|
Post by myles on May 19, 2016 10:49:20 GMT
Not putting a play on your words at all. In the context, it appeared that you were suggesting that the council(s) were in some way to blame for the stand not happening at the Wycombe game. The very phrase "got in the way of.." implies a deliberate blocking action. If that's not what you were saying, it's an odd choice of phrase. But it was the councils times scales on passing these things ! Depends how u wanna look at it. So, you are blaming the councils then?! Putting it simply, the club had about 10 days to sort it out. This would have involved negotiation and consultation between the club, Firoka, Oxford City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, the Sports Stadia Safety Authority, Oxfordshire Fire Service, TVP, South Central Ambulance Service, and a number of others. There just wasn't enough time to do all this. Nobody is to blame. Nobody "got in the way" of anything. It's just that there was too much to do in the time available.
|
|
|
Post by whingit on May 19, 2016 10:59:43 GMT
Isn't that the idea though, that the stadium will go into some kind of trust that it's irrelevant who owns the club the stadium always stays with it Spot on. I'm in favour of the club NOT owning the ground, provided it is held by some sort of trust where the primary focus is use of the asset for the benefit of the club rather than as a commercial vehicle. Just out of interest, would you like to see money made from a trust owned stadium being ploughed back into the club, or into the trust that owns it?
|
|
|
Post by myles on May 19, 2016 11:22:16 GMT
Just out of interest, would you like to see money made from a trust owned stadium being ploughed back into the club, or into the trust that owns it? If it was arranged properly, that wouldn't be an issue as the trust wouldn't "make" any money as such. In fairly broad terms, the way I would see it working is that the trust would own the stadium as a bricks and mortar asset and that's all. The stadium would be leased to the club at a reasonable rent with the club taking on responsibility for running the catering, conferencing and ancillary functions, and keeping the profit from that. In terms of setting the rent, clearly that has to be at a rate which allows the trust to maintain the stadium to an appropriate standard, and that may include the need to build up reserves to carry out the more significant works which are needed, say, every ten years - things like inspection, testing, and repair of the structural steelwork. So, nominally the trust may be making a "profit", but really it's just spreading the cost of those sorts of works over a longer period, rather than suddenly having to find a large sum of money in one hit. But the general principle should be that the trust is a not-for-profit entity.
|
|
|
Post by Best Mate on May 19, 2016 11:26:08 GMT
My initial assumption was that away fans will continue to be put in the smallest current allocation of the north stand, allowing season tickets to be sold in the prime seats along the halfway line. Should there be a requirement for more than ~1100 away tickets then the temporary stand can be used rather than opening up further sections of the north stand. If a decent gating system was put in place then for such games away fans could access the north stand facilities, but when away requirements are smaller and when home demand is such, or even in general to provide some atmosphere, it could be used by home fans who then access the south stand facilities. That is of course if it's feasible and desirable to not build additional facilities for the stand. Would there be any football league requirements to match the east stand ticket prices for the temporary stand, i.e. a couple of quid cheaper than the north stand, given that it is an equivalent view? If so, and the plan was to house away fans in the temporary stand initially, then it would result in a reduction in revenue for the first 600 away fans, or require an increase in east stand ticket prices to counter balance that. There are definitely potential benefits, but if they are outweighed by FK tightening his grip on the ownership and tenancy situation, e.g. increasing rent or being granted permission for building as a biproduct, then I'd much rather we stick with the status quo for now. The only way we'll get to own our own stadium is if FK can develop where he wants as a direct result of us owning our ground. Letting him deveop in stages for trivial benefits such as this is just putting us in a weaker position. Great post. I had not thought of it as an overspill for the away fans to always allow us to sell up the halfway line without trying to work out opposition requirements....but makes total sense. We can then give away fans 1,200 or 1800 depending on their needs and sell tickets from the hallway line of the North stand all season.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 19, 2016 11:38:38 GMT
Isn't that the idea though, that the stadium will go into some kind of trust that it's irrelevant who owns the club the stadium always stays with it Spot on. I'm in favour of the club NOT owning the ground, provided it is held by some sort of trust where the primary focus is use of the asset for the benefit of the club rather than as a commercial vehicle. It would still have to benefit the club commercially otherwise missing out on a major income . Scrap that just read further down. Good post Myles.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on May 19, 2016 12:09:31 GMT
I just don't think the council ever have our best interests at heart like other councils seem to do their clubs. Could u ever imagine occ leading the club 10m like Northampton. They objected to every site going when we wanted to move, they make parking and traffic issues on match days. And now we have a bit of success they are coming out with parades and all sorts.
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on May 19, 2016 12:20:51 GMT
Not putting a play on your words at all. In the context, it appeared that you were suggesting that the council(s) were in some way to blame for the stand not happening at the Wycombe game. The very phrase "got in the way of.." implies a deliberate blocking action. If that's not what you were saying, it's an odd choice of phrase. But it was the councils times scales on passing these things ! Depends how u wanna look at it. Same as having to apply for permission every time we wanted to use an outside bar, rather than just granting permission for when we wanted it. The councils have stood on oxfords way for decades, right back to looking for the new stadium. Now they seem to want to jump on the success. After all they can shut off the city centre and organise a parade at a days notice when it suits them Yes, I recall the various Councils involved always seemed to drag their heels as far as Oxford UNITED are concerned, but seems to me they were head over heels (Pun intended!) where Oxford CITY are concerned regarding their new Ground! Not sure the Councils seem to want to 'Jump on the success' of OUFC- more likely they are showing increased interest because of the 'role' the Club might have in negotiations over the building of new homes around the Grenoble road stadium!!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 19, 2016 12:31:02 GMT
I just don't think the council ever have our best interests at heart like other councils seem to do their clubs. Could u ever imagine occ leading the club 10m like Northampton. They objected to every site going when we wanted to move, they make parking and traffic issues on match days. And now we have a bit of success they are coming out with parades and all sorts. There was quite a long inquiry into whether the council got value when selling the land to Kassam for the stadium and Ozone. It was eventually agreed that they had, but looking back it seems to me that Kassam got the land very cheaply, presumably on the basis that he would finish the stadium and save the football club from going bust. I suspect that these days the council would have to consider matters such as whether selling land cheaply or subsidising what is in effect a private company are permitted uses of money.
|
|
|
Post by myles on May 19, 2016 12:51:16 GMT
I suspect that these days the council would have to consider matters such as whether selling land cheaply or subsidising what is in effect a private company are permitted uses of money. Quite. I think it's sometimes forgotten that the original plan was for the council to be part-owners of the stadium, but the issues around the Morrell's covenant made that impossible. With Northampton, I'd love to know the full ins-and-outs of what the council have done there. My suspicion is that they are treading a very fine line and I wonder how close they are sailing to it being considered illegal state aid.
|
|