Stadium Latest

The council will now, at a meeting of the Special Cabinet on Tuesday, February 28, decide whether or not to offer the stadium developer, Extreme Leisure, an option agreement for them to purchase the Peaks Parkway site, in order to "provide the necessary council commitment to enable and facilitate further investment into the Community Stadium project."

Which you can read all about here - https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Community-Stadium-Report.pdf

£24-25 million has been budgeted for the stadium alone. Report compares it to Rotherham which cost £20m in 2013, and Scunthorpe's planned new stadium which also has a £25m budget.

So to summarise:

- Peaks Parkway was ranked third in the study of available sites conducted by the council - behind Garth Lane and Europarc - but owners weren't interested in getting involved with development, so Peaks Parkway is the de facto best option.

- Blundell Park worth less than £800k

- GTFC estimated to be about £30m short of funds required.  It is assumed Extreme will provide investment to cover some of that.

- Additional funds most likely to be derived from additional bank loans or equity exchanges.  Initial inquiries made to Lloyds Bank and Yorkshire Bank indicate an interest rate of circa 5.5% could be achievable.

- Three floodlit 4G pitches, plus two grass community pitches, complete with changing facilities, will be included in the development.

- Will include 'Public transport interchange to ensure sustainable transport methods'

- Stadium will be 14,000 capacity with option to increase to 20,100.

- 2000 capacity car park on site.

One thing which I am still not clear about is the equity arrangement between the council, GTFC and Extreme.  I'd assume, like other developments of this sort, that the council will manage the stadium with GTFC having to pay fees to use it?  It remains to be seen how much of the revenue from gate receipts and corporate events will be made available to the club.

Admittedly on a quick scan i read that as if the Council's only involvement is in selling the land . So council gets a large capital receipt circa 1m to spend on whatever it sees fit but no other involvement.  That's why the report says no OBC business case required as it's a commercial matter for a private company to work out how the shortfall is met or the income is distributed (between the developer and gtfc)  I.e. no public money.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

Admittedly on a quick scan i read that as if the Council's only involvement is in selling the land . So council gets a large capital receipt circa 1m to spend on whatever it sees fit but no other involvement.  That's why the report says no OBC business case required as it's a commercial matter for a private company to work out how the shortfall is met I.e. no public money.

Yes, I also saw that.

Full passage:
" Should the developer decide to take up the option to purchase the land, the Council would generate a further capital receipt. The exact amount is still to be determined and could be generated via a fixed price mechanism or on overage arrangement whereby the Council receive a percentage of the uplift in value derived from the granting of planning permission.

As the Council does not currently have other plans for development at the Peaks Parkway site, the amount would be an additional capital receipt available for reinvestment to support Council priorities. Clearly the development of a community stadium would generate significant wider economic benefits for the area in the form of inward investment, jobs and additional business rates."

So if Extreme do buy the land required then one would assume the development is theirs to own and manage?

That's how I interpret that MarrinerDevil. So if that is correct  Extreme, GTFC and the other private equity partners would have a share of the income from all outlets, be that retail let's, leisure whatever.

I can't imagine we'd be privy to what that is though until we see the accounts in X years time.

Yep, seems that way.

An ideal scenario for us would be for Extreme to fund the construction of the stadium by purchasing equity in the club.  They would earn revenue from the sporting facilities, such as the ice rink, retail and housing, while GTFC would be entitled to most of capital generated from the stadium.  

Extreme would earn money from lease fees and any profits from GTFC shares.

But I'm not in this sort of business for a reason and I'm sure that the actual picture will be a lot more complicated than that!

Yeah, that's the way I read it. Extreme would own the land. Net cost of the stadium development c £30m.

Have to say that that hasn't made me think 'this is going to happen', or the if it does the club will be reasonably financially secure.

Says it's outside the scope of the report to work on the business case for the Club or Extreme. £30m is a big number to cover. Anyone got a feel for how much profit the developer could make on enabling residential development on the land not used for the stadium?

This is not a million miles from numbers bandied around before, so to me it doesn't actually move things on. Still waiting to see how the club can afford this (some numbers and not just 'conferencing/other non-matchday activity').

30m is a big number but so to is 250k for a new house but of course families buy those every day I.e. the  30m will be spead over I'm guessing 60 years so 500k per annum, just as any other development such as a school, hospital, hotel etc.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

30m is a big number but so to is 250k for a new house but of course families but those every day I.e. the  30m will be spead over I'm guessing 60 years so 500k per annum, just as any other development such as a school, hospital, hotel etc.

