowan wants to walk let him, there will be others
need to be careful here
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 20, 2015 12:13:59 GMT
The petition is about simply getting the council involved - which I feel is very pragmatic and the right direction for the petition. The council do have a responsibility as both landlord and also in terms of the future of a local community based football club - especially as it ultimately impacts on the local community the council serves. This includes sport provision and the local economy which even in an era of austerity are mean't to be key themes for local councils to focus upon.
|
|
|
Post by 2penniesworth on Feb 20, 2015 13:59:17 GMT
Now I know that my message on this board as a new poster will probably raise questions and the usual who do they think they are comments, however- I do care about the Club and the community and I do have an input which could encourage some thought and discussion.
The current press in the Herts Ad, is skewed to the needs of the owners, now whilst I do not dispute that they care about the club and wish for it to succeed, we do have to remember that they are ultimately businessmen and they will naturally want to make a financial benefit from the club and a move to a new ground with the revenue for them from the housing/shopping association is a consideration for them and fundamentally linked to their desire to remain with the Club.
I understand that to finance the new ground development there is a need to work with a developer to obtain the funds needed- as whilst they are the “money men” they aren’t able to put that much capital in. Completely reasonable but I have to ask whether in the current climate it’s the right tactic to take.
There are a couple of issues here, firstly any planning application for any site within the City (and its immediate area) is under immense pressure currently- the recent Strategic Local Plan is still under review so the criteria for obtaining permission is by my understanding still open to individual interpretation and for many building projects (both green and brown field sites) the hoops that are needed to jump through are becoming more and more. The “Very Special Circumstances” exception to obtain permission on green belt is a giant hurdle not main manage to jump.
The Council are also coming up to a potential time of change- and whilst early indications are that the forthcoming election may not bring sweeping changes, the decision to go to press at this time does run the risk of the new ground being an election issue, knowing the local residents to the ground are vocal about the Clubs position, and the other residents of St Albans who are not afraid of shouting out loud if they feel that their view, peace and quiet, journey to work will be disrupted by the horror of change or progression.
SADC are also very focussed and motivated by Green issues currently- I ask whether it would not be a better route for the Club to try and work on a regeneration project of the current ground, looking at green technology and issues- firstly to ensure the Club remains in the City, and also to gain the backing and support of the Council- if the Council was to agree to this the objections of the York Road residents and the like would naturally need to be addressed but at least it would be a workable solution. The Local Enterprise Partnership, BRE, Rothampsted Research and others are all working towards making Hertfordshire and St Albans a focus and go to for anything green- and a link could be forged there- there could be potential for funding for community green projects, working with the right partners could lead to an injection of skills, labour and materials if negotiated correctly. The Club, ground and facilities could be a flag ship for the area and its green credentials.
This would not bring in immediate cash benefits for the owners, but is potentially a more viable solution in the short to medium term and would also with the correct developments on site bring potential for commercial opportunities (functions, conferencing, playgroups etc)
Long term I know that the aim is for the success of the Club to outgrow Clarence Park- but with the current numbers (don’t get me started on the pricing strategy) and levels of success surely regeneration rather than rebuild is a more prudent option.
I’d be interested to know whether the owners have looked at whether there could be any potential for a green overhaul of the current site (and the possibility for funding via external parties for this) or if they have written off Clarence Park and are committed into a move or else.
The fans, need to remember that when lobbying for the Club, it is worth remembering that the voice and passion will carry them so far, but by also taking a voice of opportunity and the potential for the Council to utilise any site for their own benefit, publicity and aims will also help amplify their voices and steer the decision makers.
