Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Fair enough 👍 but any help you could give them would be great, GPC I guess it’s over to you guys to come up with some ideas, podcast anybody?

I disagree with regards to the club not being in danger. As I have said, rather controversially I think as investor owners the current incumbents have done as much as could be expected in terms of financial support. People might disagree with where the money has been spent but 6 million on a division 2 club is bonkers no matter how big the pot at the end of the rainbow. However, as a model the investor one is just plain rubbish. As things stand there will be a continual cycle of owners moving in and out, some better than others. Sooner or later though one will come along like the Cardozas or a McRitchie again and we won’t get away with it, it’s only a matter of time. Do we want to act when we are days from the end or do we at least try and find a better way now. It’s up to us.

[guest49]

I disagree with regards to the club not being in danger. As I have said, rather controversially I think as investor owners the current incumbents have done as much as could be expected in terms of financial support. People might disagree with where the money has been spent but 6 million on a division 2 club is bonkers no matter how big the pot at the end of the rainbow. However, as a model the investor one is just plain rubbish. As things stand there will be a continual cycle of owners moving in and out, some better than others. Sooner or later though one will come along like the Cardozas or a McRitchie again and we won’t get away with it, it’s only a matter of time. Do we want to act when we are days from the end or do we at least try and find a better way now. It’s up to us.

It is a valid point that we currently millions in 'debt' to the owners and we don't seem to be capable of breaking even very often, unless we find a team of Charlie Goode's. At some point the jackpot won't cover your losses, so they must be hoping any land deal is worth a packet. Confidence in commercial development must be dropping every week. I've lost count of the amount of empty large scale developments around the area, amazingly still springing up and sitting vacant. Plus I'm sure there'll be tied to finishing the ground to a certain standard. They need houses on there, with free gas masks!
If we were sitting on a goldmine there's be a queue to developers banging on the door to cover the debt and have a go.

Cardoza clearly got fed up waiting and tried something different to recoup his dosh. It is difficult to see a happy ending for anyone, so hoping for some fun on the pitch!

[CobblersToMePod]

Fair enough 👍 but any help you could give them would be great, GPC I guess it’s over to you guys to come up with some ideas, podcast anybody?

Of course it would and any help I can give I will do.

[Manwork04]

I disagree with regards to the club not being in danger. As I have said, rather controversially I think as investor owners the current incumbents have done as much as could be expected in terms of financial support. People might disagree with where the money has been spent but 6 million on a division 2 club is bonkers no matter how big the pot at the end of the rainbow. However, as a model the investor one is just plain rubbish. As things stand there will be a continual cycle of owners moving in and out, some better than others. Sooner or later though one will come along like the Cardozas or a McRitchie again and we won’t get away with it, it’s only a matter of time. Do we want to act when we are days from the end or do we at least try and find a better way now. It’s up to us.

I think you have our owners very wrong.

[Manwork04]

Of course it would and any help I can give I will do.

Top man.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I think you have our owners very wrong.

Genuine conversation topic, as an investment i.e money that you expect a return on, how much would you suggest they should have put into the club and over what time frame for it to turn a profit? At the end of the day that is the sole calculation that matters when discussing investor owners. It drives everything including where the money is spent and why. I consider myself of reasonable intelligence but I am genuinely confused as to why the expectation may be that an investor owner would have spent more during this period on a league 2 club.

Assuming they had finished the stand they would be in for circa 10 million. You could argue in that scenario they would be developing the land and turning a tidy profit. In which case why hasn’t that happened, instead of the 6 million just hanging there and the Trust asking if they would be prepared to walk away with a pound? I know it’s a subject that has gone backwards and forwards like a tennis match but I remain incredulous about the whole topic mate. When supporters are discussing what direction they want the club to go in, I think it’s important that everyone has an understanding as to what the investor model entails and the realistic expectations that can be set in these circumstances. All said with the caveat that I personally don’t believe the investor/ownership model works for football clubs, and on the flip side equally struggle to understand why anyone would invest in it as a business opportunity.

