|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 26, 2015 23:06:02 GMT
Personally, following tonight's forum, I had been very keen on seeing what could be done to stay at CP. I'm now simply unconvinced that is viable and so feel that we do now need to put our support behind finding a new ground. I really hope as supporters we can unite but realise there are some with differing views - but for the future of the club (and everything associated with it) feel that we now have to move on and I really hope that we don't end up in a position where the current owners walk away and we have are left with very little....
|
|
euclid
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 459
|
Post by euclid on Feb 27, 2015 8:24:06 GMT
For those off who couldn't get there last night, what reasons were given for why CP cannot be re-developed?
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 27, 2015 8:53:07 GMT
There are several restrictive covenants that apply as well as the licence to use - to overcome this would require a variety of paths to follow (including applications to the Charities Commission) that are both lengthy and costly. Although I would love to see us stay, it simply does seem to me to not be a viable option. Lawrence and Nick did commit to making the documents available (because of the Council ownership they would likely be available anyway under the Freedom of Information Act)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 9:12:30 GMT
variety of paths to follow that are both lengthy and costly
as lengthy and costly as building a new stadium ?
or not as profitable as building a new stadium ?
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 27, 2015 9:39:39 GMT
Of course there is a profit element. However to fund the build of a £15 million stadium and training facility you need to a) generate revenue and b) bring in some additional development to fund the project. My personal view - decision between a club with a future at a new site or very, very limited future at current site
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Feb 27, 2015 18:31:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bob666 on Feb 28, 2015 5:19:53 GMT
[/quote]Aren't Hendon the exception? When I used to watch Hendon they played at Claremont Road, they don't play there anymore. In any case, St Albans City is, in my view, incomparable to Hendon's situation.
I've based my original statement on the response of the city of St Albans to supporting their football club, the past ownership and financial struggles of the football club itself, and the plethora of other clubs of the same size who have either disappeared altogether or ended up playing at significantly lower levels than previously used to. We can debate between the Hendons and Ketterings of football on this site; and the truth of what will happen to St Albans City will inevitably lie somewhere in between. Whatever our views, the way football is changing and the current economic situation of this country means that time is if the essence in creating a positive outcome for the club's future; we can't just sit and wait to see what happens with Clarence Park and the local council.
The facts are that this club is unsustainable in its current situation for the current owners and if they decide to leave, what then? St Albans City Trust appears incapable of taking the football club over, although please correct me if I am wrong. There is no-one else around who is able to keep this club running at its current losses.
In the scenario where the owners bale out and the Trust is unable to run the club at Conference South level, what do you see as an effective alternative?[/quote]
1. I don't really see Hendon as that exceptional. If you look at the Isthmain Premier League there are 3 fan owned teams (Hendon, Lewes, Tonbridge Angles) all of whom have lower average crowds than St Albans. Added to that we see the relative success of Telford and AFC wimbledon. Even the example you cite of Kettering is ambiguous. A lot of their problems stem from losing their ground. In fact I would wager that most clubs that have in fact disappeared (Hickley etc) have done so after moving to a new stadium with new costs/debts/ownership structures. Provided we commit ourself to CP, whatever its limitations, we always have a ground. So Kettering could be seen as a example of reasons to be cautious about a move. In any case I argue that fan ownership looks promising in this case. They will be win the league this year, attendance have held up well (partly because of ownership model were they can genuinely say it is their club ) and I think likely to be back in regional conference in 5 years.
