|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 11:06:38 GMT
That is exactly what I am trying to do Charlie, get my head around it. You don't ask you don't find out. I'm not calling u a liar or anything they are genuine questions. Out of interest what size car park do u think would have been granted at WE. I know u talked about much larger footfall because of the catchment and train station. Yet if the houses do get built that give 40000 houses within walking distance of the kassam, as well as a new train station. You also mentioned Brighton as an example, and the fact that it has no carparking. So not unreasonable to think that solutions like park and ride, a new train station, and possible relaxing of parking restrictions on match days, as well as possible use of the multi stories could actually work. As well as the fact that occ seem to be pretty sure that sodc's local plan isn't something that necessarily needs to be given the go ahead for them to do their own development
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2016 11:20:45 GMT
That is exactly what I am trying to do Charlie, get my head around it. You don't ask you don't find out. I'm not calling u a liar or anything they are genuine questions. Out of interest what size car park do u think would have been granted at WE. I know u talked about much larger footfall because of the catchment and train station. Yet if the houses do get built that give 40000 houses within walking distance of the kassam, as well as a new train station. You also mentioned Brighton as an example, and the fact that it has no carparking. So not unreasonable to think that solutions like park and ride, a new train station, and possible relaxing of parking restrictions on match days, as well as possible use of the multi stories could actually work. As well as the fact that occ seem to be pretty sure that sodc's local plan isn't something that necessarily needs to be given the go ahead for them to do their own development Erm, so, "If SODC don't give us planning, we will keep on trying to get planning." Which bit of this do I need to reiterate? The planning authority is the planning authority, and cannot be gainsaid by a neighbouring council!!! Just as Cheerwell District Council cannot ignore Oxford City Council within the City boundary. And the planning authority for south of Grenoble Road is SODC. End of story! On access, clearly Water Eaton was outstanding in this regard. We discussed with Chiltern available parking on match-times (3 pm Saturday and 730 pm Tueday) are not busy times for them. You then have the Park n Ride service, the trains from every corner of Oxfordshire, and we then planned a further 500 spaces adjacent to the stadium itself. But the key element is the train service. Once people can get to a match by train easily they tend to do so in droves because it's easier and they can drink.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 11:35:21 GMT
So when the train station opens at the science park, won't there be that option plus more than 500spaces(even with no overflow) the only thing lacking then is park and ride options, which wouldn't be that hard to set up.
Have sodc said they will not allow any building there, or have they said it's not in our current local plan. They have also been asked by occ and government I believe to help share occ requirements as they can not find the land to meet commitments within their own boundaries.
Also if watereaton isn't as time critical as it was said to start with. Wouldn't it benefit Oufc to buy the kassam anyway. If in 3 years the housing plan hasn't changed they could still have looked into WE or even started it, with an asset that could be then sold to help fund it. Also would WE allow a training complex as part of the site?
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 17, 2016 12:08:19 GMT
So when the train station opens at the science park, won't there be that option plus more than 500spaces(even with no overflow) the only thing lacking then is park and ride options, which wouldn't be that hard to set up. Have sodc said they will not allow any building there, or have they said it's not in our current local plan. They have also been asked by occ and government I believe to help share occ requirements as they can not find the land to meet commitments within their own boundaries. Also if watereaton isn't as time critical as it was said to start with. Wouldn't it benefit Oufc to buy the kassam anyway. If in 3 years the housing plan hasn't changed they could still have looked into WE or even started it, with an asset that could be then sold to help fund it. Also would WE allow a training complex as part of the site? Am not up to speed on new train station at Cowley/Leys, but would imagine that we are a minimum of five years away from that (please correct me if I'm wrong). Would/ will make a real difference, of course. On SODC, yes indeed they have to cover quota. Which is why they have come up with a comprehensive plan for the area to do just that. I think they've got it all wrong, but that plan is now THE plan. No point in applying for permission for stuff they have turned down, as it would then jeopardise their whole plan, their infrastructure budgets etc. I believe their head of planning also lives in Toot Baldon. For what that is worth, which I suspect is a fair amount.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 12:21:29 GMT
Sounds about right. Suppose he's a rugby fan and all.
