|
Post by kruger on Feb 7, 2020 16:08:32 GMT
.
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Feb 7, 2020 16:14:04 GMT
But what is the difference between the agreement in place now? Could have a owners that build a stadium and buy the club. Surely that is exactly is almost exactly what is going on now, but the Al Qadi will not be building a stadium? it bothers me that people are suggesting that if we are bought buy a consortium, they have some agenda to build a stadium but will just let the club go under. I think the main difference is that an owner would potentially have the club pay X per year to the owner for the rent of the stadium. But there are tonnes of clubs who didn't own their stadium (people only like to talk about Coventry in this scenario): Man City (not sure about now), Leeds (recently bought back), Colchester, Ipswich, Stoke (bought it eventually), West Ham, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea - the list goes further I believe Man City and West Ham we’re effectively gifted stadiums and are owned by very wealthy organisations. Stoke and Leeds own their grounds. Brighton and Huddersfield jointly own their grounds along with their partners, the Local Council, Universities and Rugby Clubs. Good luck with that in Bristol. Swansea, Ipswich and Colchester all play in stadiums owned by the council. Again good luck with that in Bristol. Can’t see how any of the examples relate to us being a in Stadium as tenants of a Development Company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2020 17:07:03 GMT
We must have a shedload of old Gloucester Cups we could use to pad the Trophy Cabinet out a bit ! They were destroyed in the Eastville South Stand Fire. According to Terry Cooper he yelled at the staff to save the cups and they all ran to the kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 7, 2020 18:32:16 GMT
I think the main difference is that an owner would potentially have the club pay X per year to the owner for the rent of the stadium. But there are tonnes of clubs who didn't own their stadium (people only like to talk about Coventry in this scenario): Man City (not sure about now), Leeds (recently bought back), Colchester, Ipswich, Stoke (bought it eventually), West Ham, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea - the list goes further I believe Man City and West Ham we’re effectively gifted stadiums and are owned by very wealthy organisations. Stoke and Leeds own their grounds. Brighton and Huddersfield jointly own their grounds along with their partners, the Local Council, Universities and Rugby Clubs. Good luck with that in Bristol. Swansea, Ipswich and Colchester all play in stadiums owned by the council. Again good luck with that in Bristol. Can’t see how any of the examples relate to us being a in Stadium as tenants of a Development Company. Ah, so its worked at multiple other clubs but couldn’t possibly here...sound logic!
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Feb 7, 2020 18:35:12 GMT
But what is the difference between the agreement in place now? Could have a owners that build a stadium and buy the club. Surely that is exactly is almost exactly what is going on now, but the Al Qadi will not be building a stadium? it bothers me that people are suggesting that if we are bought buy a consortium, they have some agenda to build a stadium but will just let the club go under. In the first point we can’t be given notice to leave the stadium as would be the case if we were tenants. On the second point, I think it’s more worrying that people think there is no agenda. Maybe ask the Coventry fans what they think of that idea as they wander around the midlands looking for a pitch to play on. We’ve done this once in our history when we gave over financial control of our stadium and only just got away with it. Can’t see us being that lucky twice. In Al Qadis we trust then, other than racking up huge dept they have done not much else.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Feb 7, 2020 18:37:23 GMT
But what is the difference between the agreement in place now? Could have a owners that build a stadium and buy the club. Surely that is exactly is almost exactly what is going on now, but the Al Qadi will not be building a stadium? it bothers me that people are suggesting that if we are bought buy a consortium, they have some agenda to build a stadium but will just let the club go under. I think the main difference is that an owner would potentially have the club pay X per year to the owner for the rent of the stadium. But there are tonnes of clubs who didn't own their stadium (people only like to talk about Coventry in this scenario): Man City (not sure about now), Leeds (recently bought back), Colchester, Ipswich, Stoke (bought it eventually), West Ham, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea - the list goes further I believe Exactly my point, people bring up Coventry the very very few other and just assume the same would happen to us. We are going nowhere currently with this lot in charge. Our CEO can't even deliver the on a q and a session. It's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Feb 7, 2020 18:48:28 GMT
There will be an announcement between now and August. At last I am an ITK' er
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Feb 7, 2020 19:13:39 GMT
Truthfully "I know nothing". but if we had got permission to build where DPD are now we could have built a motorway services next to the ground for income! But 2 people who live nearby objected because the didn't want the disruption on matchdays.
I think we need a plot of land that not only has a ground but also shops , hotel and such. Like the Ricoh or MK Dons
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Feb 7, 2020 20:06:16 GMT
Man City and West Ham we’re effectively gifted stadiums and are owned by very wealthy organisations. Stoke and Leeds own their grounds. Brighton and Huddersfield jointly own their grounds along with their partners, the Local Council, Universities and Rugby Clubs. Good luck with that in Bristol. Swansea, Ipswich and Colchester all play in stadiums owned by the council. Again good luck with that in Bristol. Can’t see how any of the examples relate to us being a in Stadium as tenants of a Development Company. Ah, so its worked at multiple other clubs but couldn’t possibly here...sound logic! Not sure where you’ve got that idea from. There’s not one club in the top two divisions that are tenants of a third party independent developer. The closest is Hull City who are tenants of the City Council and an independent company.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Feb 7, 2020 20:52:11 GMT
Where's this tenants of the developers story come from? The BP have suggested if the developers agree a deal to buy the FM site they will then buy the club from the ALQ's, if they do they will own both the ground and the club. Given it seems unlikely the ALQ's will ever either redevelop the Mem or build a new stadium this seems the only chance we have of getting a new ground within the next decade. What's the better option stay at the Mem until one day the FA tell us it's not fit for purpose? If the developers buy the fruit market land and the club, it doesn’t mean the land is ours, we could still move in as tenants of land owned by a different holding company of the potential owners. If that were to happen the developers could sell the club and keep the land further down the line ala Kassam and Oxford.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 7, 2020 21:23:36 GMT
Ah, so its worked at multiple other clubs but couldn’t possibly here...sound logic! Not sure where you’ve got that idea from. There’s not one club in the top two divisions that are tenants of a third party independent developer. The closest is Hull City who are tenants of the City Council and an independent company. Apart from Brighton, Huddersfield and Swansea that you mentioned in your post? And that Leeds and Stoke had deals where they were tenants but bought it back. I'm just getting the info from your posts!