The Strategic Local Plan results are due out shortly and any future moves or changes to the Clubs ground will need to be made with the SLP in the background to ensure success. Whilst I can understand the owners aims by going public now- I wonder if they may have jumped the gun and would have been better placed to target their message post election and post Strategic plan publishing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 14:59:30 GMT
might be wishful thinking that 2penniesworth unfortunately
the club existed before mcgowan and levy, dunno what's changed all of a sudden to suggest it won't exist if they go
|
|
|
Post by barringtongobi on Feb 20, 2015 15:09:31 GMT
As much as I love the team (and enjoy the rare successes). I am not so sure if City are actually at their natural level. Over the last 40 years City have spent many seasons at lower levels (I cannot be bothered at the moment to find out how many). City also have the "honour" of being the first club to be relegated from the Isthmian league as the table below shows. It could be argued that the club have in fact overachieved, which may explain the times it has nearly gone bust. 1 Wycombe Wanderers (C) 42 27 9 6 96 34 90 2 Hendon 42 25 13 4 63 20 88 3 Bishop's Stortford 42 26 9 7 78 26 87 4 Dulwich Hamlet 42 22 11 9 71 38 77 5 Leatherhead 42 23 6 13 81 44 75 6 Walton & Hersham 42 20 12 10 68 50 72 7 Woking 42 22 6 14 63 55 72 8 Leytonstone 42 20 9 13 63 44 69 9 Ilford 42 20 8 14 60 44 68 10 Hayes 42 17 14 11 65 43 65 11 Oxford City 42 15 16 11 45 47 61 12 Sutton United 42 13 16 13 51 52 55 13 Hitchin Town 42 15 10 17 68 73 55 14 Barking 42 14 12 16 57 58 54 15 Kingstonian 42 12 15 15 47 46 51 16 Tooting & Mitcham 42 14 9 19 57 62 51 17 Enfield 42 13 11 18 50 57 50 18 Walthamstow Avenue 42 11 13 18 46 62 46 19 Bromley 42 7 9 26 37 81 30 20 Clapton 42 8 3 31 36 128 27 21 St Albans City 42 4 7 31 30 92 19 Relegated to Division Two 22 Corinthian Casuals 42 3 4 35 31 107 13 None of this makes me happy, but it is interesting to note where the majority of surviving clubs from that time are now. If you look at that table i think that, 2 of the teams are now playing at a higher level; 6 are at the same level & 13 are at a lower level or not around anymore... Football evolves & moves on. If I have taken anything from the regimes of previous owners it is that I am more grateful to have my team to watch, than I am bothered about the standard we play at.
|
|
|
Post by asaintreborn on Feb 20, 2015 15:13:06 GMT
might be wishful thinking that 2penniesworth unfortunately the club existed before mcgowan and levy, dunno what's changed all of a sudden to suggest it won't exist if they go The club is being susidised by the current owners and was subsidised by the previous few. What will change is if they leave and no one new comes in to do that. The club will stil exist but will be playing at lower level. On the flip side we could move and potentially play at a higher level. Why choose regression over progression?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 15:17:01 GMT
what if what if
all non-league chairmen have to spend money or 'subsidise'
does them leaving lead to automatic relegation? on the flip side they could leave and a new man could come in with even more cash who wants to spend it on us, wants to spend it on doing up clarence park, isn't interested in new housing developments with stadiums stuck on the side that turn into tesco superstores within 10 years
|
|
|
Post by barringtongobi on Feb 20, 2015 15:21:13 GMT
It would be good to understand if any of the assumptions the owners had have changed about the club since they took over. We were in the Southern League then, so does playing in Conference South mean that our costs have gone up? Do we travel further? Do we have to pay higher match day costs for policing, officials etc? The argument of playing budget cannot be used, as owners they set that and agree to it, as they set the entrance fee - these are choices and decisions the club makes. If the club has got the budgeting wrong (again) and the planning assumptions (cup runs, commercial income etc) are incorrect - then the owners should hold the board they appoint accountable.
You can see why the owners would like the club to own its own stadium. A club with its own land is a more valuable asset. A club with its own land and some housing/other developments alongside would be a more valuable asset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 15:24:49 GMT
bad decisions now could mean bad decisions in future
thats right, sail in, take over, put the prices up, put the prices up again, demand the council helps you build a new stadium, make loads of money off housing then sail off again while others pick up the pieces
maybe i'm playing devil's advocate
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Feb 20, 2015 22:41:57 GMT
what if what if all non-league chairmen have to spend money or 'subsidise' does them leaving lead to automatic relegation? on the flip side they could leave and a new man could come in with even more cash who wants to spend it on us, wants to spend it on doing up clarence park, isn't interested in new housing developments with stadiums stuck on the side that turn into tesco superstores within 10 years No, your average club at the level is not subsidised to the level we are. We've had people putting money and still have had money problems what does that tell you? I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wouldn't want someone to pump money while doing nothing for the infrastructure. How many times has that happened at this level ? Does it ever work ?