What about your views on the first bit, could you see it as an option to buy the stadium now, releasing us from the excessive rent, and lost revenue from commercial, food and conference. While then looking into more long term solutions. Be that watereaton, or seeing how the planning landscape changes over the next few years, with us then having an asset that could be sold in the future to fund a move if that was decided would be best.
|
|
|
Post by Colin B on Aug 17, 2016 12:38:27 GMT
I don't really have time at the moment to go into huge length about this but one thing that was very interesting, and blindingly obvious, to me once it was explained was the way parking is now planned at modern stadia. So, before everyone goes off in search of thousands of parking spaces next to the stadium, let me explain.
Populous (leading stadium architects remember) explained that the existing set up at the Grenoble Road Stadium is very outdated, and that by creating the number of parking spaces that they had, right next to the ground, the designers had actually created the current problem of traffic flow. No one does this anymore and it's almost a throw back to huge American stadia of the past where people held tailgate parties, and everyone arrived by car. Any new stadia would now have little, or no, parking immediately next to it, but instead they find pockets of land (usually at least 600 metres away) where parking can be distributed in a way where the disposal of cars is easier to manage. It's quite interesting to look on a map (as we did) and identify the potential, once you have the 600 metres rule in your head. Throw in some of the other modern travel options, including the rail option, and it is not impossible to make things considerably better than present. I touched on this at the OxVox meeting, but I'm not sure how clearly it came across?
Would it be perfect? Probably not, but I'm not sure perfect exists, certainly not in Oxfordshire, but it can be made into a viable proposition, according to the world's leading stadium architects.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Aug 17, 2016 12:57:21 GMT
A couple of seasons back for a Swindon match (I'm sure you remember which one, it was the one when we beat them. Oh hold on ...) we used the Unipart car park plus a shuttle bus. That seemed to work very well indeed. Is there any way to use any of the existing park and rides like that?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 17, 2016 13:09:27 GMT
I do think more could be done to encourage locals to use public transport. It's not practical where I live as the journey would take 4 times as long, but something like a targeted campaign at season ticket holders in the city could be pay off.
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 17, 2016 13:21:43 GMT
I think one key thing which needs to be remembered here is that this is not simply about where OUFC plays football, but how it does so in a manner which brings the greatest likelihood of long-term sustainability. And this is where it gets quite complicated.
Many fans will look at our half-finished stadium which is starting to look rather dated and think "There's no way this is worth £13m". And as a bricks and mortar structure, they'd be right. The trouble is, in buying the stadium, a purchaser is also buying a profitable conference centre business, a rental income from the football club, and the future development opportunity for the land. All of that adds up to the £13-15m figure. That's what it is worth to Kassam. So we really ca forget about any possibility of sweet-talking Kassam in to a deal where he lets the club have the ground at a knockdown price, because it's simply not going to happen.
So, it then becomes a question of whether there is a purchaser willing and able to shell out that sort of money on the stadium, and then spend the additional sums to bring the ground up to a good standard (proper 4th stand, ongoing maintenance and repairs etc etc).
To be blunt, the detail about how the Kassam Stadium can be improved and capacity increased in the future is largely irrelevant at the moment, because the key question here is around ownership. This whole project should be around how the club can own it's own home and make it more sustainable and, yes, of course potential for future development comes into it. The minutes from the members' meeting seems to be hinting that with a development to the south of Grenoble Road, there would be a large population on the doorstep who won't need car parking. The apparent logical extension of this is that the current car park areas can then be developed, making the site more viable. And this is where things don't get complicated, but downright murky. The minutes state: "It is now known that the land on the other side of Grenoble Road is earmarked for a significant housing development". But, as I alluded to before, this is the polar opposite of what is contained in the SODC master plan. That plan specifically rules out development south of Grenoble Road - other than the possibility of developing the field between the caravan park and the Reading Road.