It's a big old mortgage.  It also relies on the club being able to guarantee interest payments during that time too.  Fenty isn't going to be around forever to pay it down.  Hopefully the club have a continuity plan in place to mitigate the risk, and that the new stadium will attract new investors into the club to keep us going.

But what's the profit on a £250k house? How many will they be able to build on that plot? Let's guess at 20% profit (pending someone correcting it) so that's 600 £250k houses. And how much of their profits would the developer be prepared to forego to subsidise the stadium?

60 years looks too long to me. I think most modern commercial buildings are assumed to have a life of 40 years, so that's £750k p.a. in rent without accounting for any maintenance and service charges (the estate it's on will need to be maintained as well as the building structure. That's a big % of the club's turnover.

Also the new ground along with the Conference facilities, restaurant and extra pitches to rent out should generate a significant amount of extra income that would pay off a huge mortgage. Would be like a house that you rent out, mortgage would pay itself.

Will this new ground include much enhanced training facilities and increased sport science possiblities. As long as there's a viable strategy in place with a contingency plan then we should see footballing developments as well as more cash.

Warning back of the homosexual  packet calculations alert!!! (Edit swear filter gone mad!)

Extra 1000 on the gate = 460k per annum + the extra ancillary sales on the day. Aside from that all the other income from all the other venue facilities. It's not too hard to conjure up figures that make it look reasonable.

I've worked on a range of development business cases some over 20 years right up to 60 so that sort of range wouldn't be unusual for me.

Obviously there are going to be lifecycle costs but so too at Blundell park and given the condition of that it may even be cheaper at the new stadium over the whole life cost.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

Warning back of the homosexual  packet calculations alert!!!

Extra 1000 on the gate = 460k per annum + the extra ancillary sales on the day. Aside from that all the other income from all the other venue facilities. It's not too hard to conjure up figures that make it look reasonable.

Appreciate it's just the back of a homosexual packet Swansea, but it looks a bit risky to me. We still know nothing about the non-matchday income - who will get it? Nothing says we will. Not saying we won't, but the owner holds all the cards. And how much are we actually talking about? I seem to remember RRFC had some comments recently about the distinct lack of such income at other new grounds.

What if the extra 1000 doesn't materialise? Any hard evidence to say they will come? Ticket revenue per head would lower too as 460k assumes the full turn-up on the day, adult price.

Not saying it won't happen, but until the business case is done with some hard numbers, I'm worried.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

I've worked on a range of development business cases some over 20 years right up to 60 so that sort of range wouldn't be unusual for me.

Obviously there are going to be lifecycle costs but so too at Blundell park and given the condition of that it may even be cheaper at the new stadium over the whole life cost.

I'll bow to your experience on that then.

The current calculations for non-matchday income at The BP are made easier by the fact that there isn't any.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

But what's the profit on a £250k house? How many will they be able to build on that plot? Let's guess at 20% profit (pending someone correcting it) so that's 600 £250k houses. And how much of their profits would the developer be prepared to forego to subsidise the stadium?

60 years looks too long to me. I think most modern commercial buildings are assumed to have a life of 40 years, so that's £750k p.a. in rent without accounting for any maintenance and service charges (the estate it's on will need to be maintained as well as the building structure. That's a big % of the club's turnover.

Wouldn't have thought it would be as high as 20% but it depends on the price of the land to begin with. If the council make it attractive enough, someone will take it on. The council will make some money as well as meeting local housing demand. This could be a win for all concerned if done right.

Does £250k really pass as affordable housing nowadays?  Holy moly.

Done a bit of research and the mean house price in the area is about £100,000, if we assume the house has 2 bedrooms.  Newly built housing designed to be affordable surely can't be more than £150k?  Or I am just living in cloud cuckoo land?

surely not anything like all the houses will be priced at a quarter of a mill? or am i missing something?

I totally understand where you are coming from Kingston regarding increased attendances. We've all seen various examples trotted out but at the end of the day everywhere is different and there are no guarantees Grimsby will have the same experiences as somewhere else.

It the Field of dreams theory "if you build it they will come" and as George said You've gotta have Faith!

The alternative is you build a 6 or 7k stadium for much cheaper and say, you know what we're not ambitious we are the same size club as Barnet and can only really expect small gates. Risk goes down, but so to does the opportunity to progress.