My point in not that fan ownership offers a guarantee of success but that the evidence increasingly supports the view that multi-ownership models are viable. The idea that we 'must' have owners leads, to what I regard as a unhelpful position, that fans should offer them fairly unconditional support to owners because of the fear of the abyss that waits when they leave. The abyss can be a myth or at the least fans collectively have agency in determining what future is- decline is not inevitable.The experience of other clubs is important in this regard. Setting up community club is easier now than 20 years because of experience of others to draw upon
As for the Trust etc these things are dynamic. Often necessity is the mother of invention. Did any of the clubs cited above have fan based structures capable of running a club a few years before they took club over? Probably not. Faced with the situation were this was necessary new members joined to strengthen the organisation and existing members became more active. I don't want to criticise the trust but at the moment I sometimes think they are in a slightly awkward position at times in that duel function of supporting the club and attempting holding the owners to account that can times be contradictory. Freed from this contradiction I think they could be stronger
2. In terms of moving from CP. You argue that rising land values create a sense of urgency. I do not accept this as the means of paying for new ground is develop housing. As land prices increase the value of planning permission for the later also increases. Your argument would only work if the plan was to build a stadium on its own. Also, and I might be alone in thinking this, a potential issue that some have raised on the forum seems to be that St Albans has a relatively fluid population who potentially have a weaker connection to the club. if we allow the further erosion of the green belt I cannot help but that will further weaken the sense of St Albans as a distinctive place and ultimately further weaken the clubs fan base. Ultimately the survival of St Albans as a distinct city is a stake in planning issues. I do not dispute the existence of restrictive covenants on CP but given the owners long-term commitment they clearly have a interest in emphasising their rigidity. I not accusing anyone of lying but facts are always subject to interpretation. It be interesting to see an alternative interpretation of what can be done. A community owned entity committed to CP would at least be in a position to test the limits of the covenants and demand greater investment from the council in improving the ground (politically play into Labour's historical support for co-ops, the Tories Big Society stuff and Liberal Democratic'c community volunteerism agenda)
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 28, 2015 8:21:30 GMT
Supporter owned clubs are great - I grew up in Enfield and they now have Enfield FC as the first supporter owned club nicely evolving at the QEII football and athletics stadium. But - and this is a big but.. - those facilities can be hired out, the stadium has a wonderful art deco cafe (serving well used playing fields) and banqueting suite. It generates revenue. Clarence Park does not even allow for private parties to be held, local community groups such as "Protect Clarence Park!" are very, very opposed to any redevelopment of the ground such as - which I had thought could be a good idea - providing peripheral retail units/business workspaces for rental income. They also have the clear support of their local councillors. Without revenue - together with all the associated costs of "officialdom" of top end non-league football let alone playing budgets - how can you have a viable football club unless you have people willing to simply throw money at the club with any possibility of getting any return on that investment
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 28, 2015 8:28:35 GMT
|
|
yellowalf
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 301
|
Post by yellowalf on Feb 28, 2015 11:18:56 GMT
Even the example you cite of Kettering is ambiguous. A lot of their problems stem from losing their ground. In fact I would wager that most clubs that have in fact disappeared (Hickley etc) have done so after moving to a new stadium with new costs/debts/ownership structures. Provided we commit ourself to CP, whatever its limitations, we always have a ground. So Kettering could be seen as a example of reasons to be cautious about a move. In any case I argue that fan ownership looks promising in this case... My point in not that fan ownership offers a guarantee of success but that the evidence increasingly supports the view that multi-ownership models are viable. The idea that we 'must' have owners leads, to what I regard as a unhelpful position, .... As for the Trust etc these things are dynamic. [... ] I don't want to criticise the trust but at the moment I sometimes think they are in a slightly awkward position at times in that duel function of supporting the club and attempting holding the owners to account that can times be contradictory. Freed from this contradiction I think they could be stronger In general, I agree with what you say, Bob. Firstly I agree that Kettering's problems began when they lost their ground: back in 1992 when they had to sell it to pay off their debts. They never recovered sufficiently to avoid eventually having to move away from Kettering which was their death knell. Kettering is an example from the wrong end of the spectrum as Hendon is an example from the right end of the spectrum. I am wholly in favour of fan-owned clubs and have had various dealings with Supporters Direct for almost 10 years now. I strongly believe that a Supporters Trust should not be supporting their club's owners but instead should hold a position of opposition to them. I am most irritated when a football club's chairman/CEO/owner comes into the media criticising their club's Trust for not supporting the owner's plans. I end up muttering roughly the same thing to the telly/PC screen: "The trust isn't there to give you an easy ride, mate, they are there to protect the fans from people like you asset-stripping their football club." Even if that's not strictly true in every case. I know from first-hand experience how difficult and time-consuming being a volunteer on such a body can