Training ground

pedro3187 said:
You really are out of touch with the modern day game aren't you
Click to expand...

Christ.. your not wrong about that..........and thank God for that!

And of course I need to recognise they are 'Athletes' now......Pogba and Young of Manu for example are athletes. ..just examples like...know what I mean...
 
Last edited:
Sorry Roger said:
A) We will swap the land we own, roughly from the edge of the penalty area in front of the South Stand to the southern boundary of the Dean Court site for the Athletic Stadium site. You can swap two pieces of land of unequal size.

B) It doesn’t have to be in Kings Park. It could for example be at Slades Farm. If it were to stay in Kings Park the obvious site would be on the two football pitches adjacent to Kings Park school, south of the cricket pavillion which was previously earmarked for an ice rink.

C) on the open space argument, the site earmarked for an ice rink has already got outline planning permission to reduce the amount of open space, so there is a precedent.

I don’t see planning as an issue provided there is a sensible travel plan in place to mitigate extra car journeys. The issue is finding the money to pay or it.
Click to expand...

I was replying to a post suggesting we build the training ground where we are now, leave the stadium dormant and build a new stadium at the athletics stadium. That leaves no land for a swap and a lot of hacked off people, as well as an empty stadium.
 
pedro3187 said:
Luckily our management team aren't stuck in the past. If they are prioritising a training facility before a stadium I'd say it's a pretty good indicator that it's needed and running on the beach just isn't going to cut it
Click to expand...

Oh ok then!.. I expect your totally right....maybe an updated training facility will propel us from 7th to 1st. and then we will need the Stadium too...oh eck..I need to button it dont I ?
Just wish theyd get it all sorted....
 
GARYafCb said:
But we would build a new ground where our training pitches are now.
So where would you suggest we train.
A new ground is much needed, but nothing will happen until we can train away from kings park.
Admittedly nothing may happen when we do - but we live in hope.
Click to expand...
You'd like to think if they're investing that sort of money on a training facility then a new ground will follow. The ground doesn't make any financial sense to some people, it does or did to the club but we'll see what happens.
 
bog_standard said:
You'd like to think if they're investing that sort of money on a training facility then a new ground will follow. The ground doesn't make any financial sense to some people, it does or did to the club but we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

It didn't make sense to the club either did it ... because they shelved it.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
It didn't make sense to the club either did it ... because they shelved it.
Click to expand...
We both know that's not what the club said was it! They said they didn't want it to cost us our premier league status, not that it wasn't financially viable but you interpret it how you want and as I said we'll see what happens.
 
bog_standard said:
We both know that's not what the club said was it! They said they didn't want it to cost us our premier league status, not that it wasn't financially viable but you interpret it how you want and as I said we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Things that are financially viable get built. If it was financially viable why would it cost us our Premier League status? It would be a good investment in it's own right and be worth building irrespective of the money that we need to spend on players. I think you've stumbled across my point this entire time.

If you think that it eventually getting built will prove you right and me wrong you are mistaken. They need to find funding for it - that finding will come from one of the areas I've outlined.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Things that are financially viable get built. If it was financially viable why would it cost us our Premier League status? It would be a good investment in it's own right and be worth building irrespective of the money that we need to spend on players. I think you've stumbled across my point this entire time.

If you think that it eventually getting built will prove you right and me wrong you are mistaken. They need to find funding for it - that finding will come from one of the areas I've outlined.
Click to expand...
You heard what the club said mate and I'm inclined to believe them over you. No one in their right mind would just will give us the money unless it's financially viable. As I've said before that's where I think you're wrong but you think your right, so lets see what happens.
 
bog_standard said:
You heard what the club said mate and I'm inclined to believe them over you. No one in their right mind would just will give us the money unless it's financially viable. As I've said before that's where I think you're wrong but you think your right, so lets see what happens.
Click to expand...

Yes they said the money was better spent on the team... because a new ground uses up funds... because it doesn't pay for itself... like something that is financially viable.

No one has given us the money have they?

All I've ever said to you is that buildings need finding. I'm not wrong about that.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yes they said the money was better spent on the team... because a new ground uses up funds... because it doesn't pay for itself... like something that is financially viable.

No one has given us the money have they?

All I've ever said to you is that buildings need finding. I'm not wrong about that.
Click to expand...

It’s also a very good excuse to placate the supporters whilst the football club work through a power struggle between shareholders, work through red tape with the council and move the chess pieces of available land about.

If we get to a point and the training ground is ready to move into, the training pitches and portacabin are no longer used in Kings Park and there’s still no movement on the stadium....then I’ll believe the...”well it’s investment in the team or stadium.”

Either way, it’s not quite the same thing as when Mostyn told us it was either sign three kids from Reading on loan or pay HMRC.
 