As for the split of revenue it'll be beneficial to both parties as it won't be in the interests of the developers for the club to be insolvent, I mean who else are they going to house at a football stadium other than gtfc?

There will be a percentage of affordable housing in the mix. May even be some self build plots available as the government are pushing self build at the moment and i have registered my interest with NELC for a local self build plot.

Just realised that Omar Bogle was considered to be worth more than our stadium  

Quoted from MarinerDevil

Just realised that Omar Bogle was considered to be worth more than our stadium  

That really sums up BP. It's got great memories for a lot of us and if we do get a new ground, i will be really sad to leave it, but it's well past it's sell by date and in totally the wrong place for a modern football stadium needs. It will probably cost the worth of the stadium to demolish and remove it.

Car parking fees, assume the an average of 1,000 cars per game @ £5 a car, for 22 games a season = £110,000 extra a season which we don't get at the moment,

I will stick to the view that I don't know enough of the fine detail to be concerned and worried.

I will wait until we know a little more about rent, income, ownership rather than being concerned about things that I have such limited knowledge about.

Maybe that is because I am in favour of PP when some aren't and therefore want to look for problems which may, or may not, be there!

So, Pleasure Island? The old site viable? Another couple of years of one crowd backing it full, another crowd saying it's the worst idea yet....and me in the middle not knowing who to listen to.

So far though..it's too small and it'd take longer, perhaps too long to prepare the area.

The PP wasn't my my first, or second, choice with a lot of misgivings about it and the feeling its just an opportunists chance to whack up thousands of houses and rake in a fortune.

But when I see and hear the plans Im starting to think the whole complex/area would be a great addition to our locality and nicely thought out along very similar lines to how I would have liked it

Lets face it, in the next 20 years or whatever from Grimsby to Waltham will be full of housing swallowing the latter into the main body of Grimsby akin to say Scartho.

This latest body of info gives me the feeling council ARE actually in favour of the idea due to the many benefits it would bring.

I cant confess to being particularly savvy to tge finer business points and the idea of us owing Extreme for 60 years or whatever it is fills my with a bit of dread when you look at teams like Coventry and those that have been locked out of theirs grounds or vent over backwards by ruthless businessmen.

Hopefully we can have as many income streams as possible coming into our coffers.

Simplistic view but if we loss say 80k per annum now we only need to make 100k more in new place to be

...self sustainable.  I just worry about being saddled with a stadium bill and not being able to pump funds into playing squad ala Arsenal lets say.

But we are in dire need, love BP but its a hole.

Would the same recent flood warnings for the Fitties apply to the Pleasure Island proposed site. I remember that every house in the area was on standby against the floods only a couple of years ago.

It all feels like it is getting a bit over complicated to me.

Could someone explain to me,what does the leisre company funding the project,actually get out of this deal?Who owns the land,who benefits from houses put up there, and maybe shopping and hotel etc,and how does gtfc bring in needed revenue?.

Quoted from RoboCod

So, Pleasure Island? The old site viable? Another couple of years of one crowd backing it full, another crowd saying it's the worst idea yet....and me in the middle not knowing who to listen to.

So far though..it's too small and it'd take longer, perhaps too long to prepare the area.

If you built a stadium on the Pleasure Island site, you'd have complete traffic gridlock after most matches. Two single-lane access roads to the site with no scope for expansion. Driving home down the seafront from BP after the match on Saturday, the line of traffic heading towards Grimsby road was barely moving and was stacked back past Willy's. Imagine the same going both ways for an hour or more before and after each game? A non-starter, as far as I can see - though it would mean I'd be able to walk to the match in about ten minutes!

You'd hope that the housing development at the PP site would be mostly 2 and 3 bedroom houses at sensible prices. That's what people need these days so that's what ought to be built. Of course, I can see that fewer 5 bedroom houses might potentially provide more of a return so that might be the more sensible option financially for the developer, but it would be disappointing if it was the case.

Quoted from HertsGTFC

It all feels like it is getting a bit over complicated to me.

It's never going to be anything but complicated. Most clubs that relocate can sell their old ground for a load of money to help fund the move. It just so happens that BP is pretty much worthless - a small site with poor transport links in the centre of an impoverished town.

We're going to be in hock to somebody for the new stadium, whatever occurs, especially as we don't have a sugar daddy on the scene to gift it to us. Just need to make sure we don't end up with a situation like Coventry.

