|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 19, 2013 13:24:19 GMT
OxVox has been formally notified that Firoka has requested Oxford City Council hold an internal review into the decision to list The Kassam Stadium as an Asset of Community Value. This review will examine whether the process of listing was correctly followed and the criteria correctly applied by the Council, and will be held on Thursday 29th August. OxVox have been invited to participate in this hearing, and intend to do so. The decision to list The Kassam Stadium as an Asset of Community Value meant Oxford United supporters and the Oxfordshire community have been given a say in what happens to the Stadium, should it ever be sold. The decision underlined the importance of the Stadium, as the home of Oxford United, to the Oxfordshire community. Since Oxford City Council agreed to OxVox’s nomination of The Kassam Stadium as an Asset of Community Value, numerous other football clubs’ stadiums have also been listed as Assets of Community Value, including those of Manchester United and Nuneaton Borough, and applications have been made for many others, including Liverpool. The decision to list The Kassam Stadium as an Asset of Community Value has therefore served as an important landmark in the use of the Assets of Community Value Regulations. A reminder of what the listing of the Stadium as an Asset of Community Value means is available here: www.oxvox.org.uk/news.aspx?id=486. If you have any questions or comments about this, please contact us at enquiries@oxvox.org.uk. We will report back from the hearing at our SGM on Saturday 31st August, 1.30pm, the Landmark Room, ahead of the Rochdale game, and keep members updated on any news thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 19, 2013 13:56:48 GMT
I wouldn't waste trust funds on countering the appeal, but nothing wrong with committee and volunteers doing so.
The fact that Kassam is appealing on grounds of procedure rather than outcome, indicates that he has already accepted that the decision meets the criteria of the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 19, 2013 14:09:47 GMT
In the original internal assemessment report from the Council JPPC made it clear they did not dispute that the stadium is an asset of community value. They argued that "at most, we consider that the seating area in the southern stand is part of the stadium, and the seating on the other stands would comprise part of the stadium, as would the playing pitch. Save for these elements, we do not consider that the buildings comprise ACVs".
In the findings, one of the key points to address the above argument, was that the stadium land was purchased from the council and the stadium built with the explixit purpose to provide the venue for Oxford United Football Club.
I can categorically confirm that no Trust Funds have been spent to date on this nomination and no requirement is required at present on countering the appeal. In fact, we cannot appeal the decision if it goes against the Trust. Should the appeal be upheld, then Firoka have every right to a judicial government review.
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Aug 19, 2013 16:07:51 GMT
Hoho bluddy ho.....and Old Greedy Bastard claims he's a 'custodian'etc?,.... money grabbing 'unmentionable' is a more accurate title Id say!
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Aug 19, 2013 16:21:39 GMT
In the original internal assemessment report from the Council JPPC made it clear they did not dispute that the stadium is an asset of community value. They argued that "at most, we consider that the seating area in the southern stand is part of the stadium, and the seating on the other stands would comprise part of the stadium, as would the playing pitch. Save for these elements, we do not consider that the buildings comprise ACVs". In the findings, one of the key points to address the above argument, was that the stadium land was purchased from the council and the stadium built with the explixit purpose to provide the venue for Oxford United Football Club. I can categorically confirm that no Trust Funds have been spent to date on this nomination and no requirement is required at present on countering the appeal. In fact, we cannot appeal the decision if it goes against the Trust. Should the appeal be upheld, then Firoka have every right to a judicial government review. Thanks BB.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 19, 2013 18:38:13 GMT
If he wins his appeal, what chance do you think there is of a supporters group ever having any interest in 'our' ground, BB? (Not that it has ever been more than remote from day 1.)
Don't expect any favours when Kassam eventually decides to sell. This is a man who didn't bother congratulating the club when we got promoted in 2010. He has no love at all for our club or our supporters.