|
|
|
Post by ad43footsoldier on Feb 20, 2015 22:45:14 GMT
bad decisions now could mean bad decisions in future thats right, sail in, take over, put the prices up, put the prices up again, demand the council helps you build a new stadium, make loads of money off housing then sail off again while others pick up the pieces maybe i'm playing devil's advocate Why would it be a bad thing if they made money on a stadium if we benefited as well? Win - win? Think they have made mistakes with the ticket prices though.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Feb 21, 2015 14:46:42 GMT
437 signatures now
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 21, 2015 15:03:11 GMT
I have no problem with the owners making money from any development as long as:
A. They demonstrate a level of inclusivity and transparency that does seem to be lacking a bit at the moment. Figures of investment are bandied about without supporting evidence. As someone else pointed out, was the £450,000 put into the club a gift or a loan?
B. Any new ground is ring-fenced and securely protected for not just the generations to come but for the next 100 years or, ideally, indefinitely. Non-league football is littered with warnings – clubs that owned their own ground only for someone to sell it and leave the club homeless. At the moment, St Albans City FC is not a particularly attractive thing to invest in, precisely because it does not own its ground and has few facilities to monetise. That is, of course, not ideal.
But once the club owns its ground, it has an asset that is attractive to less-than-ideal future investors.
Another scenario is that the owners build a new ground, retain the ownership of it (rather than the club) and charge the club rent. You can dismiss that as unlikely if you wish but it's possible. How would that benefit the club?
Bottom line is, the owners need to outline their intentions in a manifesto before demanding support. Of course, we all want to support the club's best interests but a 400-word article in the Herts Ad with one of the owners shouting the odds is not the way to go about it, purely in my opinion of course.
The manifesto should have been set out FIRST. Then there should be a fans forum to ask follow-up questions.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 22, 2015 9:26:48 GMT
Now I know that my message on this board as a new poster will probably raise questions and the usual who do they think they are comments, however- I do care about the Club and the community and I do have an input which could encourage some thought and discussion. The current press in the Herts Ad, is skewed to the needs of the owners, now whilst I do not dispute that they care about the club and wish for it to succeed, we do have to remember that they are ultimately businessmen and they will naturally want to make a financial benefit from the club and a move to a new ground with the revenue for them from the housing/shopping association is a consideration for them and fundamentally linked to their desire to remain with the Club. I understand that to finance the new ground development there is a need to work with a developer to obtain the funds needed- as whilst they are the “money men” they aren’t able to put that much capital in. Completely reasonable but I have to ask whether in the current climate it’s the right tactic to take. There are a couple of issues here, firstly any planning application for any site within the City (and its immediate area) is under immense pressure currently- the recent Strategic Local Plan is still under review so the criteria for obtaining permission is by my understanding still open to individual interpretation and for many building projects (both green and brown field sites) the hoops that are needed to jump through are becoming more and more. The “Very Special Circumstances” exception to obtain permission on green belt is a giant hurdle not main manage to jump. The Council are also coming up to a potential time of change- and whilst early indications are that the forthcoming election may not bring sweeping changes, the decision to go to press at this time does run the risk of the new ground being an election issue, knowing the local residents to the ground are vocal about the Clubs position, and the other residents of St Albans who are not afraid of shouting out loud if they feel that their view, peace and quiet, journey to work will be disrupted by the horror of change or progression. SADC are also very focussed and motivated by Green issues currently- I ask whether it would not be a better route for the Club to try and work on a regeneration project of the current ground, looking at green technology and issues- firstly to ensure the Club remains in the City, and also to gain the backing and support of the Council- if the Council was to agree to this the objections of the York Road residents and the like would naturally need to be addressed but at least it would be a workable solution. The Local Enterprise Partnership, BRE, Rothampsted Research and others are all working towards making Hertfordshire and St Albans a focus and go to for anything green- and a link could be forged there- there could be potential for funding for community green projects, working with the right partners could lead to an injection of skills, labour and materials if negotiated correctly. The Club, ground and facilities could be a flag ship for the area and its green credentials. This would not bring in immediate cash benefits for the owners, but is potentially a more viable solution in the short to medium term and would also with the correct developments on site bring potential for commercial opportunities (functions, conferencing, playgroups etc) Long term I know that the aim is for the success of the Club to outgrow Clarence Park- but with the current