The delay with the stadium has probably worked to our advantage in a way. Back then the club were probably looking at trying to raise investment to pay for it from fresh funds. Now, a few years later, with the crazy inflation we have seen in player values, it's likely that in a few years time we will be able to sell 2-3 of our fringe players or one of our best players and the income from that would cover a large chunk of the stadium cost. I think as we continue to remain in the PL it should be easier to commit to a new stadium. For this though we must keep Eddie and Jason here, buy promising youngsters for sensible prices, improve them through coaching to become PL superstars and play hardball when selling them on.
I tend to agree that as a pure investment the stadium does not make a lot of sense so realistically the only way it will happen will be if there is a desire to build it and there is enough money sloshing about to somehow pay for it. That will probably take a bit of time but I think that situation could arise in the foreseeable future.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yes they said the money was better spent on the team... because a new ground uses up funds... because it doesn't pay for itself... like something that is financially viable.

No one has given us the money have they?

All I've ever said to you is that buildings need finding. I'm not wrong about that.
Click to expand...
Your trying to back track on what you said. The club said it was investing in the team rather than the ground, you said it doesn't make financial sense to build a new ground full stop, in your arrogant way. As I've tried to explain in the past, it relies on a number of factors on whether it is financially viable.
 
bog_standard said:
Your trying to back track on what you said. The club said it was investing in the team rather than the ground, you said it doesn't make financial sense to build a new ground full stop, in your arrogant way. As I've tried to explain in the past, it relies on a number of factors on whether it is financially viable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I explained to you why it wasn't a commercially viable investment. If they can make it viable with other commercial or residential property included in the scheme then it will be commercially viable. As a football stadium development on it's own the income and risk does not make financial sense. It may make sense from a club perspective, which is non-financial, but even then someone, owner, council or public body will have to make up the shortfall out of their own pocket.

You've never understood my point.
 
By commercially viable investment presumably you mean one that will pay for itself through additional revenue over a twelve to sixteen year period? If so it is probably true that building a new stadium at present doesn't meet this criteria, but that is looking at it in isolation from its function and doesn't take into account its capital value.
It seems to me that Max has not put a foot wrong so far with his development plan for the Club, and the sequence of investments up till now appear to have been in the right order to create a well established Premier League team. The emphasis on building a young team capable of flourishing in the League for a five year period, which hopefully is what is being put together at the moment, will allow Max to invest in the capital infrastructure that should go with it.
Building a new and bigger stadium before the team is ready is the wrong way round for us. If the team can be consolidated and successfully renewed over an extended period of years, then the requirement to make the new stadium financially viable in the way that normal commercial developments are measured does not apply because a well established Premier League team with a new fit-for-purpose stadium is a going concern that can be sold to new owners for an amount sufficient to repay all the investment in it made by the current owner, rather than just relying on revenue to do so.
Looking on from outside, that seems to be the thinking behind the current development policy.
 
LewSwimmin said:
By commercially viable investment presumably you mean one that will pay for itself through additional revenue over a twelve to sixteen year period? If so it is probably true that building a new stadium at present doesn't meet this criteria, but that is looking at it in isolation from its function and doesn't take into account its capital value.
It seems to me that Max has not put a foot wrong so far with his development plan for the Club, and the sequence of investments up till now appear to have been in the right order to create a well established Premier League team. The emphasis on building a young team capable of flourishing in the League for a five year period, which hopefully is what is being put together at the moment, will allow Max to invest in the capital infrastructure that should go with it.
Building a new and bigger stadium before the team is ready is the wrong way round for us. If the team can be consolidated and successfully renewed over an extended period of years, then the requirement to make the new stadium financially viable in the way that normal commercial developments are measured does not apply because a well established Premier League team with a new fit-for-purpose stadium is a going concern that can be sold to new owners for an amount sufficient to repay all the investment in it made by the current owner, rather than just relying on revenue to do so.
Looking on from outside, that seems to be the thinking behind the current development policy.
Click to expand...

Some truth in this. I don't think the capital value of a new stadium will be as much as it costs to build, which is what I mean by not viable. Our back of fag packet income projections on here also show that it's at best borderline viable if we stay in the top flight but nowhere near it when you factor in risk. But as you say maybe the overall value of the club would be enhanced by a new ground to cover the expenditure.. if they manage to stay in the division.

I still think that whatever way you slice it you are asking someone to punt up to £100m on the club not getting relegated. No traditional property investor would fancy that investment so it still boils down to someone sticking their hand in their pocket to fund it. You'd still want to offset some of that risk.

I'm certainly not saying it's a bad idea, I never have despite what bog_standard thinks my posts mean.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Absolutely not. I explained to you why it wasn't a commercially viable investment. If they can make it viable with other commercial or residential property included in the scheme then it will be commercially viable. As a football stadium development on it's own the income and risk does not make financial sense. It may make sense from a club perspective, which is non-financial, but even then someone, owner, council or public body will have to make up the shortfall out of their own pocket.

You've never understood my point.
Click to expand...
Round and round we go again! I disagree and more importantly the club disagreed with you that it's not financially viable, at the risk of repeating myself, they chose to invest in the team rather than the stadium, that's what they said anyway. Just a different opinion than yours that's all, you appear to thick to understand that though. At the end of the day you may well be right and then the stadium probably won't get built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;