Quoted from Cloudy

I will stick to the view that I don't know enough of the fine detail to be concerned and worried.

I will wait until we know a little more about rent, income, ownership rather than being concerned about things that I have such limited knowledge about.

Maybe that is because I am in favour of PP when some aren't and therefore want to look for problems which may, or may not, be there!

Yeah, i tend to agree. Think i'll just let the number crunchers get on with it as i'm sure they know what they are doing- at least i hope they do. As long as we are in a new sustainable ground, does it matter what the details of the financial arrangements are?

As for the housing, there used to be something called a Section 106 that made developers build so much percentage of social  housing for rent but the Government are trying to (may already have) get this lifted to make development more attractive to house builders. Think there is now a mandate for "affordable" housing, which is to say, houses that are cheaper to buy or on part ownership schemes, rather than social housing for rent. We can't have these undesirable types living among the nice respectable "normal" folk can we?  

If we are looking at all possible income streams, then surely a new stadium will attract more away fans?  
They complain enough about BP as it is.  A new stadium and surrounding area will also have improved safety and security for fans.

These factors all add up over time.    

Clubs that had a new all seater stadium built over the last 20 odd years have found an increase in attendance ,

Its up to the club to keep them by performances on the pitch,

Regarding the price of the houses I would think there will be a good mix,

Some affordable going for 150K    UP to 500K  with plenty in between,

Add on the increased gate money and parking fees with the extra daily monies coming in from the hire of facilities and rent ect,

The stadium complex will pay for itself,

With the experts saying a person born today will live until they are 150 years old,

We better put some comfortable seats in,

Quoted from grimsby pete

Clubs that had a new all seater stadium built over the last 20 odd years have found an increase in attendance ,

Its up to the club to keep them by performances on the pitch,

Regarding the price of the houses I would think there will be a good mix,

Some affordable going for 150K    UP to 500K  with plenty in between,

Add on the increased gate money and parking fees with the extra daily monies coming in from the hire of facilities and rent ect,

The stadium complex will pay for itself,

With the experts saying a person born today will live until they are 150 years old,

We better put some comfortable seats in,

In which case I will be opening a flask and humbug shop next to the ground. Extending to tartan blankets after two years.  Any Dragons out there want 10% ??

Quoted from Civvy at last

In which case I will be opening a flask and humbug shop next to the ground. Extending to tartan blankets after two years.  Any Dragons out there want 10% ??

I want 51% Civvy. And although you have put all the ideas, time, love, sweat and tears into it, as well as the considerable monies you have so far put into the concept, I am prepared to give you very little money. What I am prepared to do is get one of the 'business specialists' who work for me to come and spend a day with you telling you that you are doing everything wrong and that whatever they say is right, then that is my end of the bargain sorted and it is up to you.

Also I need to make it very clear (and this will be in a contract) that if it all goes belly up then it is completely your fault, and if it all goes brilliantly and we make lots of cash then I am the only one who can take any credit.

I will PM you the contract in the next 24 hours.

Duncan 😊

Quoted from Posh Harry

I want 51% Civvy. And although you have put all the ideas, time, love, sweat and tears into it, as well as the considerable monies you have so far put into the concept, I am prepared to give you very little money. What I am prepared to do is get one of the 'business specialists' who work for me to come and spend a day with you telling you that you are doing everything wrong and that whatever they say is right, then that is my end of the bargain sorted and it is up to you.

Also I need to make it very clear (and this will be in a contract) that if it all goes belly up then it is completely your fault, and if it all goes brilliantly and we make lots of cash then I am the only one who can take any credit.

I will PM you the contract in the next 24 hours.

Duncan 😊

No Problem Duncan.
Could you please send me the  same specialist you sent to Levi Roots (Reggae Reggae sauce).

Oh..........

Hang on 😃

Quoted from Civvy at last

No Problem Duncan.
Could you please send me the  same specialist you sent to Levi Roots (Reggae Reggae sauce).

Oh..........

Hang on 😃

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!

I hate Peter Jones. Don't mention that bl88dy sauce again or the deals off.

Why not me, why not me 😭😭😭😭

Any board with an eye for business would have been buying up land/houses around BP for years by now. It wouldn't have taken much of an offer for the Ritz when it was still standing. I suspect such ideas were bandied around in the Ramsden days and then left gathering dust.