OUFCyellows asked "Have sodc said they will not allow any building there, or have they said it's not in our current local plan". The answer is effectively one and the same. Once a local plan is adopted, it is virtually impossible to get planning permission for something which goes completely counter to that plan. Even if permission was initially granted, there is no doubt that it would then be subject to appeal - and considering the interested parties and their potential resources this would go to the highest possible level. So, you'd be looking a number of years down the line before a final decision was made.
It's obvious that a good chunk of work has been carried out by OxVox in exploring the situation, but the information released so far also raises significant questions - not least the large disparity between what they seem to have been told about the land south of Grenoble Road and the content of the SODC plan. To that end, I have to ask if OxVox have any plans for a members' meeting to present and discuss the findings in more detail? As I mentioned prior to the last meeting, the timing was, IMHO, poor and for such an important topic which goes to the heart of the sustainability of OUFC, I think it important that the greatest number of members be given the opportunity to see, hear, and question the findings. And let's remember, this goes way beyond personalities - this is about the long term future of our football club.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 13:41:26 GMT
One final question from me. Am I right in thinking that sodc's master plan and planning permission is for housing? Would it then be possible to put in for planning, on occ owned land, for a training complex which is of community benefit, it wouldn't come under a housing plan. And if sodc ain't having to fund it, (as BMW would possibly meet the cost as part of the terms for developing rover social club) they might be more willing to gain such a community facility in their area, especially as it's right next to a sewerage works, and unlikely to be used for housing even if the do build on the land in future years ?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 17, 2016 13:46:41 GMT
No, the plan is not restricted to housing - it covers all development. The land south of Grenoble Road is designated green belt and ANY development there is going to be strongly resisted.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 13:52:27 GMT
Isn't water eaton green belt
|
|
|
Post by oxfordharrier on Aug 17, 2016 14:11:56 GMT
Isn't water eaton green belt ...sticks head above parapet... yes, however there is currently a Green Belt review scheduled by Oxford City Council (they've been kicking it into the long grass for years). The other problem with WE (at the risk of repeating myself from months ago) is that it's in Cherwell. Cherwell has been so hit by development in the past few years that it is the most swept up of all the districts surrounding Oxford now on planning. SODC are just adopting their Local Plan now. Cherwell's was adopted out to 2030 last year. Oddly, a new ground for OUFC isn't in their plans. There is an ongoing partial review at the moment, because the Local Economic Partnership decided that the numbers didn't add up on housing, but the process for getting bids for development sites in closed in early March. *If* OUFC got a bid in then you stand more of a chance than if you're still at the stage (as a club) of thinking "wouldn't it be nice if we built a stadium at WE." Otherwise on paper that avenue is closed until 2030 and has been since last Autumn. The elephant in the room in all of this (and I sympathise with Charlie's views on the situation in SODC as a Cherwell resident who's been caught up in this Local Plan nonsense for longer), is actually Oxford City Council. If they'd actually got their act together years ago on a Greenbelt Review, their own Local Plan (still waiting....), and strategic housing assessment, then the surrounding councils *might* just be more open to dealing with them. As it is, Cherwell has bent over backwards to take additional housing, and is now facing a review to take it's share of even more, when if OCC built on one of it's 2 council owned golf courses within the city limits then the districts wouldn't have to take *any* more houses and we wouldn't have every villager between Banbury and Henley up in arms and forming an action group as one or other landowner decides their community of 300 people or whatever is the ideal location for 5,000 houses. Because of the antics of OCC, and the admitted special position of Oxford with regard to the skyline, protected views, etc, Oxfordshire planning is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 16:06:33 GMT
Has sodc plan been finalised? As according till their website they are still taking views from locals, and the consultation process doesn't shut until the 19th August.
What happens next?
After this consultation, we will gather your responses and decide whether to revise our preferred options. Following this we have the option of further consultations to gather your views, or to move to the next stage of preparation where we will publish the version of our Local Plan that we intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, to enable representations to come forward that can be considered at examination.
