Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[matt83]

To be fair I’d say we have a high proportion of very stupid supporters. 

[OldEwoodBlue]

8 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

You reckon? I’m afraid the days of 2010-2013 have long gone (though plenty supported the owners over the protesting fans even then)

This forum is very much the minority view, and ‘the club’ knows it will have an easy ride.

 

Nah Matt.

25000 down to 8500.

The others stopped being arsed due to the ownership however you look at it.

Now its only 2500 due to the current incumbents.

The positive facebook bubble is a tiny minority and not reflection of the majority of Rovers fans.

Example I have never used facebook. Neither has my 84 yo Dad. Both ex ST holders. Plus another 24,948 others.

This forum are the minority indeed but only from the masses who mainly long since cant be arsed.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

On 21/02/2021 at 21:05, Hasta said:

Someone made a new thread in their General football forum

https://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/blackburn-training-ground-thread-that-was-on-general.129389/#post-2207018

 

'Dodgy Bastard' 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Mattyblue]

1 minute ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

 

The positive facebook bubble is a tiny minority and not reflection of the majority of Rovers fans.

 

Would’ve agreed with you up to League 1. There’s been a big swing towards the owners since, surprised if you haven’t noticed it.

[J*B]

I’ve been speaking to a local property developer tonight - he thinks there’s much more money in this than has been discussed, although this is pure speculation and cannot be presented as fact  

The plans discuss 170 houses. As part of planning permission, some of these will need to be ‘affordable’ houses and he estimates a maximum of 250K for these and maybe 15 properties.
After that - as long as there’s existing property within the Brockhall development, it’s a case of ‘build to match’. The most expensive property on Brockhall is currently 1.5M. That would give 155 houses that could be built to be 1.5M houses. That would be a poor decision, there isn’t the need for 155x 1.5M houses or probably enough space. When you look at the below image, there looks to be different plot sizes.

Purely speculating we could be looking at: 

15 @ 250K 

60 @ 600K

40 @ 750K 

30 @ 850K 

25 @ 1.5M 

Giving a total ‘house’ value of the land at an eye watering £132.5M.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

35 minutes ago, booth said:

Venus the penis.

Not sure that will stand up in court.

[Waggy76]

7 minutes ago, J*B said:

I’ve been speaking to a local property developer tonight - he thinks there’s much more money in this than has been discussed, although this is pure speculation and cannot be presented as fact  

The plans discuss 170 houses. As part of planning permission, some of these will need to be ‘affordable’ houses and he estimates a maximum of 250K for these and maybe 15 properties.
After that - as long as there’s existing property within the Brockhall development, it’s a case of ‘build to match’. The most expensive property on Brockhall is currently 1.5M. That would give 155 houses that could be built to be 1.5M houses. That would be a poor decision, there isn’t the need for 155x 1.5M houses or probably enough space. When you look at the below image, there looks to be different plot sizes.
Purely speculating we could be looking at: 

15 @ 250K 

60 @ 600K

40 @ 750K 

30 @ 850K 

25 @ 1.5M 

Giving a total ‘house’ value of the land at an eye watering £132.5M.

Now you are talking ...

This is why , everything was hush hush , until late Friday ....

Let the fun begin , perfect timing under a pandemic and the season petering out , into midtable mediocrity ...

I wonder why the topic was removed from Coventrys board ?? 

How much was the land of Coventry City worth ??

Edited February 21, 2021 by Waggy76

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

4 minutes ago, J*B said:

I’ve been speaking to a local property developer tonight - he thinks there’s much more money in this than has been discussed, although this is pure speculation and cannot be presented as fact  

The plans discuss 170 houses. As part of planning permission, some of these will need to be ‘affordable’ houses and he estimates a maximum of 250K for these and maybe 15 properties.
After that - as long as there’s existing property within the Brockhall development, it’s a case of ‘build to match’. The most expensive property on Brockhall is currently 1.5M. That would give 155 houses that could be built to be 1.5M houses. That would be a poor decision, there isn’t the need for 155x 1.5M houses or probably enough space. When you look at the below image, there looks to be different plot sizes.

Purely speculating we could be looking at: 

15 @ 250K 

60 @ 600K

40 @ 750K 

30 @ 850K 

25 @ 1.5M 

Giving a total ‘house’ value of the land at an eye watering £132.5M.

Is land value based on potential revenue from the sale of houses built on it? If so then the £20m plucked out of the air by Nixon will be well wide of the mark.