Perhaps the club should employ Karen Brady as a Consultant. We'd end up having the developer pay GTFC to use the stadium

WHO are 'Extreme Leisure'?

Are they interested in football at all, or just in making money??

My concern is that the sport I once enjoyed is now just a business opportunity.....

timely announcement ahead of the fans forum......get your questions in regards GTFC's tenancy, income share etc.....from what i see we hardly have two pennies to rub together at the moment, we have "benign" loans of a couple of million (?)...800k potential revenue for selling BP is the only real cash we can input ..........just cant see how turning upto a massive project like this with such a poor hand and expect to be raking in masses of income off somebodies elses investment could possibly happen...

lots more detail required for me yet.

I don't know where I read that grant funding is available from the FA for building new stadia. If so then that would be something towards the building costs of the stadium itself.

Quoted from rancido

I don't know where I read that grant funding is available from the FA for building new stadia. If so then that would be something towards the building costs of the stadium itself.

Yeah the report says they estimating 1.5m from Grant funding all though it does admit we are likely to attract more, but obviously that's not for definite.

Quoted from moosey_club

timely announcement ahead of the fans forum......get your questions in regards GTFC's tenancy, income share etc.....from what i see we hardly have two pennies to rub together at the moment, we have "benign" loans of a couple of million (?)...800k potential revenue for selling BP is the only real cash we can input ..........just cant see how turning upto a massive project like this with such a poor hand and expect to be raking in masses of income off somebodies elses investment could possibly happen...

lots more detail required for me yet.

How have we got no hand, we hold the ace card no gtfc = no land sale, no housing, no project = no opportunity for profit.

What I would like to know is what is the risk involved for the football club with this project. Though I don't know all the details the Darlington and Coventry examples worry me.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

I totally understand where you are coming from Kingston regarding increased attendances. We've all seen various examples trotted out but at the end of the day everywhere is different and there are no guarantees Grimsby will have the same experiences as somewhere else.

It the Field of dreams theory "if you build it they will come" and as George said You've gotta have Faith!

The alternative is you build a 6 or 7k stadium for much cheaper and say, you know what we're not ambitious we are the same size club as Barnet and can only really expect small gates. Risk goes down, but so to does the opportunity to progress.

As for the split of revenue it'll be beneficial to both parties as it won't be in the interests of the developers for the club to be insolvent, I mean who else are they going to house at a football stadium other than gtfc?

That and your point in another post about no stadium = no land sale = no development are the key assets the club has. I trust that between the club and the council a robust deal is put in place to maximise the benefit of this, whilst still making it attractive to the developers.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if ownership of the stadium was in the hands of a community interest company.

Quoted from toontown

surely not anything like all the houses will be priced at a quarter of a mill? or am i missing something?

I think that figure was plucked out of the air for the sake of creating a simple calculation of what sort of money is involved overall.

In reality the average price will be lower, but then there'd be more lower value houses and you'd get more of them in the same space so it'd partly balance out.

The report quotes an average price for NEL of £110k if I remember right. But that includes a lot of old houses and new ones seem to sell for higher prices.

Quoted from Swansea_Mariner

How have we got no hand, we hold the ace card no gtfc = no land sale, no housing, no project = no opportunity for profit.

housing could be built at any time without a stadium add on...the lack of a developed local plan by the council has already allowed several developments to be ridden straight through the council planning "objections" by any determined developer.

If you to know about funding of it, it's in the document at the beginning of this thread.

I lost the will to live about halfway through.

The Coventry situation is how not to do it. A consortium built it, with a hotel and casino attached to the stadium. They charged City a million and a half quid a year in rent. They keep all the revenue from food and drinks, and keep the £22 per car parking charge.
The only revenue the club get is from match day ticket and program sales.

Coventry council are a partner in the consortium, so the football club is being shafted by its own council.

The club renegotiated a better deal after they moved out, but I'm not sure what, but I bet they are still getting shafted.

Quoted from moosey_club

...800k potential revenue for selling BP is the only real cash we can input ..........

Doubtful it will be a cash injection as BP is mortgaged up to the hilt, isn't it?

Will the bank trust us with a £30m loan though?

Football clubs are precarious, what happens when Fenty's had enough? Where do we get money from then?

Quoted from HertsGTFC

What I would like to know is what is the risk involved for the football club with this project. Though I don't know all the details the Darlington and Coventry examples worry me.

