Ooh! Aah! Ooh don't Mrs ! 
Day 6 - Thu 10th Feb - FACTS AND FIGURES
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
ShorehamGull
He's now back
Lord Bracknell said:
I don't mind talking to the lovely young megan
and get all the details as well as her details.I was unable to make it today due to work commitments, anyway will be there tomorrow.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
My daily report - Day Six
Today’s report from the Inquiry is going to be a bit dull, I’m afraid. It’s full of facts and numbers. But the information is, I think, important and I hope that I can be forgiven for just telling it as it is. Normal service will be resumed soon, though, and I promise that an action packed account of the day’s proceedings will appear in the next day or two. Including how the Albion’s Chief Executive came to answer a question from Falmer Parish Council’s lawyer –
Mr Hopkins: You are familiar with Milton Keynes Dons?
Mr Perry: Yes. They’re rubbish.
Martin Perry was back in the witness box on day 6, presenting some very interesting information about the costs of building a stadium at eight of the sites that are being considered at the Inquiry. He had come up with an easy to understand way of comparing the different sites and, in particular, whether a stadium was affordable, once the associated infrastructure costs, like access roads, footbridges and so on, had been taken into account.
The key measure was the percentage of the Club’s annual turnover that would be needed to repay the loans that would finance the project. This was based on a firm commitment by the Club to keep within the newly developed Football League guideline that no more than 60 per cent of a Club’s turnover should be spent on wages. With 15 per cent of turnover required for other running costs, it means that 25 per cent of turnover is available to service debts.
In order of affordability, the debt repayment charges associated with building a stadium at each of the eight sites work out like this:-
Falmer – 20.70 % of turnover
Sheepcote Valley – 21.82 %
Shoreham Airport – 28.88 %
Withdean – 32.74 %
Toads Hole Valley – 34.16 %
Upper Beeding – 35.16 %
Waterhall – 42.36 %
Shoreham Harbour – 50.88 %
These costs are the costs of the borrowing that would be involved in each stadium project. Part of the stadium finance would come from capital grants, from sources like the South East England Development Agency, the Football Foundation and New Deal. Stadium sponsorship deals will also bring in funding and there would be a share issue to raise money from fans and other investors who want to commit their money to support the development of the Club in its new stadium.
But, even allowing for grants and other investment, there will always be a funding gap. It will be vital to keep that within a sensible limit. Hence the 25 per cent threshold that determines affordability. The cash figure that Martin Perry put forward as the maximum amount to be borrowed was £29 million. In effect, he was saying that only Falmer or Sheepcote Valley were affordable. If the Club stretched itself beyond the threshold, there would be no money available for general development – a vital part of running the Club once we are settled in our new home.
Other cost estimates are being put forward by other parties to the Inquiry, in particular Lewes District Council, who have commissioned a professional firm to come up with estimates for Falmer, Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley. Over the last few days, however, the Club has been working with Lewes DC’s consultant to assess how far apart the two sets of estimates are.
The conclusion, now set out in a joint paper presented by both parties to the Inquiry, is that there is no material variations between the costings worked out by the two organisations. The main significant difference is in the scale of infrastructure works that might be required at Toads Hole Valley – and that reflects different assessments of the traffic effects of a stadium at that site. The Albion say that over £10 million of non-stadium infrastructure will need to be paid for, while Lewes have made an estimate of £5.8 million.
The Albion are also assuming that an ‘iconic’ stadium is what is wanted at these three sites, whilst the District Council have prepared their costings for Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley on the basis of a ‘generic’ middle-of-the-range stadium.
But these differences are now explained to the Inspector in terms of the technicalities of costing a complex project, rather than as the outcome of two organisations being fundamentally at odds with each other. This should certainly help the Inspector write his report and Prescott take his decision.
The third party who are putting cost estimates forward to the Inquiry are Stiles Harold Williams, agents for the owners of Toads Hole Valley. They have yet to make a formal appearance at Brighton Town Hall. But Martin Perry has made it very clear that their agenda is driven by a clear wish to see a major commercial development on their site, despite the fact that there is no sign from the City Council that this would ever be permitted.
