The NEW £60million Falmer Stadium

[The Large One]

Only my opinion but I do think that if we abandon the aesthetic elements of the project we are inviting renewed objections from the anti-brigade.

I am also waiting to see who will stump up the £60 million other than on a long term loan/mortgage basis which will demand on-going profit streams (tickets/merchanise/food & drink) to service that debt.

Dandy, are you alright?

 

[Dandyman]

Where have you been for the last 10 years?

1. The objectionists can no longer stop the stadium being built.

2. The finance for the stadium will come from the lottery, the football foundation ,the sports council and sponsorship as well as funds from banks and other private investors.

Sorry - but why are people still going on about the same thing when it's been answered a hundred million times before?

1. I was under the impression that this was a new application, so presumably they can.

2. Yes, I know that. The point is about was what proportions of the finance package fall to whom. If the bulk is loans rather than public funding, naming rights, beverage, etc rights, then the loan will still need to be serviced to a greater or lesser degree by the number of people coming through the gates and what they are willing to spend when they are in the ground. I would have thought that was quite a significant issue.

 

[Dandyman]

Dandy, are you alright?

My patience is being stretched a bit, old chap.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Oooooooooooh Andy Pandy is a bit TETCHY.

 

[Curious Orange]

1. I was under the impression that this was a new application, so presumably they can.

Nope, this is the detailed planning application, we already have the outline permission as a result of the public inquiry.

 

[The Large One]

1. I was under the impression that this was a new application, so presumably they can.

2. Yes, I know that. The point is about was what proportions of the finance package fall to whom. If the bulk is loans rather than public funding, naming rights, beverage, etc rights, then the loan will still need to be serviced to a greater or lesser degree by the number of people coming through the gates and what they are willing to spend when they are in the ground. I would have thought that was quite a significant issue.

1. No, it's not a new application, at least not one that will need to be called in.

2. At the public inquiry, the club said they needed to borrow £29m, on the back of a cost of an estimated £48m. Obviously, these figures have now changed. I agree with your point about how the loan is serviced, but this is where the club's flexible, but nominal break-even figure of 12,000 or so comes in.

 

[Knotty]

My patience is being stretched a bit, old chap.

Yours, mine, every Albion supporter's, DK's, MP's, the rest of the board and all the employees of the club.

Being negative will improve, solve and hasten nothing, it will only play into the hands of the NIMBYs.

It has been an unbelievably long road with so many barriers - mostly LDC, FPC, Baker and government incompetence - but we are nearly there!

Stick with it, mate!

 

[Dandyman]

1. No, it's not a new application, at least not one that will need to be called in.

2. At the public inquiry, the club said they needed to borrow £29m, on the back of a cost of an estimated £48m. Obviously, these figures have now changed. I agree with your point about how the loan is serviced, but this is where the club's flexible, but nominal break-even figure of 12,000 or so comes in.

OK, so on point 1) presumably people can still object to "details" even if the overall project is approved? (I am more than happy to be wrong on this).

on 2) there is clearly a relation between numbers/ticket prices/spend per customer and so on but if lenders are less willing to take on risk then is it not likely that the rate of interest on the amounts loaned will be higher and that will mean one of the variables of numbers/prices/spend having to increase?

 

[Dandyman]

Yours, mine, every Albion supporter's, DK's, MP's, the rest of the board and all the employees of the club.

Being negative will improve, solve and hasten nothing, it will only play into the hands of the NIMBYs.

It has been an unbelievably long road with so many barriers - mostly LDC, FPC, Baker and government incompetence - but we are nearly there!

Stick with it, mate!

Fair shout, I just would like to have the feeling that the "generals" are being as honest as circumstance allows with the troops.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

1. I was under the impression that this was a new application, so presumably they can.

2. Yes, I know that. The point is about was what proportions of the finance package fall to whom. If the bulk is loans rather than public funding, naming rights, beverage, etc rights, then the loan will still need to be serviced to a greater or lesser degree by the number of people coming through the gates and what they are willing to spend when they are in the ground. I would have thought that was quite a significant issue.

I'm assuming you've not read the whole thread because you're normally one of the more coherant posters with seemingly some intelligence ?

 

[Dandyman]

I'm assuming you've not read the whole thread because you're normally one of the more coherant posters with seemingly some intelligence ?

Not read 21 pages, no. Put me out of my agony and tell me what I am missing, please.

