Dean Court Redevelopment

DJ said:
He does discuss it as a phased development, build the south stand first, then relocate the people in the main stand to the south stand temporarily and then they got offered their equivalent seats in the newly built main stand.

No need for a groundshare elsewhere, especially with a severe lack of options to do that.
Click to expand...
Lack of options?
what about St Mary's?
:throw:
 
yanh_ said:
I'm not sure that it puts the price up though, if Foley is prepared to walk away (and he clearly has the funds to do this) then this may help to persuade Structadene to do a deal at a reasonable price for both parties. After all do they want to be left with 2/3 of a stadium with no obvious alternative tenant?
Click to expand...
Sandman2 said:
My take on that was that if Structadene think they can continue to take the piss and ask for monopoly money for a small three sided stadium then Foley will just tell them to do one and go for option B....and build a new stadium. This would leave Structadene with a rusting eye sore and a local council perhaps not willing to buy the land from them for further housing. The AFCB cards suddenly look a lot stronger in this particular game of poker....
Click to expand...
My understanding and I may well be wrong is that Structurdene only own the land not what's built on it, so if they want to play hardball they could be left with just an acre or so of land in a park with zero development rites and covenants galore on it.
Once we've demolished the stands that we own. :grinning:
 
zigger zaggar said:
My understanding and I may well be wrong is that Structurdene only own the land not what's built on it, so if they want to play hardball they could be left with just an acre or so of land in a park with zero development rites and covenants galore on it.
Once we've demolished the stands that we own. :grinning:
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you are wrong but I don't see what difference it makes. The stadium isn't worth anything as a stadium if they don't have AFCB as a tenant so they would knock it down anyway. It's not technically in a park but does have covenants restricting use. I would expect these to be removed though if AFCB had moved to anew ground.
 
zigger zaggar said:
My understanding and I may well be wrong is that Structurdene only own the land not what's built on it, so if they want to play hardball they could be left with just an acre or so of land in a park with zero development rites and covenants galore on it.
Once we've demolished the stands that we own. :grinning:
Click to expand...
They don't own the ground as such but obviously control what can happen on the land, i.e. block any developments. The ground is not actually in the Park so housing may not be an issue - remember the houses behind the East Stand were built on land owned by the club. I am not sure there are any covenants anymore, they may have been removed when the new ground was built and the Bishops Close houses built.
 
Thanks for both those answers. SDD reckons they (SD) do own the ground as well as the land RH reckons they don't. I don't know, does anyone?
I'm sure Bill knows.
Edited to say I shouldn't have used the word ground as that has double meanings.
Clearly they own the ground but my question is do they also own what is built on it.
 
Last edited:
zigger zaggar said:
Thanks for both those answers. SDD reckons they (SD) do own the ground as well as the land RH reckons they don't. I don't know, does anyone?
I'm sure Bill knows.
Click to expand...

You mean the buildings right?

Ground is a confusing term to use in this context because if you're suggesting the club still own the building then effectively they would have just sold the freehold and be paying a ground rent for the land only (ironically enough).

Personally I can't see it, this was never mentioned at the time and ground rents are usually when the land is leased long term and the tenant builds what they want on it.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
You mean the buildings right?

Ground is a confusing term to use in this context because if you're suggesting the club still own the building then effectively they would have just sold the freehold and be paying a ground rent for the land only (ironically enough).

Personally I can't see it, this was never mentioned at the time and ground rents are usually when the land is leased long term and the tenant builds what they want on it.
Click to expand...
I just edited my post as I realised that
 
First, let me say sorry, I'm on the road and replying using my phone so I may make a few posts where one would have done.

Bill Filey said:
ys but it only takes one owner to hold out for an extortionate amount and there is stalemate
Click to expand...

Bill and the club are not going to play hardball. The quick and easy way to do this with a small number of properties is to invite all the owners out for a nice meal, give them a big brown envelope that has an offer for their property, a nice offer, the phone number of an agent that will help them find a new home, the number of a moving service that will pack and move them.

And a line that says its everyone agrees or no deal.

The last thing Bill is going to want is to look like the rich American being an asshole. That isn't the way he works.
 