I think the risks of not proceeding with this project or any new ground plan are greater for the club! Blundell Park is way past it's sell by date and no amount of development to the ground ( even if the council were to grant planning permission for it ) will alter the total unsuitability of the facilities available for other than match day income flows. Although JF has stated that his loans to the club are benign and he wouldn't recall them to the detriment of the club, this is a situation that could be out of his control. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Main Stand could be refused fire insurance cover ( it is a totally wooden structure) . If that happens then what does the club do? It would be totally stupid to throw money away on a replacement stand and still have the same short comings for the ground as a whole. Does the ground have to meet any requirements by the FA or FL and if so how much longer can our ground, as it stands, meet those requirements.

Blundell Park is not mortgaged. It is owned by the club.

New article from CA this morning makes the point that the principle argument for building the new ground - that it will make the club more 'sustainable' - is based on flawed logic.  They say that the club will still spend more than it makes because there will inevitably be demand for higher spending on players in order to produce evidence that the move has benefited us.

But this misses the point in my view.  'Sustainability' is not about whether the club runs at a net profit or loss.  It's whether the current operating loss can be reliably maintained by the assets - infrastructure and personnel - that it holds.  We simply must invest in our assets to maintain them.  A juicier income stream will enable better expenditure on infrastructure that badly needs improving if we are to survive, let alone progress.  This venture will of course be a risk, but is it a bigger one than staying put?  Rancido makes some good points; how long do we have until these risks inevitably crystallise?

Nostalgic sentiment towards BP has mostly evaporated.  This investment is long overdue.

More money on players generally leads to a better performing team, a better performing team leads to increased income through greater gate receipts/food sales/merchandise.  

Plus car parking if that is to be ours.

Quoted from moosey_club

housing could be built at any time without a stadium add on...the lack of a developed local plan by the council has already allowed several developments to be ridden straight through the council planning "objections" by any determined developer.

Yes of course, but as the report says this is considered high quality land, which will be 'shovel' ready with planning permission granted. This will be a huge attraction to a developer in terms of final profit and time to completion.

Quoted from mimma

Blundell Park is not mortgaged. It is owned by the club.

There is a debenture over the clubs fixed and floating assets in favour of King John

Thats something to get your teeth into

Quoted from MarinerDevil

New article from CA this morning makes the point that the principle argument for building the new ground - that it will make the club more 'sustainable' - is based on flawed logic.  They say that the club will still spend more than it makes because there will inevitably be demand for higher spending on players in order to produce evidence that the move has benefited us.

But this misses the point in my view.  'Sustainability' is not about whether the club runs at a net profit or loss.  It's whether the current operating loss can be reliably maintained by the assets - infrastructure and personnel - that it holds.  We simply must invest in our assets to maintain them.  A juicier income stream will enable better expenditure on infrastructure that badly needs improving if we are to survive, let alone progress.  This venture will of course be a risk, but is it a bigger one than staying put?  Rancido makes some good points; how long do we have until these risks inevitably crystallise?

Nostalgic sentiment towards BP has mostly evaporated.  This investment is long overdue.

CA ?

Quoted from MarinerDevil

New article from CA this morning makes the point that the principle argument for building the new ground - that it will make the club more 'sustainable' - is based on flawed logic.  They say that the club will still spend more than it makes because there will inevitably be demand for higher spending on players in order to produce evidence that the move has benefited us.

But this misses the point in my view.  'Sustainability' is not about whether the club runs at a net profit or loss.  It's whether the current operating loss can be reliably maintained by the assets - infrastructure and personnel - that it holds.  We simply must invest in our assets to maintain them.  A juicier income stream will enable better expenditure on infrastructure that badly needs improving if we are to survive, let alone progress.  This venture will of course be a risk, but is it a bigger one than staying put?  Rancido makes some good points; how long do we have until these risks inevitably crystallise?

Nostalgic sentiment towards BP has mostly evaporated.  This investment is long overdue.

This and the CA diary make good points. You should send them your views.
Personally I hoped that we'd have a clearer idea of how the stadium would be funded by now. If we have a deal with the developer to fund it in exchange for giving them access to such an opportunity, I'd be quite enthusiastic. If this is not the case, I am uncomfortable with the idea of bring £25million in debt, regardless of how good the business plan sounds.
I'm looking forward to the club filling in the gaps.

Quoted from NorthseaMariner

CA ?

Cod Almighty.