The terms on which Toads Hole Valley might host a football stadium have been spelt out to the Albion in terms which are far from attractive. Essentially, the football club would have to fund most of the access infrastructure and it would be prohibited from engaging in non-football related activity on the site, thereby significantly reducing the earning potential of the site. More of this will no doubt emerge as the Inquiry goes on, but what we have heard so far reinforces the view that Toads Hole Valley really looks like a non-starter.
Today’s report from the Inquiry is going to be a bit dull, I’m afraid. It’s full of facts and numbers. But the information is, I think, important and I hope that I can be forgiven for just telling it as it is. Normal service will be resumed soon, though, and I promise that an action packed account of the day’s proceedings will appear in the next day or two. Including how the Albion’s Chief Executive came to answer a question from Falmer Parish Council’s lawyer –
Mr Hopkins: You are familiar with Milton Keynes Dons?
Mr Perry: Yes. They’re rubbish.
Martin Perry was back in the witness box on day 6, presenting some very interesting information about the costs of building a stadium at eight of the sites that are being considered at the Inquiry. He had come up with an easy to understand way of comparing the different sites and, in particular, whether a stadium was affordable, once the associated infrastructure costs, like access roads, footbridges and so on, had been taken into account.
The key measure was the percentage of the Club’s annual turnover that would be needed to repay the loans that would finance the project. This was based on a firm commitment by the Club to keep within the newly developed Football League guideline that no more than 60 per cent of a Club’s turnover should be spent on wages. With 15 per cent of turnover required for other running costs, it means that 25 per cent of turnover is available to service debts.
In order of affordability, the debt repayment charges associated with building a stadium at each of the eight sites work out like this:-
Falmer – 20.70 % of turnover
Sheepcote Valley – 21.82 %
Shoreham Airport – 28.88 %
Withdean – 32.74 %
Toads Hole Valley – 34.16 %
Upper Beeding – 35.16 %
Waterhall – 42.36 %
Shoreham Harbour – 50.88 %
These costs are the costs of the borrowing that would be involved in each stadium project. Part of the stadium finance would come from capital grants, from sources like the South East England Development Agency, the Football Foundation and New Deal. Stadium sponsorship deals will also bring in funding and there would be a share issue to raise money from fans and other investors who want to commit their money to support the development of the Club in its new stadium.
But, even allowing for grants and other investment, there will always be a funding gap. It will be vital to keep that within a sensible limit. Hence the 25 per cent threshold that determines affordability. The cash figure that Martin Perry put forward as the maximum amount to be borrowed was £29 million. In effect, he was saying that only Falmer or Sheepcote Valley were affordable. If the Club stretched itself beyond the threshold, there would be no money available for general development – a vital part of running the Club once we are settled in our new home.
Other cost estimates are being put forward by other parties to the Inquiry, in particular Lewes District Council, who have commissioned a professional firm to come up with estimates for Falmer, Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley. Over the last few days, however, the Club has been working with Lewes DC’s consultant to assess how far apart the two sets of estimates are.
The conclusion, now set out in a joint paper presented by both parties to the Inquiry, is that there is no material variations between the costings worked out by the two organisations. The main significant difference is in the scale of infrastructure works that might be required at Toads Hole Valley – and that reflects different assessments of the traffic effects of a stadium at that site. The Albion say that over £10 million of non-stadium infrastructure will need to be paid for, while Lewes have made an estimate of £5.8 million.
The Albion are also assuming that an ‘iconic’ stadium is what is wanted at these three sites, whilst the District Council have prepared their costings for Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley on the basis of a ‘generic’ middle-of-the-range stadium.
But these differences are now explained to the Inspector in terms of the technicalities of costing a complex project, rather than as the outcome of two organisations being fundamentally at odds with each other. This should certainly help the Inspector write his report and Prescott take his decision.
The third party who are putting cost estimates forward to the Inquiry are Stiles Harold Williams, agents for the owners of Toads Hole Valley. They have yet to make a formal appearance at Brighton Town Hall. But Martin Perry has made it very clear that their agenda is driven by a clear wish to see a major commercial development on their site, despite the fact that there is no sign from the City Council that this would ever be permitted.