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 17, 2016 21:28:21 GMT
I see by Charlie's many posts that the legwork and decisions around the ownership of the ground or any potential new development seem to have been done in the Lenagan era.
Does anyone know what the club's, or at least DE's, stance is now and what are they doing about it?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 17, 2016 21:38:39 GMT
De is very much in favour of the kassam, due to the time scale of water eaton I believe
|
|
|
Post by oxfordharrier on Aug 18, 2016 11:09:07 GMT
Has sodc plan been finalised? As according till their website they are still taking views from locals, and the consultation process doesn't shut until the 19th August. What happens next? After this consultation, we will gather your responses and decide whether to revise our preferred options. Following this we have the option of further consultations to gather your views, or to move to the next stage of preparation where we will publish the version of our Local Plan that we intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, to enable representations to come forward that can be considered at examination. the planning structure is byzantine in the extreme, but once you get your head around the fact that it is in essence linear it's actually relatively easy to understand. So, in the case of SODC, they've done the call for sites and the call for contributions. *Presumably* we can infer that no one from OUFC said anything. What they're doing now is consulting on the draft plan - ie, these are the short and longlists, this is what we've decided to do, what do you think? In reality, this amounts to rearranging the deckchairs that are already there, AIUI (and from the Cherwell experience) this is not an opportunity to add more deck chairs. As Charlie said above, start sticking in a stadium and ancillary development which hasn't been scoped for in the plan - which covers all SODC's expected development over the timeframe in housing, industry, and infrastructure and you torpedo the plan and essentially have to go back to the drawing board. Given the amount of housing, etc, contingent on this plan getting through (and the years it takes to do) the appetite to open it all up again for the sake of OUFC becomes (I would expect) a bit limited. Fundamentally, there are windows for this sort of thing in the planning structure, the legislation for which has been in place since about 2010. It shouldn't be coming as a surprise to the people who have to make the decisions that these windows a) exist, and b) are time limited. Given the regularity with which they keep missing them, however, coupled to the lack of continuity at the top of the club from one owner to the next, it isn't surprising that OUFC are continually off the pace when it matters. WE makes all sorts of sense for a lot of reasons, but equally when it comes down to it it isn't in Cherwell's plan either, and Cherwell's has been legally adopted. Consequently it can make all the sense in the world and Cherwell don't *have* to help. SODC makes say second most sense, and it's likely that the club have missed that bus as well... Like the Irishman said, "I wouldn't want to start from here." The planning system just needs people at the club to get their heads around it and respond accordingly. It took me about 2 days, when I was fighting a development in Cherwell, so it really isn't rocket science. But if you're living match to match and not thinking long term (something I would argue from observation which has been lacking until relatively recently), it's depressing but not surprising that a lot of things are coming as an unwelcome surprise.
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 13:15:52 GMT
Given the regularity with which they keep missing them, however, coupled to the lack of continuity at the top of the club from one owner to the next, it isn't surprising that OUFC are continually off the pace when it matters.
[/quote]
Tosh mate. Not buying that. When DE brought out IL, IL remained on the board (albeit for a short space of time) and his SOLE RESPONSIBILITY was to look at the stadium options, from staying or leaving. This, I believe was already being looked at prior to DE's arrival, so would have been well underway.
You would then think that DE would want to keep his finger on the pulse in such an important matter so IL would or should've reported back to him at reasonable time-frames giving him an update, or even better, passed on the knowledge he already knew.
So PRIOR to DE's arrival, this was already underway and being undertaken, by IL et al. Even before DE signed the cheque that gave him ownership of OUFC he would have done due diligence on the whole of the club in which this issue would have come to light. So he would have known then before buying OUFC
Prior to that, IL was a board member for how long before he brought the club? and therefore knew of this importance. So for OUFC to be "continually off the pace" to me, seems a bit of a cop out. I genuinely don't think anybody within the club has looked at either possibility in any sort of depth. yes, they may have had a few conversations etc but I feel that that is about it.