Did the committee think through an appeal scenario? What's the plan assuming Kassam is successful?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 19, 2013 18:53:24 GMT
Should firoka be successful with this appeal, which would involve the council admitting to itself it had wrongly listed the stadium as an asset of community value, the we could seek a judicial review. This has been discussed and we wouldn't use member money on this but in the event this happens the costs may be covered for us from supporters direct. We always expected firoka to appeal from day one but of course it's disapointing they have.
We're confident the decision will be upheld as Oxford city council have been very professional in the initial process.
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Aug 19, 2013 18:55:28 GMT
Sorry to be a bit out of touch with how Oxford City Council constitutionally works these days and being even more unconnected with what gets sorted in the corridors of power outside the committee rooms, but what exactly is an ‘internal review’ when it comes to this kind of legal matter? I’m familiar with the term when appealing a Freedom of Information request or planning issue (and in planning when the ruling majority was smaller and the scrutiny committees had some power a decision was sometimes overruled) but surely this is just the first stage of what could be a long running legal battle. i.e. It sounds like Firoka HAVE to go through this particular phase (which will be a shoo in for the Council to win) before moving on to heavier legal arguments and an, err, external review.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 19, 2013 19:23:00 GMT
Good to hear from you snake and I hope you well.
The panning officer who approved the application must explain the process and the reasons for listing the asset to a meeting chair (who is a director for city regeneration in this case). Firoka will relay their objections and we will repeat our reasons for the nomination. Providing the council followed the procedures correctly and the asset meets the criteria of the legislation then the listing would remain.
The final stage of appeal then is an independent external tribunal. Oxford city council and OxVox would once again be allowed to represent out cases. Should firoka lose that appeal also then there is no other appeal available.
We've been aware of this process from the beginning and have always been prepared for a 2 stage appeal if necessary. Costs to OxVox remain at zero at this internal appeal hearing.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 19, 2013 20:25:53 GMT
You say that Supporters Direct. ' may'cover the costs of an external review if it happens. What if they don't? What if Kassam chucks a £750 per hour barrister at stage 2? Can you guarantee Oxvox subscriptions will not be at risk?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 19, 2013 20:55:50 GMT
Yes I can guarantee that. We would self represent at an external hearing so te cost would be nothing as supporters direct and ourselves would be in attendance. But should supporters direct offer to pay a barrister then they would cover the cost.
So there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members. If we wanted a lawyer we would only do that if supporters direct follow through on their offer of covering those costs. Otherwise as I said we would self represent.
Unlike others have suggested on the other forum, which sadly seems to have far bigger concerns right now, we know our position from day one for all eventualities and there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members on this as we simply wouldn't use members' funds on this.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrightboot on Aug 19, 2013 21:00:12 GMT
Yes I can guarantee that. We would self represent at an external hearing so te cost would be nothing as supporters direct and ourselves would be in attendance. But should supporters direct offer to pay a barrister then they would cover the cost. So there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members. If we wanted a lawyer we would only do that if supporters direct follow through on their offer of covering those costs. Otherwise as I said we would self represent. Unlike others have suggested on the other forum, which sadly seems to have far bigger concerns right now, we know our position from day one for all eventualities and there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members on this as we simply wouldn't use members' funds on this. Maybe the members might want to hire a barrister though. Might improve Oxvox's chances. You need to consult membership don't assume you always know best Mark. ..