Quoted from mirrorballman

I am uncomfortable with the idea of bring £25million in debt, regardless of how good the business plan sounds.  I'm looking forward to the club filling in the gaps.

£25 million is too much debt for the club and is probably the reason why we are bringing in an enabling developer.  

We won't have to foot the entire bill ourselves and we get to tap into the income streams of the surrounding establishments.  At least that will be the plan.

I'd imagine that there will be a negotiation and eventual agreement between GTFC and Extreme on financing and income rights.  It is in the interest of both parties for each to get a good deal.  We should be optimistic about this.

Quoted from MarinerDevil

£25 million is too much debt for the club and is probably the reason why we are bringing in an enabling developer.  

We won't have to foot the entire bill ourselves and we get to tap into the income streams of the surrounding establishments.  At least that will be the plan.

I'd imagine that there will be a negotiation and eventual agreement between GTFC and Extreme on financing and income rights.  It is in the interest of both parties for each to get a good deal.  We should be optimistic about this.

There is no way the club can raise £25m or anything like it. This was why redeveloping BP was floated many moons ago as an interim measure. As I understood it, the idea was that a redeveloped BP would be big enough for the great majority of games. The major investment would be on the development of the club itself i.e. getting as high as we could go until it was obvious BP was too small. The club would then be in a position to attract investors directly as a successful concern (not a potentially successful one as it is in 2017).

Of course BP itself would have been worth considerably more too if the other idea that was floated had been taken up too - buying up some surrounding properties.

None of this reached the stage of public consultation, it was all boardroom rumour. A lot of us felt at the time that some directors were scared to think big and all we got was the Findus. Do times change?

How long until the Main Stand is condemned? We are living on borrowed time at BP.

Some really good points on this thread from the positive to the concerned.  I'm certainly no accountant but I'm confident in that it isn't debt that kills a business, it's cash flow.  Let's look at the business in a bit more detail using the cash flow versus debt argument.  The standard in the UK is 30 day payment terms with customers, i.e. you incur your operating costs anything up to 30 days before you receive revenue.  A business therefore requires sufficient operating capital to see it through to pay day.  Where a business has a cash paying Customer who pays at the point of receipt of goods or Services, the operating capital requirement is significantly reduced.  In the case of a football club, the receipt of revenue prior to incurring expenditure through season ticket sales, improved the cash flow situation further.

Even clubs where operating costs outweigh revenue consistently, remain viable because of their ability to service debt.  The only real risk is if your creditors call in the debt,  this is where GTFC has been exposed because, and I don't think He's do it, but if JF called in the debt we have insufficient reserves to pay.

With the new stadium project the debt must be restructured to prevent early call in, thereafter, the only issue is whether revenue increases sufficiently to service new borrowing.  Responsible lenders should carry out due diligence to ensure that the debt is serviceable.  If it is, for me we proceed.

Quoted from MarinerDevil

Cod Almighty.



£25 million is too much debt for the club and is probably the reason why we are bringing in an enabling developer.  

We won't have to foot the entire bill ourselves and we get to tap into the income streams of the surrounding establishments.  At least that will be the plan.

I'd imagine that there will be a negotiation and eventual agreement between GTFC and Extreme on financin

and income rights.  It is in the interest of both parties for each to get a good deal.  We should be optimistic about this.

Thanks for that.

Quoted from Vance Warner

How long until the Main Stand is condemned? We are living on borrowed time at BP.

Condemned !?!  More likely to become listed than condemned..

Quoted from moosey_club

Condemned !?!  More likely to become listed than condemned..

Please don't give NIMBYs ideas!


(I admit, even though I support the idea of a new ground, that I am completely unconvinced how it will be funded)

This may have already come out as I have not been following too closely but someone told me today that Lord Yarborough owns the land at Peaks Parkway and ain't selling, could put a dampener on the project could also be bollox

The Council own the land. Or at least most of it then is in this plan. Mr Pelham might own some round there mind.

I guess we'll see Tuesday what the detail looks like and how this is going to move forward, could be an interesting meeting, is it open to the public or a behind closed doors gig?

Lord Yarborough said we can have so long as we revert to Grimsby Pelham and wear pink and brown quarters for a year or two.  

Clee Chronicle reporting that the council are likely to give GTFC the option of buying the land at PP.