As oufcyellows has stated, DE is in favour of staying at the Kassam, but DE has not exactly said why has he? Is it because he knows that the previous regime fucked things up and let things slip? Is it because he or OUFC in general have been told by Cherwell to forget WE because they don't want it and it will never be approved as it will screw up their blueprint for housing? Is the Kassam the best of a bad bunch or the ONLY option or is the Kassam the genuinly best place for OUFC?
|
|
|
Post by myles on Aug 18, 2016 13:29:34 GMT
Is the Kassam the best of a bad bunch or the ONLY option or is the Kassam the genuinly best place for OUFC? IMHO, this underlines why OxVox should hold a members' meeting dedicated to this issue, so all members can get a full understanding of what was done and get clear answers to questions such as this.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 18, 2016 14:03:05 GMT
Is the Kassam the best of a bad bunch or the ONLY option or is the Kassam the genuinly best place for OUFC? IMHO, this underlines why OxVox should hold a members' meeting dedicated to this issue, so all members can get a full understanding of what was done and get clear answers to questions such as this. Will you and Charlie make all your work on it under previous leaderships available to help give them an even better understanding ?
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 15:18:37 GMT
Is the Kassam the best of a bad bunch or the ONLY option or is the Kassam the genuinly best place for OUFC? IMHO, this underlines why OxVox should hold a members' meeting dedicated to this issue, so all members can get a full understanding of what was done and get clear answers to questions such as this. See, that was the point I was trying to make. If DE's or OUFC's preferred option IS the Kassam, then has the simple question of "Why?" been asked and answered? In my opinion, it doesn't seem to have been and on that basis why not?
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 15:28:39 GMT
Without trying to be an arse here, have the correct questions been asked by the right people to the right people?
If someone has not asked DE or the club in general as to why they believe the Kassam IS the best option for the foreseeable, then the right questions have not been asked.
Until the question of "Why?" is asked then nobody bar DE and the club itself will FULLY understand the pro's and cons of the whole issue.
The answer may well be as simple as that the club cannot afford in any way shape or form, to do anything else
But ask the question for God sake!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 18, 2016 15:40:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 18, 2016 19:07:56 GMT
IMHO, this underlines why OxVox should hold a members' meeting dedicated to this issue, so all members can get a full understanding of what was done and get clear answers to questions such as this. Will you and Charlie make all your work on it under previous leaderships available to help give them an even better understanding ? TBH I would be really surprised if this has not all been discussed in the work done by Oxvox?
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 19:21:19 GMT
To be fair, I had not seen that from December 2015 (8 months ago), but while we're here let's have a look at it... "We are here so the best thing to do is secure our future here" - Why? Just because you are somewhere does not mean it's the best place to be. Same as a job. Just because you have a job does not mean that you have to settle for that only job. Look elsewhere. Is there anything better our there etc etc - Is he also saying that OUFC's future is not secure at the Kassam already? "My Preference is to try and find a way of talking to Firoz where we either gain operational control of the stadium or buy it out right" - A preference to what and why wouldn't you want to do that under the circumstances anyway? - Mobile phone, email, skype etc are all good ways to talk. Not that hard, but you need to make the approach and have that initial conversation anyway. Has it happened? "My impression is that is what Firoz would like to do. I think he would prefer us to stay here and I think he wants to help the club" - Too many negatives here. "My Impression". "I think" x 2. Why not ask the bloke outright so you and OUFC know exactly where you and they stand and what you are dealing with? It's not that hard surely?. If I had £30m, I would be able to send Firoz an email offering him £30m for the ownership of the stadium within 30 minutes and I bet I would get a response. Has anyone asked the bloke outright exactly what he wants to do? "I would be really disappointed if we can't achieve that" - I would be really disappointed if I didn't win £100m on the Euro Lottery, but I know realistically it will never happen so why worry about something that may not happen? - Sounds like he has a plan on purchasing the ground. If so, surely he needs to elaborate on that or is it just blowing smoke up the