numbers (don’t get me started on the pricing strategy) and levels of success surely regeneration rather than rebuild is a more prudent option. I’d be interested to know whether the owners have looked at whether there could be any potential for a green overhaul of the current site (and the possibility for funding via external parties for this) or if they have written off Clarence Park and are committed into a move or else. The fans, need to remember that when lobbying for the Club, it is worth remembering that the voice and passion will carry them so far, but by also taking a voice of opportunity and the potential for the Council to utilise any site for their own benefit, publicity and aims will also help amplify their voices and steer the decision makers. The Strategic Local Plan results are due out shortly and any future moves or changes to the Clubs ground will need to be made with the SLP in the background to ensure success. Whilst I can understand the owners aims by going public now- I wonder if they may have jumped the gun and would have been better placed to target their message post election and post Strategic plan publishing. I do agree with a lot you say - a green approach could well be an innovative way for utilising CP and attracting grant funding as well - and still bring facilities that bring in the much needed additional revenue. We all know about the restrictive covenant but doesn't mean nothing can be done and the alternative is a football stadium without a football club - not sure that was what the covenant wanted to achieve...
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Feb 22, 2015 9:53:04 GMT
I have no problem with the owners making money from any development as long as: A. They demonstrate a level of inclusivity and transparency that does seem to be lacking a bit at the moment. Figures of investment are bandied about without supporting evidence. As someone else pointed out, was the £450,000 put into the club a gift or a loan? B. Any new ground is ring-fenced and securely protected for not just the generations to come but for the next 100 years or, ideally, indefinitely. Non-league football is littered with warnings – clubs that owned their own ground only for someone to sell it and leave the club homeless. At the moment, St Albans City FC is not a particularly attractive thing to invest in, precisely because it does not own its ground and has few facilities to monetise. That is, of course, not ideal. I thought we dealt with this back in May: the evidence you appear to be asking for is in the annual accounts which are available to the public. If that's not the evidence you are looking for then say what it is that you want to see; it may very well be in the public domain already. I agree with protecting any new ground and the council can facilitate that as part of any funding they give the club as part of the building. If, however, Levy and McGowan are (somehow) going to fund the purchase of land and the building of the ground then it would surely be there's to do what they want notwithstanding a compulsory purchase order by the council at some point on the future.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 22, 2015 11:12:13 GMT
So, is the money put in by the owners over the past four years in the form of loans - i.e. a debt now held by the club - or a gift, YellowAlf?
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Feb 22, 2015 21:03:08 GMT
Article on Page 28 in this week's NLP -
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Feb 23, 2015 1:23:32 GMT
I have no problem with the owners making money from any development as long as: A. They demonstrate a level of inclusivity and transparency that does seem to be lacking a bit at the moment. Figures of investment are bandied about without supporting evidence. As someone else pointed out, was the £450,000 put into the club a gift or a loan? B. Any new ground is ring-fenced and securely protected for not just the generations to come but for the next 100 years or, ideally, indefinitely. Non-league football is littered with warnings – clubs that owned their own ground only for someone to sell it and leave the club homeless. At the moment, St Albans City FC is not a particularly attractive thing to invest in, precisely because it does not own its ground and has few facilities to monetise. That is, of course, not ideal. I thought we dealt with this back in May: the evidence you appear to be asking for is in the annual accounts which are available to the public. If that's not the evidence you are looking for then say what it is that you want to see; it may very well be in the public domain already. I agree with protecting any new ground and the council can facilitate that as part of any funding they give the club as part of the building. If, however, Levy and McGowan are (somehow) going to fund the purchase of land and the building of the ground then it would surely be there's to do what they want notwithstanding a compulsory purchase order by the council at some point on the future. But what about section 106 of the town and country planning act?. I know its been watered down by the tories but it still exists. When developers make a economic gain from the granting of planning permission the council can request that they some of compensatory social contribution So a major residential developments in London/South East developers are often forced as a condition of planning permission to build some homes that are then controlled/owned by housing associations and made available at sub-market rents. Planning permission has a 'value' and as result granted permission developers are able to make supranormal profits, rates of return far in excess of average across the economy, on homes sold at market prices. After the recession this was watered down (and in less affluent