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Feb 7, 2020 21:47:46 GMT
Not sure where you’ve got that idea from. There’s not one club in the top two divisions that are tenants of a third party independent developer. The closest is Hull City who are tenants of the City Council and an independent company. Apart from Brighton, Huddersfield and Swansea that you mentioned in your post? And that Leeds and Stoke had deals where they were tenants but bought it back. I'm just getting the info from your posts! Brighton, Huddersfield and Swansea aren’t tenants of Third Party Independent Developers, they’re joint owners, with either the city council, university or other sporting body. It was so detrimental to Leeds and Stoke that they bought themselves out of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas on Feb 7, 2020 21:55:59 GMT
Stoke is a very deprived area and also has another club like Bristol. Right dump compared with Bristol.Population only 220,000 but they don't stand still with continual stadium improvements
The stadium was previously called the Britannia Stadium but was renamed on 1 June 2016 when the club entered into a new stadium-naming-rights agreement with its parent company, bet365. It has a capacity of 30,089 following the completion of expansion works in 2017. Location: Stanley Matthews Way; Stoke-on-Tre... Former names: Britannia Stadium (1997–2016) Owner: Stoke City
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Feb 7, 2020 22:06:05 GMT
Stoke is a very deprived area and also has another club like Bristol. Right dump compared with Bristol.Population only 220,000 but they don't stand still with continual stadium improvements The stadium was previously called the Britannia Stadium but was renamed on 1 June 2016 when the club entered into a new stadium-naming-rights agreement with its parent company, bet365. It has a capacity of 30,089 following the completion of expansion works in 2017. Location: Stanley Matthews Way; Stoke-on-Tre... Former names: Britannia Stadium (1997–2016) Owner: Stoke City We can only dream of having a Stadium like Port Vale’s
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Feb 7, 2020 22:31:34 GMT
I think the main difference is that an owner would potentially have the club pay X per year to the owner for the rent of the stadium. But there are tonnes of clubs who didn't own their stadium (people only like to talk about Coventry in this scenario): Man City (not sure about now), Leeds (recently bought back), Colchester, Ipswich, Stoke (bought it eventually), West Ham, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea - the list goes further I believe Man City and West Ham we’re effectively gifted stadiums and are owned by very wealthy organisations. Stoke and Leeds own their grounds. Brighton and Huddersfield jointly own their grounds along with their partners, the Local Council, Universities and Rugby Clubs. Good luck with that in Bristol. Swansea, Ipswich and Colchester all play in stadiums owned by the council. Again good luck with that in Bristol. Can’t see how any of the examples relate to us being a in Stadium as tenants of a Development Company. To be correct, Swansea City now have control of the Liberty Stadium. I grant you and Gassy that is was originally built by the council for the Ospreys and Swansea City to play in. Both did pay rent to the council, but the terms were hugely beneficial. Now the arrangement results in a long term tenancy for the Ospreys and a revenue income for the council.
My take on Marvin Rees' interview was that he was trying to facilitate a deal at the Fruit Market site, by encouraging private investment in a stadium to house Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by gas2 on Feb 8, 2020 5:26:05 GMT
Not a new ground but swindle just bought there ground back from the council
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Feb 8, 2020 8:06:36 GMT
Not a new ground but swindle just bought there ground back from the council I knew they would get roundabout to it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 8, 2020 8:10:00 GMT
But what is the difference between the agreement in place now? Could have a owners that build a stadium and buy the club. Surely that is exactly is almost exactly what is going on now, but the Al Qadi will not be building a stadium? it bothers me that people are suggesting that if we are bought buy a consortium, they have some agenda to build a stadium but will just let the club go under. I think the main difference is that an owner would potentially have the club pay X per year to the owner for the rent of the stadium. But there are tonnes of clubs who didn't own their stadium (people only like to talk about Coventry in this scenario): Man City (not sure about now), Leeds (recently bought back), Colchester, Ipswich, Stoke (bought it eventually), West Ham, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea - the list goes further I believe I dont know about all those examples, but you need to differentiate between grounds owned by the council and those by '3rd parties'
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 8, 2020 8:12:53 GMT
People need to get away from the fact it is "Only" a football stadium but could well be a sports complex with multiple uses like athletics etc
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Feb 8, 2020 8:40:53 GMT
Not a new ground but swindle just bought there ground back from the council I knew they would get roundabout to it eventually. They’re just going around in circles
|
|