[Exiled in Toronto]

6 hours ago, JoeH said:

Instead of just having a civilised conversation about my feelings on the plans, you are choosing to attack my personal self, my business and claim that I simply cannot have an opinion on the subject that can be in any way listened to.

Suggestions that I am being paid by the football club are ludicrous and I take a massive amount of offence to that. It's an absolute joke the way I'm being lambasted by some on this board for daring to sponsor the clubs website.

 

Anyone suggesting sponsors are paid by the club seems fundamentally misunderstand how sponsorship works. Businesses listen a lot more to sponsors than to random customers because there is more money at stake. 

[J*B]

Can we please stop suggesting members of staff are due to get financial benefits from this unless you’ve got cold hard evidence? I don’t want any legal problems. 

[Mike E]

48 minutes ago, booth said:

Venus the penis.

The dishonourable member?

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Is land value based on potential revenue from the sale of houses built on it? If so then the £20m plucked out of the air by Nixon will be well wide of the mark.

Savills UK | The value of land

10 minutes ago, J*B said:

Giving a total ‘house’ value of the land at an eye watering £132.5M.

So, if GDV (see link above) is £132.5m then the value of the land for sale is a third of that - about £43m in Venky's pocket. 

[booth]

6 minutes ago, Waggy76 said:

Now you are talking ...

This is why , everything was hush hush , until late Friday ....

Let the fun begin , perfect timing under a pandemic and the season petering out , into midtable mediocrity ...

I reckon they anticipated a flirt with the play offs could have offset some bad will but Mowbray cocked that up and that's why it was hush hush.

I still think there's something in Mowbray saying he won't have them training on an artificial pitch (four years later!)

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

2 minutes ago, Mike E said:

The dishonourable member?

for house erection. 

[Exiled in Toronto]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

If Venky’s wanted to make a statement, they could upgrade/refurbish Ewood/Brockhall with their own cash with no FFP implications.

This strikes me as Waggott coming up with a wizard wheeze to improve cash flow. Is he targeted on that metric I wonder ?

If he’s not, he ought to be. Every other CEO is.

[jim mk2]

1 minute ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Savills UK | The value of land

So, if GDV (see link above) is £132.5m then the value of the land for sale is a third of that - about £43m in Venky's pocket. 

The rule of a third in property development doesn't work any more. Building costs have soared, especially in the past 12 months,. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, jim mk2 said:

The rule of a third in property development doesn't work any more. Building costs have soared, especially in the past 12 months,. 

So what is it now? We'll stick with a a third otherwise. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[J*B]

Just now, jim mk2 said:

The rule of a third in property development doesn't work any more. Building costs have soared, especially in the past 12 months,. 

Let’s say it’s 25%... 25% of what that property COULD be worth is a truck load of money. 

[StevenSK]

6 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The rule of a third in property development doesn't work any more. Building costs have soared, especially in the past 12 months,. 

That and it’s not how a house builder works out a ROCE. I know as I’ve commercially managed large scale housing schemes in the past for developers.

[jim mk2]

 

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

Let’s say it’s 25%... 25% of what that property COULD be worth is a truck load of money. 

 

Still doesn't put that much of a dent in the club's overall debt, especially after "executives" have taken their slice (allegedly), though no doubt the club's owners will be relieved to get some money back.

And still begs the question, what are fans going to do (if anything) to oppose it? 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

1 minute ago, StevenSK said:

That and it’s not how a house builder works out a ROCE. I know as I’ve commercially managed large scale housing schemes in the past for developers.

So, how woujd they do it? 

[J*B]

1 minute ago, jim mk2 said:

 

 

Still doesn't put that much of a dent in the club's overall debt, especially after "executives" have taken their slice (allegedly), though no doubt the club's owners will be relieved to get some money back.

And still begs the question, what are fans going to do (if anything) to oppose it? 

Covers a years loss of income due to a global pandemic 

[Ozz]

Just a reminder that to even apply for planning permission for housing technically breaches the covenants placed by the Walker Trust. 

Which Rovers have not quite done yet.

[jim mk2]

3 minutes ago, J*B said:

Covers a years loss of income due to a global pandemic 

Yep, fixes the budget debt for a short period but doesn't tackle the structural debt. Flogging off Brockhall is like selling the family silver though. In the end, there's nothing left. 

[den]

3 minutes ago, Ozz said:

Just a reminder that to even apply for planning permission for housing technically breaches the covenants placed by the Walker Trust. 

Which Rovers have not quite done yet.

Hi Ozz. Simple question. Does the trust have Access to legal advice? 
 

No real reason for asking.

Edited February 21, 2021 by den