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Aug 19, 2013 21:38:34 GMT
That's why we are holding a meeting to discuss this on 31 August.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 19, 2013 21:47:03 GMT
Maybe the members might want to hire a barrister though. Might improve Oxvox's chances. You need to consult membership don't assume you always know best Mark. .. Maybe the membership would want to spend some money PRB and they will get the chance to vote on it and be involved. As I have said a number of times, right or wrong, the decision to keep this quiet from at nomination stage was to give the application its best chance. Membership involvement will be critical moving forward and it is something the committee 100% agree upon. Mark answered the questions about trust finances because people still think this is costing us money. It isn't. It won't cost the Trust at the 'appeal' stage, in a few weeks as Mark has relayed.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Aug 19, 2013 22:26:42 GMT
Yes I can guarantee that. We would self represent at an external hearing so te cost would be nothing as supporters direct and ourselves would be in attendance. But should supporters direct offer to pay a barrister then they would cover the cost. So there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members. If we wanted a lawyer we would only do that if supporters direct follow through on their offer of covering those costs. Otherwise as I said we would self represent. Unlike others have suggested on the other forum, which sadly seems to have far bigger concerns right now, we know our position from day one for all eventualities and there will never be a cost to OxVox or its members on this as we simply wouldn't use members' funds on this. Maybe the members might want to hire a barrister though. Might improve Oxvox's chances. You need to consult membership don't assume y ou always know best Mark. .. Does that mean Mark as an individual, or the OxVox committee?
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Aug 20, 2013 6:04:37 GMT
I think we are missing the point here. The first thing that jumped into my mind was,"it only matters to K@@@ m if the stadium is a community asset,if he has a buyer". If the status quo is maintained,we carry on being tenants,paying the rent etc,what does it matter to Firoka,if the stadium is a community asset or not. If he had a problem with it,why wait till now to appeal?
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Aug 20, 2013 6:42:57 GMT
But isn't that the point in that we have disrupted the status quo by getting the original RTB. If we didn't then FK wouldn't have to lodge an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Aug 20, 2013 7:00:29 GMT
But isn't that the point in that we have disrupted the status quo by getting the original RTB. If we didn't then FK wouldn't have to lodge an appeal. Yes,but that was on the 13th of May,why has it taken over 3 months for Firoka to appeal? Are they appealing because they have a buyer? If they haven't got a buyer,why bother. I don't see how we have upset the status quo,we still pay over the top rent,we still are no nearer to buying the stadium,and if Firoka decide not to renew OUFCs lease,theirs FA we can do about it,community asset or not.
|
|
|
Post by finlandia on Aug 20, 2013 7:26:06 GMT
Maybe FK has spent this time looking to see if he has a case for the review? Wouldn't trust him at all, and certainly wouldn't annoy him!
|
|
|
Post by oxfordharrier on Aug 20, 2013 7:39:53 GMT
But isn't that the point in that we have disrupted the status quo by getting the original RTB. If we didn't then FK wouldn't have to lodge an appeal. Yes,but that was on the 13th of May,why has it taken over 3 months for Firoka to appeal? Are they appealing because they have a buyer? If they haven't got a buyer,why bother. I don't see how we have upset the status quo,we still pay over the top rent,we still are no nearer to buying the stadium,and if Firoka decide not to renew OUFCs lease,theirs FA we can do about it,community asset or not. I can't see where a buyer's going to come from that isn't OUFC, LW, or OUFC and LW together. We know it isn't 1, I'd be amazed if it was 2 given Welsh haven't got any money and have more pressing things to worry about like getting fans through the gate next season, and if it was 3 he wouldn't be objecting. It's much more likely that he's just a businessman - he wants to be able to sell his property for the best price when/if/as he chooses/needs to. Logically, that would be to OUFC but he/you/they can't guarantee that would be the case at a time of his choosing. To be honest, I think his lawyers would probably be negligent if they didn't advise him to appeal. I support the CRTB by the way (as a member of the community), but it does put a spoke in the works of normal business, and that's an issue that goes beyond Mr K. OUFC are in a difficult and relatively unusual position though, given the divorce between team and ground - what this might mean is that this won't be done to other clubs in the future (it's not a separately realisable asset if you can't dispose of the stadium to whom you choose when you choose). On the other hand, it might for other clubs be a bit of a Pandora's box opening here given that the strategy for hypothetical unscrupulous landlords who own both team and ground will logically now have to be to load all the debt onto the club and make sure it's driven into the ground to free up stadiums for a sale for say housing redevelopment - ie say to the "community" that they of course have the right to buy the stadium, but what are they going to put in it?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Aug 20, 2013 8:04:03 GMT
I'm surprised the appeal took so long to come to fruition. Even with some time for analysis, I thought Kassam would move a lot quicker than this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 8:19:03 GMT
Will this effect the negotiations for the 12th man bar?