[guest3338]

Genuine conversation topic, as an investment i.e money that you expect a return on, how much would you suggest they should have put into the club and over what time frame for it to turn a profit? At the end of the day that is the sole calculation that matters when discussing investor owners. It drives everything including where the money is spent and why. I consider myself of reasonable intelligence but I am genuinely confused as to why the expectation may be that an investor owner would have spent more during this period on a league 2 club.

Assuming they had finished the stand they would be in for circa 10 million. You could argue in that scenario they would be developing the land and turning a tidy profit. In which case why hasn’t that happened, instead of the 6 million just hanging there and the Trust asking if they would be prepared to walk away with a pound? I know it’s a subject that has gone backwards and forwards like a tennis match but I remain incredulous about the whole topic mate. When supporters are discussing what direction they want the club to go in, I think it’s important that everyone has an understanding as to what the investor model entails and the realistic expectations that can be set in these circumstances. All said with the caveat that I personally don’t believe the investor/ownership model works for football clubs, and on the flip side equally struggle to understand why anyone would invest in it as a business opportunity.

A few questions for you then Melbourne.
If they had spent the 4 mill on the stand as a matter of priority from the word go, do you think they would still have gone on and spunked the other 6 million or would they have adjusted their budgets downwards?
Do you think a completed stand would have provided the leverage to get the greater land deal with the council over the line?
Do you think a developed ground to the tune of 4 million would now be having a positive effect on the clubs turnover, Covid aside?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

A few questions for you then Melbourne.
If they had spent the 4 mill on the stand as a matter of priority from the word go, do you think they would still have gone on and spunked the other 6 million or would they have adjusted their budgets downwards?
Do you think a completed stand would have provided the leverage to get the greater land deal with the council over the line?
Do you think a developed ground to the tune of 4 million would now be having a positive effect on the clubs turnover, Covid aside?

I think the idea that some may have that they would have had the contractors on site in a few months is unrealistic. I assume the original plans were no longer relevant or fit for purpose due to the expenditure involved. Whilst construction is not my area, we should bear in mind they took the club over in a matter of weeks. Following this there would have been an evaluation process for the stand needed, new plans, proposals, approvals, budgetary considerations and planning applications. I don’t know what all that means as a project task, but would imagine it’s a fairly lengthy process. During which time the club needs to be financially supported on the pitch otherwise what’s the point? I reckon we would have been looking at least a couple of years for the construction process to be evaluated, replanned and completed in conjunction with the resolution of the issues around the land.

During the first couple of years the owners spent at least a couple of million on managers and the squad. To be clear is the assumption that this expenditure shouldn’t have been made and spent on the ground instead plus 2 million, or should they have gone all in and spent the money on the squad and stand? For context as they are not supporters of the club, I also think we should come from the angle of the following. The circumstances are identical, we are in their shoes as investors and we are talking about Gillingham FC not NTFC where we have a considerable emotional attachment?

Now to answer the question there is no way on gods earth I would spend that kind of money in those circumstances on that opportunity and I don’t care how much any land ends up being worth. So had I have brought the club I would have only developed the ground if it could pay for itself in a reasonable time frame.   So in a nut shell, no I wouldn’t have developed the ground. Whether they have a moral obligation to do so is a separate argument to that of the financial issues surrounding reasons for investment.

[guest3429]

 So in a nut shell, no I wouldn’t have developed the ground. Whether they have a moral obligation to do so is a separate argument to that of the financial issues surrounding reasons for investment.

There are lots of assumptions here that the (land) is not actually connected to the existing stadium infrastructure. Is the land potentially available for KT to develop away from the perimeter of the existing east stand or is the land adjacent?

If the land is adjacent any development maybe integrated with a new east stand not separate in which case it would make every sense to clear the land issue before making any proposals about the east stand. It might not be one or the other as some suggest.

[guest3429]

Any chance of a trust thread for you all to tear strips off each other whilst politely calling each other by your first names?