Hardcore nimbyism is quite literally the only galvanising political force in Bournemouth. Even if he tried to play hardball, I think he'd be surprised by the response.

Lvthud said:
First, let me say sorry, I'm on the road and replying using my phone so I may make a few posts where one would have done.



Bill and the club are not going to play hardball. The quick and easy way to do this with a small number of properties is to invite all the owners out for a nice meal, give them a big brown envelope that has an offer for their property, a nice offer, the phone number of an agent that will help them find a new home, the number of a moving service that will pack and move them.

And a line that says its everyone agrees or no deal.

The last thing Bill is going to want is to look like the rich American being an asshole. That isn't the way he works.
Click to expand...
 
Def_II_Royalz said:
Hardcore nimbyism is quite literally the only galvanising political force in Bournemouth. Even if he tried to play hardball, I think he'd be surprised by the response.
Click to expand...

This is true and in fairness to the residents of Thistlebarrow Road they would be right to complain. Even if he could buy up the houses behind the NS the ones opposite would then potentially go from facing a normal (relatively posh) residential street to potential facing the **************** end of a football stadium, which would hit their property values. There's just no need for it when the ground isn't hemmed in on two sides.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
This is true and in fairness to the residents of Thistlebarrow Road they would be right to complain. Even if he could buy up the houses behind the NS the ones opposite would then potentially go from facing a normal (relatively posh) residential street to potential facing the **************** end of a football stadium, which would hit their property values. there's just no need for it when the ground isn't hemmed in on two sides.
Click to expand...
Agree, the very simple option is to develop the main and south stands - connect the two and increase to double their current size. This would give a capacity of approx 13,000 in those stands. add in the North and East stand capacity of 6,000 and you are up to about 19,000. Its possible you could increase the East Stand away fans capacity by going upwards in the away area and link to a new South Stand as that part is not overlooking the houses. You could also move the pitch a bit towards the S West to enable development of North stand and East stand but not sure if it would really viable.
 
Relocating the Athletics Stadium would cost between £7 and £10 million, based on what Cardiff spent doing the same thing in 2008/9. So buying up Middleton Gardens to enable expansion of the East Stand might make financial sense if the only viable alternative is the Athletics Track/Training Pitches site.

I wouldn’t touch the North Stand. If the aim is a stadium holding up to about 25k and you need 10% for away fans, then cap the development at 24,000 and put the away fans in the, fairly basic, North Stand. Home fans can sit in the plush, newly built or expanded/refurbished stands on the other three sides.

Of course, all depending on whether Structadene can be persuaded to sell at a reasonable price.
 
I think the bottom image shows the boundary of what must be used for recreation for local residents.
Could be wrong though.
 

Attachments

  • F97806CD-C4D3-458F-B656-9749C3F4AC71.jpeg
    F97806CD-C4D3-458F-B656-9749C3F4AC71.jpeg
    214.7 KB · Views: 58
The walkway at the back of the North Stand is fairly wide so a higher stand could be cantilevered towards the Littledown houses creating a walkway underneath it, similar and on a smaller scale to St. James's Park. The same could work on the East stand after the bottleneck which we wouldn't have to touch ,just fill the corner in.
 
redharry said:
Agree, the very simple option is to develop the main and south stands - connect the two and increase to double their current size. This would give a capacity of approx 13,000 in those stands. add in the North and East stand capacity of 6,000 and you are up to about 19,000. Its possible you could increase the East Stand away fans capacity by going upwards in the away area and link to a new South Stand as that part is not overlooking the houses. You could also move the pitch a bit towards the S West to enable development of North stand and East stand but not sure if it would really viable.
Click to expand...
The issue with this is we would end up with a very lop sided ground a bit like Valley Parade. I wouldn't have an issue with this but would this be the image that BIll Foley would be looking for?
 
afcdibby said:
I think the bottom image shows the boundary of what must be used for recreation for local residents.
Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Can’t expand it fully, but doesn’t the bottom image simply show that BCP council owns the Car Park behind the main stand plus, strangely, one corner of the main stand itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;