|
Post by bashamwonderland on May 18, 2016 14:26:28 GMT
Psychological advantage. Must be nice to shoot at a football stand instead of a fence.
If they cut even on it, which they probably will if we can get about 7000 avg. attendance, then there is absolutely no downside to this whatsoever. I trust the management to make good decisions, they've been doing it consistently for over a year now.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on May 18, 2016 15:57:16 GMT
From the BBC Oxford Sports site ;-
Oxford United and Oxford City Council are holding talks this morning over an application for a temporary 4th stand to be erected at the Kassam Stadium. Bob Price - the leader of Oxford City Council - says a potential rent increase would be the only major obstacle.
So what does this actually mean?
If OUFC rent/buy a temporary stand and pay for all the costs, Kassam would still feel justified in increasing our rent?? Or is Kassam paying for the temporary stand which he would then pass on the costs to OUFC in increased rent ?
Either way I'm sure Kassam will try and make life as difficult as possible for the football club.
The good news is that a fourth stand is being discussed at all, the City council and County Council leaders support will be needed so we need to engage with them.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 16:14:55 GMT
Darryl giving the impression that it's full steam ahead on the radio just now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 16:17:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bashamwonderland on May 18, 2016 16:21:51 GMT
RENT INCREASE!?!?
This would be a chattel added to the land by the club at the club's expense. It wouldn't constitute a fixture/fitting, and it wouldn't constitute an improvement to the property. It would be semi-permanent.
If there's a rent increase, Kassam should be told to shove it right up his arse. Also if there is a rent increase, the terms of the club's lease must have been pretty poorly drafted to allow that.
|
|
|
Post by mariokempes on May 18, 2016 16:22:32 GMT
It's simply not necessary, it'll be a waste of money that can be spent elsewhere. If it does happen though it should be for home fans as it would be an advantage shooting towards Oxford fans at both ends. Plus the rigmarole of changing your profile name to the temporary stand end
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 16:22:54 GMT
I suggest naming it the George Baldock Remembrance Stand.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 16:33:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 18, 2016 16:56:13 GMT
What a surprise. Doesn't expect a rent increase. So why do the council feel they needed to mention it. There is a good relationship being built with fk at the min and stories like that this morning don't help .
|
|
|
Post by Barts on May 18, 2016 17:12:33 GMT
As much as I wasn't a kassam supporter, lets not bemoan him about a rent increase until he's ACTUALLY increased it.
|
|
|
Post by The Fence End on May 18, 2016 17:29:34 GMT
It'll cost £50/60k. I'll take it off his hands if he's got it to waste.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 18, 2016 17:29:54 GMT
Let's not also forget it was the council that got in the way of one for the Wycombe game, not kassam. Unless he had actual proof I don't know why bob price even felt the need to mention it.
|
|
|
Post by arthurturner on May 18, 2016 17:33:20 GMT
Bob Price in his interview suggested that the rent for the stadium is set on a season by season basis i.e an annual review which is unusual in a standard commercial lease. If this is true then a fourth stand will come into the reckoning in the negotiation for next season's rent. Over and above that there will almost certainly be a covenant by the club not to carry out any alterations or works without the Landlords consent and building a fourth stand would fall into that definition and normally such consent would come at a price. It's hard to judge what the club can do without putting more money in Firoka's pocket. I think it's pretty clear that whatever the terms of the lease are there's nothing "standard" about them.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 17:34:36 GMT
Don't know why anybody would think it's a waste. Explain your logic.
|
|
|
Post by myles on May 18, 2016 17:35:37 GMT
Let's not also forget it was the council that got in the way of one for the Wycombe game, not kassam. Unless he had actual proof I don't know why bob price even felt the need to mention it. How did the council "get in the way of it"?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 18, 2016 17:39:18 GMT
Let's not also forget it was the council that got in the way of one for the Wycombe game, not kassam. Unless he had actual proof I don't know why bob price even felt the need to mention it. How did the council "get in the way of it"? Taking so long with the regulations, planning etc.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 18, 2016 17:41:14 GMT
Bob Price in his interview suggested that the rent for the stadium is set on a season by season basis i.e an annual review which is unusual in a standard commercial lease. If this is true then a fourth stand will come into the reckoning in the negotiation for next season's rent. Over and above that there will almost certainly be a covenant by the club not to carry out any alterations or works without the Landlords consent and building a fourth stand would fall into that definition and normally such consent would come at a price. It's hard to judge what the club can do without putting more money in Firoka's pocket. I think it's pretty clear that whatever the terms of the lease are there's nothing "standard" about them. How does bob price know so much on the finer details of the contract, when we don't even know for sure if there is a rent increase, a buy out cost or anything really.
