Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Ozz]

4 minutes ago, den said:

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

No real reason for asking.

Yes Den. 👍.

Hope you and Baz doing well. 

[Herbie6590]

12 minutes ago, J*B said:

Covers a years loss of income due to a global pandemic 

Exactly this...to pretend it’s anything about a new improved facility is frankly implausible.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

Exactly this...to pretend it’s anything about a new improved facility is frankly implausible.

They should sell some land in India instead. 

[tomphil]

Some of the terms of Jacks will were allegedly overturned in a Jersey court in order to sell the club.

Money talks, get the best lawyers, grease the right wheels and away you go. I don't think they'd be this far along if they weren't confident.

 

[superniko]

25 minutes 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. 

Still hard to get my head around the fact we were sold for £23m (£45m or so with debt) all things considered. We sold Phil Jones for £16m a year or so later didn’t we. (Albeit finances from 10 years ago)

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, tomphil said:

Some of the terms of Jacks will were allegedly overturned in a Jersey court in order to sell the club.

Money talks, get the best lawyers, grease the right wheels and away you go. I don't think they'd be this far along if they weren't confident.

 

Last sentence - thats the worry. 

[Herbie6590]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

They should sell some land in India instead. 

The club doesn’t own land in India....the balance sheet being managed here is the club’s...

[Herbie6590]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

Some of the terms of Jacks will were allegedly overturned in a Jersey court in order to sell the club.

Money talks, get the best lawyers, grease the right wheels and away you go. I don't think they'd be this far along if they weren't confident.

 

Sadly I agree...

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

The club doesn’t own land in India....the balance sheet being managed here is the club’s...

Venkys do. Nothing stopping them putting money in. 

[Herbie6590]

Just now, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Venkys do. Nothing stopping them putting money in. 

I hate to say it...but FFP...this helps our FFP...

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

6 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I hate to say it...but FFP...this helps our FFP...

So explain the £20m in share issues  put in the club every year to keep it going? What are the FFP rules regarding owner investment? 

I genuinely don't understand it anymore. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[superniko]

6 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I hate to say it...but FFP...this helps our FFP...

I thought facilities weren’t a factor in FFP? Sure that’s been stated before when talking about the Riverside. 

[tomphil]

Something that iv'e been mulling over but would people prefer the old fashioned way and just sell a player ?

For all we know that might be the next part of the plan but if not would it be more sensible to cash one in than fixed assets ?

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

So explain the £20m in share issues  put in the club every year to keep it going? What are the FFP rules regarding owner investment? 

I genuinely don't understand it anymore. 

We must be close to breaching that anyway over the 3 year cycle. 

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, superniko said:

I thought facilities weren’t a factor in FFP? Sure that’s been stated before when talking about the Riverside. 

The income would help the FFP

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

Something that iv'e been mulling over but would people prefer the old fashioned way and just sell a player ?

For all we know that might be the next part of the plan but if not would it be more sensible to cash one in than fixed assets ?

Exactly. It doesn't make sense. Mowbray was telling us he'd essentially put off prospective Prem buyers of AA by telling them he wasn't ready. I don't buy the argument all this is just to cover costs. 

[Miller11]

24 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

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

The Rovers Trust have taken the first steps with the questions they posed to the club last night. I’m positive there will be more to come from them, and they are best placed to mount or any legal challenge or work with Brockhall residents.

I think it’s absolutely certain that sections of our fanbase will oppose this in a number of ways. Whenever we’ve had crises before people have stepped up... however, I am worried that this time round there will be even more opposition to the protestors from the fanbase at large.

This ones going to run on for a while I think.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

8 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Exactly. It doesn't make sense. Mowbray was telling us he'd essentially put off prospective Prem buyers of AA by telling them he wasn't ready. I don't buy the argument all this is just to cover costs. 

Unless.... 

Big Baz - Tony, we need money quick. Flog a player. 

Tony - But what about promotion?

Big Baz - Don't take the piss Tony, there's more chance of Shebby Singh getting us to the Prem. 

Mark - Don't talk to my Tony like that. 

Big Baz - Shut it, Venus the Penis 

Tony - OK, OK. What if I give up the STC. We could get promotion and build an estate? 

Big Baz - Done. Now fuck off. And tell Mark to stop crying. 