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 20, 2013 8:36:13 GMT
I can clarify. The delay in the appeal, Firoka had ten weeks from the original decision to lodge an appeal, evidently they did that. However, the delay was caused by the council and Firoka trying to find a mutually suitable appeal date - OxVox were then informed of the appeal last week, once the dates had been finally booked.
To demonstrate the difficulties of this, point 13 of the original assessment stated "The regulations state that a local authority should make a decision within 8 weeks of receiving a nomination. It is now 16 weeks since then. The delay has been in part due to the correspondence between the City Council and the owners seeking to obtain the correct or complete set of owners and occupiers".
I think Firoka have taken as much time as they can.
|
|
|
Post by Si Bradbury on Aug 20, 2013 8:38:01 GMT
Will this effect the negotiations for the 12th man bar? No. The negotiations of the 12th Man bar are between the club and the stadium company. OxVox or the counil aren't involved in those discussions.
|
|
|
Post by outofthegloom on Aug 20, 2013 10:41:21 GMT
Well done brahmabull, and Mark, for keeping us informed. Hardly surprising from FK. Will just have to see how it develops. Not much precedent.
|
|
|
Post by dartfordox (RIP) on Aug 20, 2013 10:44:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Matt D on Aug 20, 2013 12:21:24 GMT
Maybe the members might want to hire a barrister though. Might improve Oxvox's chances. You need to consult membership don't assume you always know best Mark. .. Maybe the membership would want to spend some money PRB and they will get the chance to vote on it and be involved. As I have said a number of times, right or wrong, the decision to keep this quiet from at nomination stage was to give the application its best chance. Membership involvement will be critical moving forward and it is something the committee 100% agree upon. Mark answered the questions about trust finances because people still think this is costing us money. It isn't. It won't cost the Trust at the 'appeal' stage, in a few weeks as Mark has relayed. quite PRB: need to, and will consult the membership. for those members attending the SGM on 31st, we will report back from the hearing. i doubt the hearing will have produced an answer by that point, but we'll let you know what was said. the RTB was on the agenda for the SGM, and i would anticipate a good discussion of this. we'll certainly collect the views of members in the room on likely next steps. i think if the council stand by their decision to list the asset, there could well be a judicial review of the decision following that, so i think we need to understand how members feel about this. that can form the prelude to consultation of the entire membership by an online vote, so we can discuss how we think that should work. as mark says, there has already been discussion with supporters direct about the possibility of judicial review and what happens then. we hope they'll be willing to continue their strong support, and it seems to me they have a lot invested in this decision: oxford city council's decision has acted as a landmark for other applications, and they see these as a key tool in helping trusts realise their goal of community involvement (quite rightly). indeed, supporters direct will be involved in this review along with us. but nonetheless, if supporters direct decide for whatever reason they are not going to support the costs of any further judicial review, i would think we want to have an understanding of the membership's feelings about this. i don't think there should be too much alarm about this: the possibility of this was always in the procedure of listing (see www.oxford.gov.uk/Library/Documents/Planning/Community%20Right%20to%20Bid%20Guidance.pdf) and to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Aug 20, 2013 13:37:26 GMT
If he wins his appeal, what chance do you think there is of a supporters group ever having any interest in 'our' ground, BB? (Not that it has ever been more than remote from day 1.) Don't expect any favours when Kassam eventually decides to sell. This is a man who didn't bother congratulating the club when we got promoted in 2010. He has no love at all for our club or our supporters. Did the committee think through an appeal scenario? What's the plan assuming Kassam is successful? Do you really feel that the CRTB process or the appeal will have any impact on Kassam selling the stadium PRB? Do you really think that he would not sell to the supporters if he was offered what he considers to be the right price? I feel that he will only ever sell if he feels that he is offered a price that oughweights the cash that he receives from the Stadco combined with his perceived future value of the stadium complex (ie Stands/pitch/Conf Centre/Car Park development opportunities). His primary business is property development and he is not going to sell