Can some of you mods, moderate yourselves!

[Melbourne Cobbler]

There are lots of assumptions here that the (land) is not actually connected to the existing stadium infrastructure. Is the land potentially available for KT to develop away from the perimeter of the existing east stand or is the land adjacent?

If the land is adjacent any development maybe integrated with a new east stand not separate in which case it would make every sense to clear the land issue before making any proposals about the east stand. It might not be one or the other as some suggest.

I think the main assumption I have the issue with is that it would be reasonable for any investor to put in 4 or so million to finish the East stand to motivate the council to push through the land deal. Then assume the council will come through with their end of the deal on faith alone. The same council that managed the previous saga regarding the stand on behalf of the rate payers. Perhaps it’s me. But I genuinely don’t get the argument.

[St Edmundsbury Cobbler]

Is it possible that the extension of the stand is a mix of two or three different plans. We all remember the grand design that was a two tier stand with boxes in the middle which then become a smaller redevelopment and then something similar to the stand at the Globe Arena where you'd have had blocked views.

And given its exposure to the elements, are there any remedial works required to get the build back on track.

Would it be better to flatten and start again?

Whatever, it's been a very costly faff for a couple of extra seats and some executive boxes blinded by the evening sunlight.

[guest3429]

I think the main assumption I have the issue with is that it would be reasonable for any investor to put in 4 or so million to finish the East stand to motivate the council to push through the land deal. Then assume the council will come through with their end of the deal on faith alone. The same council that managed the previous saga regarding the stand on behalf of the rate payers. Perhaps it’s me. But I genuinely don’t get the argument.

This is exactly the point. Many here are demanding KT finishes the stand now as was stated at the takeover in some sort of leverage. This is fundamentally flawed not only financially but practically. With the councils track record and seemingly clueless strategy nobody is spending huge sums on building a stand now based on some vague possibility in the future. We have stalemate.

The parcels of land under dispute and where they actually lie is ultimately crucial, as I said before, if the land border is adjacent to the east stand site the two developments may happen simultaneously, maybe even connected. The stand may be integrated within a larger commercial development for example therefore enabling funds and with the most radical shake up to commercial planning arriving in August new opportunities are on the horizon.

[BackOfTheNet]

I think the main assumption I have the issue with is that it would be reasonable for any investor to put in 4 or so million to finish the East stand to motivate the council to push through the land deal. Then assume the council will come through with their end of the deal on faith alone. The same council that managed the previous saga regarding the stand on behalf of the rate payers. Perhaps it’s me. But I genuinely don’t get the argument.

It's not just you. It makes no commercial sense right now and leaves a huge amount of exposure that no rational person would do if it was their own money.

[guest3429]

Is it possible that the extension of the stand is a mix of two or three different plans. We all remember the grand design that was a two tier stand with boxes in the middle which then become a smaller redevelopment and then something similar to the stand at the Globe Arena where you'd have had blocked views.

And given its exposure to the elements, are there any remedial works required to get the build back on track.

Would it be better to flatten and start again?

Whatever, it's been a very costly faff for a couple of extra seats and some executive boxes blinded by the evening sunlight.

You're right, its a bastardisation of a couple of the last plans when DC lost the money in a vain attempt to cover his tracks! All that is possible with the current structure is some limited corporate/commercial/fan space behind the seats. The balcony in the centre denotes where some corporate seating was intended.

We would all hope something occurs between the club, KT and the council which means the majority could be pulled down and remodelled, however this is the Cobblers so expect some aluminum panelling!

[guest3338]

I think the main assumption I have the issue with is that it would be reasonable for any investor to put in 4 or so million to finish the East stand to motivate the council to push through the land deal. Then assume the council will come through with their end of the deal on faith alone. The same council that managed the previous saga regarding the stand on behalf of the rate payers. Perhaps it’s me. But I genuinely don’t get the argument.