supporters arses to make him sound popular? "To be fair, the four of us had a meeting about four weeks ago and it was very amicable, with a willingness of everyone to try and find the right solution for Oxford United" - And??? What, if anything, has come of this? What has the Council(s) offered? What has Kassam offered? Why would it not be amicable? "I can't say that there has been tangible progress, but I think we're in a really good place in terms of relationships" - Why has there not been any progress? What are the stumbling blocks and who is putting up brick walls? I get on brilliant with my best mate, but like f*ck he would lend me £10 if I asked him! You don't have to be best mates with someone to do business with them! 8 months from that piece / interview and no one is any more wiser and OUFC are not really any more forward. I know I will probably get shot to pieces for what I have written above about "Messiah" Eales, but those answers and quotes from him are poor at best. Either something is happening and he is not letting on (wouldn't blame him, but I would rather he just said as such!) or absolutely nothing is happening and OUFC are going to be stuck at the Kassam for the foreseeable and while Kassam wants OUFC there. Again, he needs to say as much as well. To be honest, this is the EXACT article Oxvox, or whoever, should be presenting back to to DE etc and asking for an honest update on every point raised to either give fans hope of a successful ending for OUFC (ownership / new ground) or so everyone can stop banging on about the subject and accept what it is and move on!
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 19:23:00 GMT
Will you and Charlie make all your work on it under previous leaderships available to help give them an even better understanding ? TBH I would be really surprised if this has not all been discussed in the work done by Oxvox? To be fair, stuff Oxvox, and I say that with no disrespect meant, but why wouldn't this have been presented to DE himself as soon as possible anyway?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 18, 2016 19:26:38 GMT
To be fair, I had not seen that from December 2015 (8 months ago), but while we're here let's have a look at it... "We are here so the best thing to do is secure our future here" - Why? Just because you are somewhere does not mean it's the best place to be. Same as a job. Just because you have a job does not mean that you have to settle for that only job. Look elsewhere. Is there anything better our there etc etc - Is he also saying that OUFC's future is not secure at the Kassam already? "My Preference is to try and find a way of talking to Firoz where we either gain operational control of the stadium or buy it out right" - A preference to what and why wouldn't you want to do that under the circumstances anyway? - Mobile phone, email, skype etc are all good ways to talk. Not that hard, but you need to make the approach and have that initial conversation anyway. Has it happened? "My impression is that is what Firoz would like to do. I think he would prefer us to stay here and I think he wants to help the club" - Too many negatives here. "My Impression". "I think" x 2. Why not ask the bloke outright so you and OUFC know exactly where you and they stand and what you are dealing with? It's not that hard surely?. If I had £30m, I would be able to send Firoz an email offering him £30m for the ownership of the stadium within 30 minutes and I bet I would get a response. Has anyone asked the bloke outright exactly what he wants to do? "I would be really disappointed if we can't achieve that" - I would be really disappointed if I didn't win £100m on the Euro Lottery, but I know realistically it will never happen so why worry about something that may not happen? - Sounds like he has a plan on purchasing the ground. If so, surely he needs to elaborate on that or is it just blowing smoke up the supporters arses to make him sound popular? "To be fair, the four of us had a meeting about four weeks ago and it was very amicable, with a willingness of everyone to try and find the right solution for Oxford United" - And??? What, if anything, has come of this? What has the Council(s) offered? What has Kassam offered? Why would it not be amicable? "I can't say that there has been tangible progress, but I think we're in a really good place in terms of relationships" - Why has there not been any progress? What are the stumbling blocks and who is putting up brick walls? I get on brilliant with my best mate, but like f*ck he would lend me £10 if I asked him! You don't have to be best mates with someone to do business with them! 8 months from that piece / interview and no one is any more wiser and OUFC are not really any more forward. I know I will probably get shot to pieces for what I have written above about "Messiah" Eales, but those answers and quotes from him are poor at best. Either something is happening and he is not letting on (wouldn't blame him, but I would rather he just