New Kings Park Stadium

kirsikka said:
Because you couldn't knock down only part of the stadium. The land starts from the penalty spot.
Click to expand...

You could but the three permanent stands are on Structadene's land are they not? Either way as redharry says they would sell to a developer and if the developer wanted afcbs land they would just buy it too.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
You could but the three permanent stands are on Structadene's land are they not? Either way as redharry says they would sell to a developer and if the developer wanted afcbs land they would just buy it too.
Click to expand...

Not if the land from the penalty spot backward is ours. That means a chunk of each side stand is on our land. So they wouldn't be able to demolish them without us.

That's what I'm getting at. They need us to be able to do something easily. If we choose to be difficult they'd face a huge battle, so there's no upside to them being difficult in negotiations now. Whereas when we first came up and there was about 15 years left on the lease so they held the cards but now it's a bit more evenly balanced.
 
kirsikka said:
Not if the land from the penalty spot backward is ours. That means a chunk of each side stand is on our land. So they wouldn't be able to demolish them without us.

That's what I'm getting at. They need us to be able to do something easily. If we choose to be difficult they'd face a huge battle, so there's no upside to them being difficult in negotiations now. Whereas when we first came up and there was about 15 years left on the lease so they held the cards but now it's a bit more evenly balanced.
Click to expand...
At least the penalty spot area won't need any work doing.
 
kirsikka said:
Not if the land from the penalty spot backward is ours. That means a chunk of each side stand is on our land. So they wouldn't be able to demolish them without us.

That's what I'm getting at. They need us to be able to do something easily. If we choose to be difficult they'd face a huge battle, so there's no upside to them being difficult in negotiations now. Whereas when we first came up and there was about 15 years left on the lease so they held the cards but now it's a bit more evenly balanced.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They sell to a developer who can demolish what they want on their own land. There would be no point playing hardball with the developer.

Whatever happens Structadene get the rent until the end of the lease and the development value of the land.
 
kirsikka said:
How do you get planning permission to demolish three quarters of a stand?
Click to expand...

You just make the neighbouring part of the building safe. In reality it wouldn't come to that as has been said. Structadene don't develop buildings so they'd just sell to a developer. Why would AFCB needlessly play hardball with a developer?
 
Looking at dibbs post its a headache for SD. My guess is they will sell to a developer at the end of the lease who will then negotiate with the club over that sliver of land.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
You just make the neighbouring part of the building safe. In reality it wouldn't come to that as has been said. Structadene don't develop buildings so they'd just sell to a developer. Why would AFCB needlessly play hardball with a developer?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the council would be delighted at the prospect of a chunk of useless stadium being left behind and will wave it through.

It will make the planning process more difficult which will affect the sale price of the land to a developer or... they could work with the club and come to an arrangement. That could either be agreeing to sell together for the best price or them selling the current stadium to us at a more reasonable price than the quoted £20m (IIRC, not sure... it was something stupid) when we first went up.

Either way, we're in a much better position than before when it was simply "Here's our stupidly high price. Pay it or don't, we don't care".

I'm still assuming we would need the land to form part of a land swap, not sure about that, but in that case we'd be looking to try and strike a deal with them.
 
kirsikka said:
I'm sure the council would be delighted at the prospect of a chunk of useless stadium being left behind and will wave it through.

It will make the planning process more difficult which will affect the sale price of the land to a developer or... they could work with the club and come to an arrangement. That could either be agreeing to sell together for the best price or them selling the current stadium to us at a more reasonable price than the quoted £20m (IIRC, not sure... it was something stupid) when we first went up.

Either way, we're in a much better position than before when it was simply "Here's our stupidly high price. Pay it or don't, we don't care".

I'm still assuming we would need the land to form part of a land swap, not sure about that, but in that case we'd be looking to try and strike a deal with them.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it makes much difference to their position. They always had the fallback position of full rent until the end of the lease then selling it for development and that's still the case.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I don't see how it makes much difference to their position. They always had the fallback position of full rent until the end of the lease then selling it for development and that's still the case.
Click to expand...

Maximise the return. Work with us and get more money or be obstinate and have the developer offer less because of potential complications with planning permission. At this point, why would they not want to get the best price they can since the rent is clearly ending soon?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
You could but the three permanent stands are on Structadene's land are they not? Either way as redharry says they would sell to a developer and if the developer wanted afcbs land they would just buy it too.
Click to expand...
Is the land not cover with a planning restriction put on by the deans saying nothing can built on the land unless it’s used for sport or leisure?
 
kirsikka said:
Maximise the return. Work with us and get more money or be obstinate and have the developer offer less because of potential complications with planning permission. At this point, why would they not want to get the best price they can since the rent is clearly ending soon?
Click to expand...

Why would they play hardball?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
You were saying that AFCB would make things difficult for SD. I was saying that they couldn't make much difference. The reality is that a deal would be done and SD get what they want.
Click to expand...

I'm saying if SD don't get the club on board then the club can make life more difficult for SD which would affect the sale price. Therefore, there's no advantage in SD trying to play hardball with us because they're harming their own interests. 10 years ago they could play hardball because they were sitting on 16 years of lease which we had to pay during which time anything could happen, for example the club being taken over by an American billionaire or something else equally weird.

SD may be able to sell but they won't get the best price they can unless they work with the club. Hence it improves our position compared to ten years ago.
 
kirsikka said:
I'm saying if SD don't get the club on board then the club can make life more difficult for SD which would affect the sale price. Therefore, there's no advantage in SD trying to play hardball with us because they're harming their own interests. 10 years ago they could play hardball because they were sitting on 16 years of lease which we had to pay during which time anything could happen, for example the club being taken over by an American billionaire or something else equally weird.

SD may be able to sell but they won't get the best price they can unless they work with the club. Hence it improves our position compared to ten years ago.
Click to expand...

I think you're overstating it. Marginal difference to the sale price if Bill Foley fancies cutting his nose off to spite his face.
 
We can go around in circles here for the next 30 posts but rather than bore everyone, let's just agree I think we're in a better negotiating position with SD than ten years ago and you don't, and leave it there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;