 

[The Large One]

OK, so on point 1) presumably people can still object to "details" even if the overall project is approved? (I am more than happy to be wrong on this).

on 2) there is clearly a relation between numbers/ticket prices/spend per customer and so on but if lenders are less willing to take on risk then is it not likely that the rate of interest on the amounts loaned will be higher and that will mean one of the variables of numbers/prices/spend having to increase?

1. People can object, but assuming BHCC does everything it should do in terms of a planning decision, then once the decision is taken, a challenge (to BHCC - forget the Govt in this, they're not relevant) can be made and heard with. Losing that challenge will amount to a hefty cost for the objectors. And BHCC does seem minded to approve. And LDC is not objecting.

You have to ask 'what grounds are there for objecting?' Aside from the chalk removal bit, everything else is within the confines of the current stadium plan.

2. It is a movable feast, and we won't know until the details are published. It appears that the club has had many constructive meetings with various financial institutions, professional relationships have been forms, things are apparently progressing well. I say 'apparently' because of course, no-one knows.

 

[Tooting Gull]

this is where the club's flexible, but nominal break-even figure of 12,000 or so comes in.

'Flexible but nominal'. That does sound a bit like you're saying '12,000 won't do it any more, so we'd better up it to, say, 15,000'.

But the figure of 12,000 was there in the first place for a very good and very well-researched (presumably) reason. It delivered the revenue, and was thought to be achievable despite the current crowds.

So how would suddenly a significantly higher break-even crowd figure be achievable based on no other factors or changes than we desperately need it to be?

 

[Knotty]

Fair shout, I just would like to have the feeling that the "generals" are being as honest as circumstance allows with the troops.

None of us knows if the Generals are being totally honest with us because we are not in on all the discussions that must go on in these circumstances and there is no way that they could, or should give us all the details.

Like you and everyone else I am frustrated by everything that is involved in getting the thing built, but I can't see the slightest reason why the Generals would not tell us about bad news. There would be no point whatsoever. If there were to be a point at which they realised that the project could not be financed, why would they not tell us? It wouldn't change or improve anything if they kept it quiet.

 

[The Large One]

Not read 21 pages, no. Put me out of my agony and tell me what I am missing, please.

1. The Argus are being over-sensationalist, and in one instance, plain wrong (about the 30,000 capacity)
2. Colbourne Kid (someone who should know) says 'stop panicking' and fills us in with what's really happening.
3. People breathing a bit of a sigh of relief
4. Stuff and things

 

[BigGully]

'Flexible but nominal'. That does sound a bit like you're saying '12,000 won't do it any more, so we'd better up it to, say, 15,000'.

But the figure of 12,000 was there in the first place for a very good and very well-researched (presumably) reason. It delivered the revenue, and was thought to be achievable despite the current crowds.

So how would suddenly a significantly higher break-even crowd figure be achievable based on no other factors or changes than we desperately need it to be?

Theres no reason why a higher attendance figure could credibly be yanked out of the hat now, however you can decrease your overheads and still keep the 12 000 attendance figure in place to show a break even figure.

There might be many overheads that could be reduced, but without impacting on the quality of the project I cannot see how.

Of course you can plug any increase in costs by using cash from a wealthy benefactor keeping the break even figure nicely as it was.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The original rebuttal from the club said that the footprint remains the same, but then we have been told it increases by 6.7%.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Theres no reason why a higher attendance figure could credibly be yanked out of the hat now, however you can decrease your overheads and still keep the 12 000 attendance figure in place to show a break even figure.

There might be many overheads that could be reduced, but without impacting on the quality of the project I cannot see how.

Of course you can plug any increase in costs by using cash from a wealthy benefactor keeping the break even figure nicely as it was.

Or maybe there are now other sources of revenue for the stadium* that were not known about when the the public enquiry was taking place and the 12,000 football gate "break even" figure was first mooted.
*eg rent from the City College

 

[BigGully]

Or maybe there are now other sources of revenue for the stadium* that were not known about when the the public enquiry was taking place and the 12,000 football gate "break even" figure was first mooted.
*eg rent from the City College

Yep, of course if there are new revenue streams on top of ticket sales that might also accommodate the 12,000 break even figure.

Just a shame that costs have risen so much, we could of used this new revenue stream and showed a nice profit on 12, 000 attendances or reducing the break even attendance figure.

My real point is just getting bloody access to any funding at present.

 

[Scoffers]

The original rebuttal from the club said that the footprint remains the same, but then we have been told it increases by 6.7%.

There you go again. Another sensible post. It won't catch on.