said as such!) or absolutely nothing is happening and OUFC are going to be stuck at the Kassam for the foreseeable and while Kassam wants OUFC there. Again, he needs to say as much as well. To be honest, this is the EXACT article Oxvox, or whoever, should be presenting back to to DE etc and asking for an honest update on every point raised to either give fans hope of a successful ending for OUFC (ownership / new ground) or so everyone can stop banging on about the subject and accept what it is and move on! Not sure what you mean? Run it by me again ! Joking I am. You wanted to know why it was eales preference as he had never said it. That was the only reason I posted it, like u said 8 months ago. Thing have obviously discussed, but like with nearly all business deals or property purchases these things are done in private. Eales comes out in the public and says I have the £15 m I'm going to buy the stadium and do this and that, guess what fk's first reaction would be! Either he wants £20m or that's it's no longer for sale. Things are coming to a head, pulling out of the corporate food and drink shows eales is not just bending over to kassam, and could very well be playing a long game to make a move easier. Who knows? All I do know he's the best chairman we've had in decades, the most open and honest and really does seem to have the best interests of the club a heart. Il didn't manage it in 8 years, give him a chance
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 19:55:35 GMT
To be fair, I had not seen that from December 2015 (8 months ago), but while we're here let's have a look at it... "We are here so the best thing to do is secure our future here" - Why? Just because you are somewhere does not mean it's the best place to be. Same as a job. Just because you have a job does not mean that you have to settle for that only job. Look elsewhere. Is there anything better our there etc etc - Is he also saying that OUFC's future is not secure at the Kassam already? "My Preference is to try and find a way of talking to Firoz where we either gain operational control of the stadium or buy it out right" - A preference to what and why wouldn't you want to do that under the circumstances anyway? - Mobile phone, email, skype etc are all good ways to talk. Not that hard, but you need to make the approach and have that initial conversation anyway. Has it happened? "My impression is that is what Firoz would like to do. I think he would prefer us to stay here and I think he wants to help the club" - Too many negatives here. "My Impression". "I think" x 2. Why not ask the bloke outright so you and OUFC know exactly where you and they stand and what you are dealing with? It's not that hard surely?. If I had £30m, I would be able to send Firoz an email offering him £30m for the ownership of the stadium within 30 minutes and I bet I would get a response. Has anyone asked the bloke outright exactly what he wants to do? "I would be really disappointed if we can't achieve that" - I would be really disappointed if I didn't win £100m on the Euro Lottery, but I know realistically it will never happen so why worry about something that may not happen? - Sounds like he has a plan on purchasing the ground. If so, surely he needs to elaborate on that or is it just blowing smoke up the supporters arses to make him sound popular? "To be fair, the four of us had a meeting about four weeks ago and it was very amicable, with a willingness of everyone to try and find the right solution for Oxford United" - And??? What, if anything, has come of this? What has the Council(s) offered? What has Kassam offered? Why would it not be amicable? "I can't say that there has been tangible progress, but I think we're in a really good place in terms of relationships" - Why has there not been any progress? What are the stumbling blocks and who is putting up brick walls? I get on brilliant with my best mate, but like f*ck he would lend me £10 if I asked him! You don't have to be best mates with someone to do business with them! 8 months from that piece / interview and no one is any more wiser and OUFC are not really any more forward. I know I will probably get shot to pieces for what I have written above about "Messiah" Eales, but those answers and quotes from him are poor at best. Either something is happening and he is not letting on (wouldn't blame him, but I would rather he just said as such!) or absolutely nothing is happening and OUFC are going to be stuck at the Kassam for the foreseeable and while Kassam wants OUFC there. Again, he needs to say as much as well. To be honest, this is the EXACT article Oxvox, or whoever, should be presenting back to to DE etc and asking for an honest update on every point raised to either give fans hope of a successful ending for OUFC (ownership / new ground) or so everyone can stop banging on about the subject and accept what it is and move on! Not sure what you mean? Run it by me again ! Joking I am. You wanted to know why it was eales preference as he