The terms on which Toads Hole Valley might host a football stadium have been spelt out to the Albion in terms which are far from attractive. Essentially, the football club would have to fund most of the access infrastructure and it would be prohibited from engaging in non-football related activity on the site, thereby significantly reducing the earning potential of the site. More of this will no doubt emerge as the Inquiry goes on, but what we have heard so far reinforces the view that Toads Hole Valley really looks like a non-starter.
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
If both LDC and the Albion broadly agree the numbers, why can't they agree to narrow the inquiry down to Sheepcote & Falmer.....that would presumably save a great deal of time (if not money). Presumably Sheepcote must meet the "affordability" criterion requested by the ODPM....hence the battle is on between Sheepcote and Falmer (which is what I'm sure both sides realised many months ago).
Lord Bracknell
On fire
The problem, I suspect, is Falmer Parish Council and the objectors to Sheepcote Valley (who have yet to put their evidence).balloonboy said:
There's also the view of the Regency Society of Brighton & Hove that Shoreham Harbour is the long-term answer, with the Club staying at Withdean (possibly with a capacity of something like 14,000) until the circumstances are right for a (lower cost) move to Shoreham Harbour being practicable.
That last idea is nonsense, by the way. But the Inquiry has yet to hear the details of what they are proposing.
Last edited:
Dave In Gloucester
New member
CrabtreeBHA asked this question but i dont know if he got any reply:
I thought yesterday was day seven? Which makes today day eight? Is this right?
I thought yesterday was day seven? Which makes today day eight? Is this right?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Yesterday was day 6 at Brighton Town Hall. It was day 7 if you include the Tuesday of last week when the Inspector did his quick tour of the sites - but that doesn't really count as an Inquiry Day.
I'll own up to being the mod who has been tinkering with the thread titles, to maintain some sort of continuity. Inevitably this happens late in the day, because I'm getting home late from the Town Hall. I hope no-one's getting too confused.
I've now added the word 'Thursday' to the thread title.
I'll own up to being the mod who has been tinkering with the thread titles, to maintain some sort of continuity. Inevitably this happens late in the day, because I'm getting home late from the Town Hall. I hope no-one's getting too confused.
I've now added the word 'Thursday' to the thread title.
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,508
Lord Bracknell said:
THE f***ing REGENCY SOCIETY ?? ??
why in fucks name have they got an opinion. Last time i checked Regency properties are in the centre of town a couple of miles away. Theres certainly nothing Regency about Sussex Uni, Falmer or Moulscomb.
Last edited:
Brixtaan
New member
Excellent review thank you. I like the wording Perry is using and they really look like they've done they're homework.
Ex Shelton Seagull
New member
"Next week's proceedings will involve witnesses who Lewes District Council won't need to cross-examine - including the Friends of Stanmer Park, Falmer Parish Council, Rottingdean Parish Council, the Friends of Waterhall, the Society of Sussex Downsmen and the Regency Society of Brighton & Hove."
So roll up to Brighton Town Hall for the week long comedy festival!
Can't wait to read what these goons and fucktards have come up with. I would go along but I have a feeling that i'd "go postal" after around 5 minutes.
So roll up to Brighton Town Hall for the week long comedy festival!
Can't wait to read what these goons and fucktards have come up with. I would go along but I have a feeling that i'd "go postal" after around 5 minutes.
I think they're represented just in case someone suggests Old Steine as a potential site.beorhthelm said:THE f***ing REGENCY SOCIETY ?? ??
why in fucks name have they got an opinion. Last time i checked Regency properties are in the centre of town a couple of miles away. Theres certainly nothing Regency about Sussex Uni, Falmer or Moulscomb.
Well everywhere else with a bit of grass has been put forward so why not?
Brixtaan
New member
Brixtaan said:
thier
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Brixtaan said:thier
their!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
This could be compulsive viewing. With LDC not cross-examining, I take it Mr Clay certainly will be ? I'd very much enjoy watching him crash an 18 wheel juggernaught straight through the plethora of gaping holes in their arguments.Ex Shelton Seagull said:
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
is anyone else getting the sinking feeling that Sheepcoat Valley is looking like the site that this inspector may plump for.
dave the gaffer said:
If it is, we'd all better get on our bikes 'cos it's going to be traffic chaos !!