be and whenever I see criticism of Supporters Trusts I always wonder why the critic isn't volunteering their time to help improve matters to their satisfaction. Consequently, I'm aware of the hypocrisy of what I am about to write. From my viewpoint, as a non-member of the Saints Trust, it appears that the Trust is more supportive of the club's current owners than I would like it to be. I want it to be the dog snapping at the heels of the owners and as such I support your view that the Trust is in a contradictory position. Of course, one problem is that the Saints Trust doesn't represent the majority of St Albans City fans: or does it? I don't know how many members the Trust has but with an average attendance of 561 so far this season, the Trust would need a membership of almost 300 to be able to say they represent the majority of fans. I can't find out how many they actually have. Look, (said in true Aussie cricketer style!), I don't want to argue this point: I'm not saying I'm right, because I don't have all the facts at my fingertips. What I know is that the club has lurched from financial crisis to financial crisis in its history; I saw my first game at Clarence park in 2007 so I'm very much a new supporter; my perspective is based on watching football at all levels for 40+ years; I don't see how Clarence Park can be anything but the proverbial albatross around the club's neck. If the trust can get more support from regular supporters (including me!); if the restrictions at Clarence Park could somehow be lifted to allow us to stay there, if we could build a successful squad and drop the admission price to £12 or even £10 then I'd be very happy indeed. I can't see any of that happening, rightly or wrongly; and the option of moving to a purpose built stadium relatively quickly under the current ownership seems, at face value, to be the best option to safeguard the club's continual success. I could very well be wrong, however I don't care how much profit Levy and McGowan make out of a news ground if it means the club continues to play Conference football. For me, the means justifies the end. Others will have different, yet equally valid, views.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 28, 2015 11:31:18 GMT
Well said yellowalf - I am an even newer convert and also just sharing my views but feel the facts are very much as you have laid them out in your post
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 28, 2015 11:38:18 GMT
............. how can you have a viable football club unless you have people willing to simply throw money at the club with any possibility of getting any return on that investment? Ah! that's the $64000 question. The sad truth is you have the following choices: 1) Play at a level befitting your total income. 2) Have a "sugar daddy" who is either a lifetime supporter or somebody on an "ego trip". 3) Have somebody who has eye on making a profit through the assets of the club or using it as a vehicle for some venture capital scheme. 4) Have a benevolent local council (if any still exist) Unfortunately none of those choices are particularly satisfying because they either stunt ambition or come with various levels of risk as to whether the club would fold should the "investment" be withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 28, 2015 11:49:29 GMT
Maybe an option 5 is investment that does aim to build a sustainable club - generating revenue to help the club grow - whilst protecting assets and not in it simply to make a fast buck.
|
|
|
Post by Canary Saint on Feb 28, 2015 15:19:57 GMT
I agree with what you say in theory, but this would have to be a very long term plan so that revenue* can raise the necessary capital to improve CP, build new stadium, or whatever. Any quick fix would need to involve either option 1 or option 2 with the associated risks to the long term sustainability of the club.
* this assumes that sufficient revenue can be raised to create a year on year profit.
|
|
|
Post by notsorecentconvert on Feb 28, 2015 17:42:30 GMT
Sadly, I couldn't make it back to St Albans in time for the fans forum on Thursday night but having read that one of the owners couldn't make it either I don't feel particularly bad.
Frankly, if one of the two owners can't make it, what sort of signal does that send out? Sure, he's a busy man and St Albans City FC is only one of his business interests, I sure, but in the week when you choose to shout the odds in the local paper you can't even make it to the fans forum? Very poor. It speaks volumes to anyone who might be inclined to take McGowan and Levy's plans seriously – whether that be developers, the council or the humble supporters.
If he couldn't make it on that date, why set that date in the first place?
But a big thanks to whoever posed my question about whether the money the owners have put in is in the form of loans or not. Well, perhaps the person who asked did so independently, in which case well done.
Not that the question really got answered, but it was important to ask.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 28, 2015 18:17:05 GMT
I don't think McGowan's actually been to a fans forum yet, although others may confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Feb 28, 2015 18:55:49 GMT
Lawrence advised that McGowan was hosting a client dinner but could have come along apparently if the forum had been on the Wednesday or Friday
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Feb 28, 2015 22:17:49 GMT
I don't think McGowan's actually been to a fans forum yet, although others may confirm that. Incorrect. I definitely remember talking him at one of the early forums, just after he and Lawrence had taken over ownership of the Club.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Feb 28, 2015 22:33:29 GMT
I don't think McGowan's actually been to a fans forum yet, although others may confirm that. Incorrect. I definitely remember talking him at one of the early forums, just after he and Lawrence had taken over ownership of the Club. There we go, I wasn't completely sure. Although, as others have said, it would've been nice to have had him there.
|
|
|
Post by Hatboy on Mar 1, 2015 9:09:34 GMT
|
|
euclid
Saints Reserve Team Player
Posts: 459
|
Post by euclid on Mar 1, 2015 20:47:00 GMT
I think that his non-appearance again at a Fans forum, shows that SACFC are well down McGowan's priorities.