The caveat being that they did buy the club in the first place as businessmen under exactly those terms (I think?) to make themselves richer. The unknown being just how much richer.
I've no business background and like the rest of us have no clue as to the diligence done by them at the time, but presumably it was enough to convince them that the suggested way forward was still worth the risk whatever the outcome of a more detailed analysis of the situation once they had took over, especially when looked at from a worst case scenario. To start from a position anywhere else would be folly.
Is this what is now being suggested or in my naivety am I not understanding correctly?
My answers to those questions are yes 100%, yes in all likelihood (though the extent of the profits would not have fully been controlled or maximised by them, hence five years of inertia), yes 100% though that issue is a sideshow for them by comparison.

[guest3338]

It's not just you. It makes no commercial sense right now and leaves a huge amount of exposure that no rational person would do if it was their own money.

So what we are saying is our owners were duped into taking the club on in the first place since they have absolutely no affinity towards it from a personal perspective and only see it as a business opportunity?

[Manwork04]

I think the idea that some may have that they would have had the contractors on site in a few months is unrealistic. I assume the original plans were no longer relevant or fit for purpose due to the expenditure involved. Whilst construction is not my area, we should bear in mind they took the club over in a matter of weeks. Following this there would have been an evaluation process for the stand needed, new plans, proposals, approvals, budgetary considerations and planning applications. I don’t know what all that means as a project task, but would imagine it’s a fairly lengthy process. During which time the club needs to be financially supported on the pitch otherwise what’s the point? I reckon we would have been looking at least a couple of years for the construction process to be evaluated, replanned and completed in conjunction with the resolution of the issues around the land.

During the first couple of years the owners spent at least a couple of million on managers and the squad. To be clear is the assumption that this expenditure shouldn’t have been made and spent on the ground instead plus 2 million, or should they have gone all in and spent the money on the squad and stand? For context as they are not supporters of the club, I also think we should come from the angle of the following. The circumstances are identical, we are in their shoes as investors and we are talking about Gillingham FC not NTFC where we have a considerable emotional attachment?

Now to answer the question there is no way on gods earth I would spend that kind of money in those circumstances on that opportunity and I don’t care how much any land ends up being worth. So had I have brought the club I would have only developed the ground if it could pay for itself in a reasonable time frame.   So in a nut shell, no I wouldn’t have developed the ground. Whether they have a moral obligation to do so is a separate argument to that of the financial issues surrounding reasons for investment.

This is incorrect, they were quick enough to get CNDL under the noses of the council, there is no chance they will get the land deal without finishing the East Stand, this is why there are plans to put some cladding on the stand and build a car park behind.
You are missing the pot-of gold from you flawed equation, £100m +.
I really don’t get why you are trying to justify the owners lack of actions, the ground is in the worst state it’s ever been in, the “big screen doesn’t work, the east stand shell and all the broken windows in the west stand?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

This is incorrect, they were quick enough to get CNDL under the noses of the council, there is no chance they will get the land deal without finishing the East Stand, this is why there are plans to put some cladding on the stand and build a car park behind.
You are missing the pot-of gold from you flawed equation, £100m +.
I really don’t get why you are trying to justify the owners lack of actions, the ground is in the worst state it’s ever been in, the “big screen doesn’t work, the east stand shell and all the broken windows in the west stand?

I’m not justifying it Manny. I’m just saying no sane investor would do it, and that’s why the investor model doesn’t work at football clubs. Every spend has to be minimal risk maximum profit as much as possible and that’s why we are in this state. They won’t spend it because they are 6 million in and it’s about profit first not NTFC. We are all about NTFC and stuff the profit. Whilst I’m saying they have done ok as investors, at the same time I am also saying that investors should never be the majority shareholders at football clubs. So when you think about it what we are actually saying is that neither of us want them as owners given the choice?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So what we are saying is our owners were duped into taking the club on in the first place since they have absolutely no affinity towards it from a personal perspective and only see it as a business opportunity?

I am not sure about the first half of your sentence CJ, but IMO the second half is probably about right.