areas effectively abolished) but in high price areas like St Albans the gains from planning permission are so large that I pretty sure substantial social payback is still required Essentially the SACFC proposal seems to be that the owners want the council to grant them permission to build a ground and commercial/residential developments on green belt land. If they are granted permission to develop commercial/residential building on green belt land they will make supranormal profits on this development as a result of legal concession the council granted them, to build on green belt. So why it is unreasonable to demand that owners turn over ownership of the ground to some form of charitable or public body for it used for wider social benefit - so club would be tenants but under a more permissive agreement that allowed for reasonable commercial activity while respecting the rights of other groups to access the facility. There have been instances in which supermarkets have been forced to fund the development of public lesuire centres etc in return for planning permission, what is the fundamental difference?. The alternative to some form of public or charitable ownership seems to be that they be allowed to develop a large tract of green belt land without giving anything back to the community (that they will own everything). This seem patently unreasonable to me and if this what the propose than I hope the council are as uncooperative as possible. Also people criticize the council for neglect of the ground and over the long-term that may be fair. But for the last few years we have had owners who make clear that only future for the club is away from CP. Surely this makes it impossible for the council to invest? The idea that nothing can be done with CP suits both the owners (if we assume they want to profit through relocation) and the council (if they are reluctant to invest) in different ways. That does necessarily make it correct If (and I not saying they do) the owners simply see the club as a mechanism through which to gain planning permission for commercial developments than I personally would rather the club played at a much lower level as a supporters club than in the conference south as a PLC. Finally, if you look at clubs like Telford, Hendon, Lewes I don't buy the argument that in the long-term (the transition may be painful) you need conventional owners to play at a reasonable level. Also if we were a community owned club we be far stronger position to lobby for improvements in CP
|
|
|
Post by EFMTFTV on Feb 23, 2015 6:31:22 GMT
They said the first fans forum that any ground would have a convent on it to save it going the same way as countless others
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Feb 23, 2015 9:49:48 GMT
They said the first fans forum that any ground would have a convent on it to save it going the same way as countless others Oh right - so the nuns get first choice of the facilities!
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Feb 23, 2015 9:52:24 GMT
So, is the money put in by the owners over the past four years in the form of loans - i.e. a debt now held by the club - or a gift, YellowAlf? I suggest you ask the owners on Thursday, those may not be the only two options.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Feb 23, 2015 18:54:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 23, 2015 19:35:24 GMT
Yep. I have tweeted about this - one council actively assisting non local team and one currently doing nothing for a local team....
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 23, 2015 19:53:50 GMT
So, is the money put in by the owners over the past four years in the form of loans - i.e. a debt now held by the club - or a gift, YellowAlf? I suggest you ask the owners on Thursday, those may not be the only two options. Hang on, Alf... You replied to say that my question had been dealt with back in May. I don't recall the answer, so can't you shed some light on it? Is the answer in the public domain, or not?
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 23, 2015 20:09:37 GMT
Not really comparable schemes are they? City's owners are proposing a relatively major development in an area yet to be defined within the green belt. This will require a change of use, new infrastructures, new roads and possible put extra strain on existing services such as schools. Remember it's not just a new football stadium. Meanwhile, all Arsenal appear to be doing is expanding their existing facilities.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 23, 2015 20:55:51 GMT
I'm not sure we are trying to compare the sites - just the level of involvement of the two councils. Also, certainly from the perspective of the supporter-led petition, we are simply wanting the council to work with us on identifying a sustainable, revenue generating site for the club whether that is a new site or the existing CP site.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 7:42:17 GMT
does anyone really expect the same level of involvement from councils for the saints as they do for arsenal ? not really apples with apples is it
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 24, 2015 9:43:48 GMT
Local councils are there to serve their local community - promote sport, support the local economy, promote community involvement etc and there are many examples of councils working with non league clubs given the wider benefits a club can bring to the community. In my opinion, the council have been too silent on club matters
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 9:53:02 GMT
the council have been silent but it still cant be compared with arsenal
if the ioc said they want st albans to host the olympics the council will get more involved than if some teenage single mum wants a birthday party outside the town hall
|
|