Even if some land became available tomorrow, it could still take 4-5 years to complete with the legal processes to overcome.
Serious question now is if the owners carry out their threat and do leave the Club, how long can we stay at Clarence Park and what level of football would be sustainable ?
My guess is that we would never be evicted from CP and that Step 3 at best (more likely Step 4) is realistic.
Would that be acceptable to all of us, if it guaranteed that the Club survived?
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 1, 2015 21:12:26 GMT
If we stay at CP - and I accept this will always have to be a consideration - we need to understand that the only revenue for the club whilst at CP can be obtained through: 1. Match day tickets/season ticket sales 2. Money from bar sales 3. Concessions (food) 4. Shop sales 5. Sponsorship (but this would diminish the further down we go...) i.e. match day only revenue which does not support a team at anything other than step 3 or step 4 ...unless the council/local residents can be persuaded to allow CP re-development so that revenue outside of match days can be generated to support a forward thinking club.
I'd be very keen to understand what other supporters want - are we all keen to see us drop down to step 3 / step 4 and see ever reducing attendances and lack of money to even maintain CP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 14:13:23 GMT
if we stay at cp we'll drop down the leagues... we didn't before, all the millions of years we were in the ryman / isthmian / diadora blah blah blah
revenue for the club can be increased, like many other non league clubs, with money from the owner/s
if mcgowan gets fed up and leaves what do people expect will happen ie who will be in charge of the club ? he can't just walk away and not come back can he
heading towards hysteria imo
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 2, 2015 15:44:05 GMT
mattb43 I'm really sorry if I have misread your post but are you really saying that we need to stay at CP and simply rely upon "revenue" from owners? ie just expect someone else or current owners to throw money at the club rather than have a club that has facilities that generate regular income/revenue???
Like many other non-league clubs are doing (or at least trying to do), we need to build a sustainable club for the future and it ain't gonna be sustainable if we simply expect that someone will always be available to walk in and hand over large amounts of money... I also can't see how anything other than relegation would occur without owners staying and/or sustainable revenue being generated - who would be paying for players, managers, backroom staff etc? Or should we just hope that we find a squad of players - and manager - who like to play for free at Conference South level....?
Not wanting to create hysteria here - just don't want to see a club without a future due to lack of action/interest/inertia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 16:13:09 GMT
no im saying we've been at clarence park for decades and have got along just fine ( ! ) at the level we are currently at.
non league chairmen have to put money in to non league football clubs, ask any of them. we need a sustainable club for the future, but we can have the makings of one at clarence park. one of the current owners has chucked his toys out of the pram because the council arent playing ball and the threat of walking away has sent everyone crazy. no one has answered what they think will happen if he does walk away, or how it will work ie will he just padlock the gates and leave ? i dont think so
budgeting on attendances of 1000 at home games, or on cup runs, isnt sustainable either
1908 and still going strong before the owners and after them too
|
|
|
Post by PaperSaint on Mar 2, 2015 17:02:41 GMT
CP cannot be locked up if he leaves. CP remains (for 'manly sports') no matter what happens. The problem is that it can't be developed to generate additional revenue beyond what can be brought in on match days. All clubs at this level - and even below - recognise that you cannot sustain a club on that revenue alone unless you have crowds in the 1000s rolling in week in, week out. Hemel's bar (hired for private events) brings in £350k alone each year! The point I am making is that we have tried to live off benevolent owners who have some willingness to throw their money at the club with no chance of a return on that investment. For me, that has gone on too long - I'd actually love to see a change where CP is turned into a revenue generating location but my head also tells me we need to consider alternatives - because I cannot see how the club survives with its current status - and I have not heard anyone suggest how CP could bring in more revenue (without significant further investment and changing of the existing covenants, persuading locals to accept redevelopment etc)
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 2, 2015 17:25:02 GMT
no im saying we've been at clarence park for decades and have got along just fine ( ! ) at the level we are currently at. To my knowledge, we have been on the point of going bust three times within the last 18 years. I wouldn't exactly describe that as 'having got along just fine'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 18:47:45 GMT
good thing harding and friends didnt have a stadium to sell off isnt it boomer ?
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Mar 2, 2015 19:32:37 GMT
That sounds more like a statement than a rhetorical question, matt. Not getting along quite so fine at that time, then?
|
|
|
Post by casper on Mar 2, 2015 19:36:51 GMT
|
|