anything at a reduced price so I do not believe that the CRTB has any impact on this. Some feel that the stadium is only worth £10M but that does not take account of the level of cash generated (pre and post LW) and the potential future values. Many property companies are sat on hige land banks the value of which is based on their future potential value rather than current value and the land around the stadium is no different. Also the Conference Centre is linked to the fortunes of the hotel and a future hotel that I believe he has permission to build. The CRTB would slightly delay any future sale but I do not believe that it would have any significant impact on the price. If I was Kassam I would do everything to prevent the CRTB sticking because he would want any sale to go through as quickly as possible and so would I if I was in his shoes. I do not beleive that anti Kassam sentiment helps our cause and we should concentrate on the facts rathe than the personalities (this is not aimed at PRB). It may or may not be financially viable for the supporters to buy the stadium but what is wrong with exploring all options (some funding options would not be available and/or attractive to commercial purchasers but may be viable for supporter groups. Some fans do not want to consider this at all because of the history with kassam but like it or not he continues to have an impact on OUFC so the history/personality has to be put to one side and we need to look at this with a fresh perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Snake (RIP) on Aug 20, 2013 20:23:32 GMT
Scoob and I agree now and again, and this is such an occasion.
It’s all very well saying this will cost OxVox nowt, but Oxford City Council are funded by people who are not all Oxford United supporters and won’t be keen on spending their Council Tax payments on another Minchery Farm courtroom argument with Kassam. The ruling Labour Party got their arm twisted once on the Land Deal in the 1998-2001 period when supporters threatened to stand against them in marginal seats when they were desperate for votes to cling to power, and they got years of flack for it afterwards and big time financial arguments with the District Auditor (though they just made it in the election so it paid off for both sides). However, this time it will be politically different if taxpayers are expected to stump up for another potentially sizeable legal bill. And to achieve what? p*ss off Kassam just for the hell of it? It’s not as if Oxford United have a viable bidder on the scene who can raise the cash but needs a few months in order to do so (though I’d happy to be corrected if there is – I’d be delighted in fact!).
In essence, it may have seemed like a good idea in the beginning, but we’re not a global brand with hundreds of millions of ‘supporters’ like Manchester United who have taken the same route so I’m still not sure if this is such a smart idea.
If Oxford City Council was really serious about Oxford United they should view their local stadium and team being not so much a community asset but a profitable community enterprise in the long run that would promote the local economy for everyone which would benefit the Council Tax payers, and they could literally buy it from their small change. The price is fixed, the Council has nearly £1b of capital assets and only a small proportion of that would be needed to buy Kassam out.
The result would be an increase of civic pride and another boost to a world famous city, local people in charge of Oxfordshire’s only major professional sports organisation, jobs, regeneration of The Leys and if Oxford got promoted a couple of times and anywhere near the promised land then the local economy and businesses would benefit as well. I’m familiar with a club abroad that took this kind of risk in partnership with their own local Council and the gamble paid off and the Supporters Trust owns 20% of it.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Aug 20, 2013 22:03:04 GMT
Snake I agree with most of what you say. I do not want to see huge sums wasted on Lawyers fees if the end result does not achieve anything significant. The CRTB has already established that the Council do agree that the Stadium is a Community Asset so I would prefer to see energy and money spent on exploring ways of puchasing the stadium on a viable basis. We will also have to build some sort of relationship with Kassam, and/or his representatives, if we (the "we" could be any one or more of a number of interested parties)are going to agree terms to purchase the stadium so a protected fight will not be particularly beneficial. However, we are at a relatively early stage in the legal process. The CRTB has resulted in a mutual understanding of wider issues the could well be involved in any progress. Many local councils have been involved in purchaing/providing stadia for football clubs and I too believe that this can be done on a profitable basis with the Trust being involved.
|
|