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Herbie6590]

14 minutes ago, superniko said:

I thought facilities weren’t a factor in FFP? Sure that’s been stated before when talking about the Riverside. 

That’s the point...V’s could if they wanted invest to do this...the fact that they aren’t but instead are realising the latent value of that land will generate a profit which helps our FFP calculation.

Its not what JW had in mind.

[Herbie6590]

17 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

So explain the £20m in share issues  put in the club every year to keep it going? What are the FFP rules regarding owner investment? 

I genuinely don't understand it anymore. 

The money V’s put in is literally to pay the bills. An internal overdraft if you will. The FFP calculation restricts what owners can put in. If they put more in than the FFP calculation we are in embargo, fine, points deduction territory.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Just now, Herbie6590 said:

The money V’s put in is literally to pay the bills. An internal overdraft if you will. The FFP calculation restricts what owners can put in. If they put more in than the FFP calculation we are in embargo, fine, points deduction territory.

I get that, I just don't understand the difference between share issues and external investment? Why is the £20m they've invested this year to keep the lights on not part of FFP calculation?

And how much are owners allowed to invest each 3 year cycle? Googled it but not easy to find info.  

Edited February 21, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Herbie6590]

7 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

I get that, I just don't understand the difference between share issues and external investment? Why is the £20m they've invested this year to keep the lights on not part of FFP calculation?

And how much are owners allowed to invest each 3 year cycle? Googled it but not easy to find info.  

They aren’t different for FFP. A club can lose up to £39m in a 3 year cycle...though that has been extended due to COVID.

When a club loses money, the owner can invest up to £39m to cover those losses via loans or share capital.

We must be perilously close to the FFP threshold before COVID. This whole proposal is to my mind to bring us back in line. It has nothing to do with improving facilities.

[JHRover]

Having visited the academy site many times both as a spectator of the under 18 team and also through work, studied these vague plans in the document I am pretty confident that the site cannot accommodate what is required and supposedly sought by the club. There simply isn't the space, and that is before we factor in access, environmental issues, neighborhood opposition etc.

Lets take the indoor pitch - the existing one must be 50ft high and there's no scope for building above it. The 'new' one will have to be the same height and cannot be built on top of. What does this mean? Well the 'plans' in the document show that technically there is space on the existing car park/academy site for the indoor pitch. But what they aren't showing are all the other facilities that we will also need down there outside of the footprint of the indoor pitch. 

Most of these facilities are essential and not optional - even just as a senior training facility - changing rooms, canteen, kitchen, gym, office space, analysis room, boot room, laundry room, plant room, storage. Where do all these things go outside of the footprint of the indoor pitch and car park? The only place they can go is on the grass down there.

A few problems with building out onto the grass.

1) As soon as you start doing this you lose pitch space. At the moment there are 5 pitches down there. Build out and that immediately becomes 4. The senior squad and u23s currently rotate between 4 pitches on the STC. Then we would also have the academy, u18s etc.

2) The academy site down at the bottom is itself in a sensitive area and I'm pretty sure contains strict restrictions on what can be built down there. I believe those pitches prior to Rovers' using them were sports pitches used by the hospital/staff before it shut down. The reason Rovers took over those pitches was because they were restricted for development - they couldn't be developed for housing and the academy building down there now was built on the footprint of the old changing rooms. The reason Jack Walker got those pitches for Rovers to begin with was because they were limited to sports use rather than development so were available 'on the cheap'. So it certainly isn't going to be as easy as building over whatever they like to fit everything they need down there. They are going to be heavily restricted and they know this, hence the references to building on the existing car park and no reference to building over grass areas.

Then we come on to the strict requirements of Category A academy status. It isn't a pick and chose optional game. There is a long list which gets longer every year of facilities and items that the club must have access to in order to qualify for Category A status. 

An indoor pitch is one of them. They also need a pitch with spectator access/use for u23s to play games on. They also need an outdoor artifical pitch which they have up at the STC. So one of the 4 or 5 remaining pitches would have to be ripped up and relaid on that basis. They also need a floodlit pitch, which again is on the STC pitch and would need installing down at the bottom in an area where there is likely to be opposition to it.

Accommodation is a requirement - a set number of rooms, including dining areas, and classrooms for the scholars - where are these going to be built? On top of the indoor 50ft high pitch?