|
|
|
Post by nottsyellow on May 18, 2016 17:44:39 GMT
This. You more eloquently said what I was trying to say in about 200 words less I guess it depends on the segregation in the North Stand - does having a 600-person spillover for away fans behind the goal mean they they can get away with the smallest possible segregation in the NS without breaking the 10% rule? Yes it means the away fans in the North Stand will be in the end two blocks, like the Wycombe game. This enables the central blocks of the North Sand to be available to Oxford fans for every game. Including selling season tickets for some of the best seats in the ground. This may be one of the reasons for the delay in selling STs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 17:44:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nottsyellow on May 18, 2016 17:52:10 GMT
It's simply not necessary, it'll be a waste of money that can be spent elsewhere. If it does happen though it should be for home fans as it would be an advantage shooting towards Oxford fans at both ends. Oh blimey, give credit to the club for trying to improve the situation. DE says it is not the perfect solution but it will be an improvement on the current position. The main benefit is that it releases the central blocks in the North Stand to Oxford supporters for every game and we will not have away supporters taking over half of the North Stand. I assume home supporters could use it for home games like Wycombe and Boxing Day where there is exceptional demand and the away team cannot sell more than 1,100. This then enables the home capacity to be about 11,300.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 17:52:23 GMT
Council have done nothing wrong. We need to work with them.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 18, 2016 17:55:54 GMT
Council have done nothing wrong. We need to work with them. That also applies at present to kassam
|
|
|
Post by nottsyellow on May 18, 2016 18:00:14 GMT
DE does say he is waiting to hear back from FK! This will be the real test of whether DE has a good relationship with FK.
|
|
|
Post by scotters on May 18, 2016 18:04:19 GMT
I guess it depends on the segregation in the North Stand - does having a 600-person spillover for away fans behind the goal mean they they can get away with the smallest possible segregation in the NS without breaking the 10% rule? Yes it means the away fans in the North Stand will be in the end two blocks, like the Wycombe game. This enables the central blocks of the North Sand to be available to Oxford fans for every game. Including selling season tickets for some of the best seats in the ground. This may be one of the reasons for the delay in selling STs. Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on May 18, 2016 18:09:56 GMT
Don't know why anybody would think it's a waste. Explain your logic. The more I think about it - the more I am happy in terms of giving us a 4th stand on the ground - even if only a small stand at that. Playing devils advocate, the simple argument against logic is: All the clubs visiting with a big fan base will still need to go in the North stand as we have to give them 10% of tickets so the segregation issue exists. Though we will have 600 more seats to sell in the temp stand (if required). All of the lesser clubs - we could put the away fans in the temp stand and free up the North stand - but what chances are there us needing 12,500 seats for a small club (aside from Boxing day). I guess the hope is - we will more regularly, especially if we are doing well. If it costs us £50K and it is filled for 5 games - that will be job done and paid for. Of course, if on Boxing day it allows home fans (if we could sell that) - it actually covers 60% of the cost (extra 1,600-2,000 on a standard gate) at £18 a head. Even if it doesn't pay for itself - will be nice to look at something....
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 18, 2016 18:11:11 GMT
So what has Bob Price got to do with any of this? He's not the landlord, the tenant, the planning people?
RIP Snake he'd love to be commenting on this.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 18:15:16 GMT
Don't know why anybody would think it's a waste. Explain your logic. The more I think about it - the more I am happy in terms of giving us a 4th stand on the ground - even if only a small stand at that. Playing devils advocate, the simple argument against logic is: All the clubs visiting with a big fan base will still need to go in the North stand as we have to give them 10% of tickets so the segregation issue exists. Though we will have 600 more seats to sell in the temp stand (if required). All of the lesser clubs - we could put the away fans in the temp stand and free up the North stand - but what chances are there us needing 12,500 seats for a small club (aside from Boxing day). I guess the hope is - we will more regularly, especially if we are doing well. If it costs us £50K and it is filled for 5 games - that will be job done and paid for. Of course, if on Boxing day it allows home fans (if we could sell that) - it actually covers 60% of the cost (extra 1,600-2,000 on a standard gate) at £18 a head. Even if it doesn't pay for itself - will be nice to look at something.... Also, there's the psychology of the North stand being predominantly Oxford. Even if Wycombe sold out, it wouldn't have looked like that many, plus 600 people spread out behind the goal will look pretty insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by scotters on May 18, 2016 18:18:17 GMT
Most importantly - what's going to happen to the fence? Can I buy a piece as a souvenir?
|
|
|
Post by nottsyellow on May 18, 2016 18:30:22 GMT
600 just isn't enough in my opinion we will have the same problem with North Stand segregation. It needs to be at least 1200 so it can house the away fans on its own leaving the north stand free for home fans Sent from my SM-G920F using proboards I think with it being only 600 means we don't need to spend anything on other infrastructure things like turnstiles, toilets, fencing. I assume the fans will access the ground via the normal away turnstiles in the North Stand and use the facilities in the North Stand. The large gate at the end of the stand will be opened to allow the flow of fans to the temporary stand. Also hopefully a small stand will mean we don't lose any car park places.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 18, 2016 18:44:56 GMT
Somebody on Twitter saying that Hereford's temp stands hold 650, doesn't look too bad.
|
|