Trouble is, we buy the land then the planners turn down the application

I think there would have to be some assurances  (even if unofficial/informal) that planning permission would be granted should we purchase the land. I can't see this not going ahead... we've come too far and all parties seem to be in agreement that a community stadium/complex would be of huge benefit and would go a long way in helping regenerate the Town.

Quoted from moosey_club

Condemned !?!  More likely to become listed than condemned..

.........with a Blue Plaque on it saying "Steve Evans was sent off to sit up here twice".

Quoted from mirrorballman

This and the CA diary make good points. You should send them your views.
Personally I hoped that we'd have a clearer idea of how the stadium would be funded by now. If we have a deal with the developer to fund it in exchange for giving them access to such an opportunity, I'd be quite enthusiastic. If this is not the case, I am uncomfortable with the idea of bring £25million in debt, regardless of how good the business plan sounds.
I'm looking forward to the club filling in the gaps.

I would imagine the club do but these kind of details aren't usually available to the general public until the initial obstacles are overcome.

Quoted from rancido

I think the risks of not proceeding with this project or any new ground plan are greater for the club! Blundell Park is way past it's sell by date and no amount of development to the ground ( even if the council were to grant planning permission for it ) will alter the total unsuitability of the facilities available for other than match day income flows. Although JF has stated that his loans to the club are benign and he wouldn't recall them to the detriment of the club, this is a situation that could be out of his control. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the Main Stand could be refused fire insurance cover ( it is a totally wooden structure) . If that happens then what does the club do? It would be totally stupid to throw money away on a replacement stand and still have the same short comings for the ground as a whole. Does the ground have to meet any requirements by the FA or FL and if so how much longer can our ground, as it stands, meet those requirements.

Yeah I agree with you the only option is to move, like I say I have not followed every line on this but my concern was if we ever got to a stage where we could not service the debt effectively considering our operating cash flow sums being bandied about like £25 million, loans, equity rights etc... etc... are not something unusually associated with GTFC, but then again neither is state of the art stadiums so I suppose you only get what you pay for.

It would be interesting to see what kind of trading relationship other joint venture partners have had with Extreme who we need to play with a straight bat if this is ever going to work.      

If the stadium is owned by a 'holding' company as suggested I cannot see the club being in debt at all. they will just to pay a peppercorn rent for use of the stadium which match day income being retained? The rent MAY include the 4g pitches from which the club at least get a share of the income?

Quoted from Cloudy

If the stadium is owned by a 'holding' company as suggested I cannot see the club being in debt at all. they will just to pay a peppercorn rent for use of the stadium which match day income being retained? The rent MAY include the 4g pitches from which the club at least get a share of the income?

But someone still has to build the stadium and incur the cost. If the holding company was as you say Cloudy, then the club would have no control over the use of the stadium by anyone else. The job of the holding company would include the management of the stadium and the associated bits and pieces. The club needs to be represented in this if only to safeguard things like the use of the pitch. We would assume that Extreme would be part of this as well from what JF said.

Incidentally I noticed today that one of the businesses using the Doncaster complex is an auctioneer. We've got some of those locally haven't we?

Quoted from Cloudy

Clee Chronicle reporting that the council are likely to give GTFC the option of buying the land at PP.

Trouble is, we buy the land then the planners turn down the application

We should get it at the price of land without PP.

I see the Council are meeting tonight. What's the betting they decide to have another meeting to decide the way ahead, or am I being a cynic.

Am I right in thinking the council is expected to decide whether to give the club the option to buy the land or not today?

This afternoon there is a meeting, open to the public (who can't participate) as well apparently if your at a loose end or can get a seat off a Nimby

Nimbys will be out in force for this one,  anyone free to get down there to support the club should do so, and crack a few nimby skulls whilst there.

Quoted from Grim74

Nimbys will be out in force for this one,  anyone free to get down there to support the club should do so, and crack a few nimby skulls whilst there.

They are usually armed with pitch forks don't forget!

An answer from the council very soon apparently.

And it's a yes !!!

Wow, Progress from our Council!!!

Finally the council see sense and we can move forward.
In doing so they upset 3 old people with allotments but hey whatever decision is made anywhere not everyone is gonna be happy.

What happens now then and when does plans and building start??

Quoted from Stew0_0

Finally the council see sense and we can move forward.
In doing so they upset 3 old people with allotments but hey whatever decision is made anywhere not everyone is gonna be happy.

What happens now then and when does plans and building start??

I'm just getting my shovel from the Garden shed, just in case they ask for volunteers