Lets have a think about staffing levels. Again having Category A status stipulates a certain level and number of coaching staff. There must be 50 players in either the first team squad or u23 squad. Probably another 20 u18s. Then at least another 50-60 staff - management team, medical team, analysis team, office staff, kitchen staff, groundsmen.

You must be looking at accommodating in excess of 120 people easily on a daily basis. These people all need access and parking. The road down to the academy is a single track lane running through what has become a housing estate. It just won't work. 

I'd feel confident that this little scheme was a non-starter on the above basis but unfortunately they will have done their homework and will know all this already. This is where the con comes in because they will push ahead with it despite knowing this, knowing full well that we won't be able to get these facilities built down there but by the time the penny drops or the Category A status is lost the houses will be built. 

[Miller11]

The fact you can flog your ground or training facilities to bring you in line with “Profit and SUSTAINABILITY rules” just shows what a farce the whole thing is.

[Herbie6590]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Having visited the academy site many times both as a spectator of the under 18 team and also through work, studied these vague plans in the document I am pretty confident that the site cannot accommodate what is required and supposedly sought by the club. There simply isn't the space, and that is before we factor in access, environmental issues, neighborhood opposition etc.

Lets take the indoor pitch - the existing one must be 50ft high and there's no scope for building above it. The 'new' one will have to be the same height and cannot be built on top of. What does this mean? Well the 'plans' in the document show that technically there is space on the existing car park/academy site for the indoor pitch. But what they aren't showing are all the other facilities that we will also need down there outside of the footprint of the indoor pitch. 

Most of these facilities are essential and not optional - even just as a senior training facility - changing rooms, canteen, kitchen, gym, office space, analysis room, boot room, laundry room, plant room, storage. Where do all these things go outside of the footprint of the indoor pitch and car park? The only place they can go is on the grass down there.

A few problems with building out onto the grass.

1) As soon as you start doing this you lose pitch space. At the moment there are 5 pitches down there. Build out and that immediately becomes 4. The senior squad and u23s currently rotate between 4 pitches on the STC. Then we would also have the academy, u18s etc.

2) The academy site down at the bottom is itself in a sensitive area and I'm pretty sure contains strict restrictions on what can be built down there. I believe those pitches prior to Rovers' using them were sports pitches used by the hospital/staff before it shut down. The reason Rovers took over those pitches was because they were restricted for development - they couldn't be developed for housing and the academy building down there now was built on the footprint of the old changing rooms. The reason Jack Walker got those pitches for Rovers to begin with was because they were limited to sports use rather than development so were available 'on the cheap'. So it certainly isn't going to be as easy as building over whatever they like to fit everything they need down there. They are going to be heavily restricted and they know this, hence the references to building on the existing car park and no reference to building over grass areas.

Then we come on to the strict requirements of Category A academy status. It isn't a pick and chose optional game. There is a long list which gets longer every year of facilities and items that the club must have access to in order to qualify for Category A status. 

An indoor pitch is one of them. They also need a pitch with spectator access/use for u23s to play games on. They also need an outdoor artifical pitch which they have up at the STC. So one of the 4 or 5 remaining pitches would have to be ripped up and relaid on that basis. They also need a floodlit pitch, which again is on the STC pitch and would need installing down at the bottom in an area where there is likely to be opposition to it.

Accommodation is a requirement - a set number of rooms, including dining areas, and classrooms for the scholars - where are these going to be built? On top of the indoor 50ft high pitch?

Lets have a think about staffing levels. Again having Category A status stipulates a certain level and number of coaching staff. There must be 50 players in either the first team squad or u23 squad. Probably another 20 u18s. Then at least another 50-60 staff - management team, medical team, analysis team, office staff, kitchen staff, groundsmen.

You must be looking at accommodating in excess of 120 people easily on a daily basis. These people all need access and parking. The road down to the academy is a single track lane running through what has become a housing estate. It just won't work. 

I'd feel confident that this little scheme was a non-starter on the above basis but unfortunately they will have done their homework and will know all this already. This is where the con comes in because they will push ahead with it despite knowing this, knowing full well that we won't be able to get these facilities built down there but by the time the penny drops or the Category A status is lost the houses will be built. 

I wish I could double like this...outstanding...