had never said it. That was the only reason I posted it, like u said 8 months ago. Thing have obviously discussed, but like with nearly all business deals or property purchases these things are done in private. Eales comes out in the public and says I have the £15 m I'm going to buy the stadium and do this and that, guess what fk's first reaction would be! Either he wants £20m or that's it's no longer for sale. Things are coming to a head, pulling out of the corporate food and drink shows eales is not just bending over to kassam, and could very well be playing a long game to make a move easier. Who knows? All I do know he's the best chairman we've had in decades, the most open and honest and really does seem to have the best interests of the club a heart. Il didn't manage it in 8 years, give him a chance Yes, fully agree that he's the best OUFC chairman in years. No dispute from me on that front. I just found that interview a bit strange. I agree that things v Kassam are coming to a head. The corporate food and drink fiasco, the mentioning of Grenoble Road instead of Kassam Stadium etc, clearly shows DE is p*ssed off over something, which makes it even more puzzling that more has not been done to either purchase the bloody breeze-block outright or push OCC to find anothe rpiece of land and look at that option. Afterall, DE states in that interview that the councils want to help, but what exactly are they offering / willing to offer? A blood ring and ride service from the Stn to the Ground???
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 18, 2016 20:04:32 GMT
There are so many different factors though. If it was a case of here's a stadium how much do u want for it, I'm sure it would have been done. Whatever anyone thinks of kassam he is clearly a very good business man, he's unlikely to sell if keeping it furthers his ambitions elsewhere, ie building on the overflow. He s less likely to sell under what he sees as the value. And that's not just the value of the buildings, but also the business of conference facilities and other things. Then there's the training complex, and offers from kassam to "complete" the stadium, rent rises all thrown into the mix. De has to weigh up all those things, up until now he might well have seen it as easier to just pay the rent while he sorted the on the pitch side of things and boosting the fan base. Now that's been done, maybe things will start to move forward. His biggest mistake so far is probably making il the director responsible for sorting in when he first came in. After all he hadn't managed it under his own running a
|
|
|
Post by minime on Aug 18, 2016 20:19:19 GMT
There are so many different factors though. If it was a case of here's a stadium how much do u want for it, I'm sure it would have been done. Whatever anyone thinks of kassam he is clearly a very good business man, he's unlikely to sell if keeping it furthers his ambitions elsewhere, ie building on the overflow. He s less likely to sell under what he sees as the value. And that's not just the value of the buildings, but also the business of conference facilities and other things. Then there's the training complex, and offers from kassam to "complete" the stadium, rent rises all thrown into the mix. De has to weigh up all those things, up until now he might well have seen it as easier to just pay the rent while he sorted the on the pitch side of things and boosting the fan base. Now that's been done, maybe things will start to move forward. His biggest mistake so far is probably making il the director responsible for sorting in when he first came in. After all he hadn't managed it under his own running a Exactly Re: IL. Fully agree. Why give one of, if not THE, most important job (home security) to a bloke who did not want to be at the club, and therefore have no interest, in the first place? Why not give it to an independent source where there is no visible emotional ties to the club in anyway (fan, staff, director etc) and give them a deadline of 12 months? This would then give you a bias and emotional free independent report within a reasonable timescale outlining the benefits and negatives of doing either. But again, this brings us back to the beginning scenario, especially as things seem to be escalating between the club and FK - Either find the dough to buy FK out, and quick, go to OCC and ask for desperate help, or get FK to commit to increasing the length of the tenancy agreement, without a rent rise, in order to give OUFC a bit more breathing space (time) to secure something concrete. On the flip side, does it surprise you that the FK relationship has deteriorated? Not for me it doesn't. How many OUFC chairman has he p*ssed off? What you have to remember is that he does not need to be nice to OUFC at all. In FK's eyes OUFC have three options. Buy the ground, pay the rent and play there, find somewhere else to play (LOL) or don't pay the rent and OUFC get evicted. FK has OUFC a barrel and anyone who says different is a mug!
|
|