Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2003 0:30:54 GMT 1
This is a detailed reply I got from Albie Fox to my request as to why he voted against the proposed purchase of the Gay Meadow.
It makes interesting reading, and raises quite a few issues. He did not say that this is confidential as other respondents have so here it is:
"To answer your question about my decision to oppose last night buying the Gay Meadow, it was based mainly on financial terms.
First of all I am not allowed to reveal the value the District Valuer has out on the land as it exempt. Suffice to say the land is not worth anywhere near the £14m being asked by club. I also find it suspicious that land that the club say is not suitable for crowds, vehicle, fire and emergency access, as some of the reasons they wish to move, is now suitable for a theatre, multi-storey parking and housing.
Second, committing to this deal would have stopped many schemes already in the pipeline; e.g. Rowleys, the Music Hall and more importantly the Sundorne sports village which will house many sports.
Third, when planning permission was given at Oteley, against the Inspectors advice, it was specifically stated that the permission was given for the football stadium plan as applied for on the night only and nothing else could be built there. So, why buy land that cannot be developed?
Fourth, the deal would have meant the council paying for the parking and infrastructure that club has got planning for. Why? It would be of no use to us. The council therefore would be financing a private concern and if anyone decided to take it to the courts we councillors could have been individually surcharged for the return of the money to the council coffers.
Fifth, if we had gone ahead and paid the £14m, and any other grants had come through for the build, the club informed us they would keep those funds despite the fact that the council would have been paying way, way over the odds on the deal.
Sixth, the football club have been making out that the delays are all due to the Council when nothing could be further from the truth. Time and again the club have put in plans with great fanfare in the papers only to withdraw them. In the past the council have offered financial assistance only for the club to turn it down. Why? I suspect that it is because some people would not be making as much money from the deal. That is not on with tax payers money.
Seventh, if we went ahead, the cost of the whole plan would have put the council in a very precarious position financially. That is not good financial planning, it is gambling. Something I don't do.
The theatre will be built as the councillors want it to happen. Despite what has been said the Smithfield site is still possible and we have the money to do it.
There are more minor reasons but the ones above are the main thrust of my objection.
I only hope that the directors of STFC stop playing around and get on with being realistic and save the club within the realms of what they can afford. If they decide to rebuild at the Gay Meadow, I for one would support finding a way to help them. As it is the Oteley Road site is the wrong place and I have stated why many times before. They must go for what is possible now as opposed to a daydream that is quickly fading away.
Albie Fox " --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2003 0:36:29 GMT 1
Honest people do not speak in this tone:
"Time and again the club have put in plans with great fanfare in the papers only to withdraw them."
But the sad truth is that Albie Fox has won. For the moment.
The club's strategy now needs to change and we as supporters need to be kept informed at all parts of the journey, not just when they want to use us for fundraising (which I found a joke from the offset).
Over to you Silent Roland and Sweaty Keith......
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 24, 2003 0:47:30 GMT 1
In the past Albie Fox has said that the Gay Meadow site is unsuitable for a football ground and has accepted the need to move. He is now saying "tough".
I can't recall which inspectors said that were against the New Meadow getting permission. Can anyone else?
On his first point - is the theatre potentially going t have 8,000 people turning up? Don't think so.
The point about paying over the odds for the deal - we can't answer that.
Delays in submitting applications - quite right. But that has been handled by Alaska and not the club.
The overall point about how this deal could have put alot of other things in jeopardy may very well be correct, and at the end of the day that is a matter of priorities that a change of political complexion may or may not alter.
As it stands the New Meadow is a pipe dream.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 24, 2003 1:55:32 GMT 1
Albie Fox the great sopkesman for the people of sutton
Lives in Bayston Hill
|
|
mattsnapper at gay meadow
Guest
|
Post by mattsnapper at gay meadow on Dec 24, 2003 2:25:23 GMT 1
We have three business men controlling the club.
There have been hurdles and more hurdles. We are a dying club who needed a new stadium 15 years ago.
I can not stand the sight of Mr Fox but in an objective mood I kind of agree with most of his points and fair play to the man for replying to Mysticsdad.
Alaska have failed. Sack them.
Its time to get hard and real and face reality.
We have an utterly shocking commercial department with no sense of nowse or direction. We have people who have been willing to input ideas and energy and have been shunned away.
Shrewsbury Town are a conference CLUB and will be for many years to come. Forget Quinn, forget Ratters, forget King.. we have been a conference run CLUB for many seasons. OK we are not bankrupt, but I dont see the words INNOVATIVE ever used to describe STFC.
Unless we, the fans bloody well get together and actually do something indtead of moaning and stuff... stand for NM councillor..at least it will become more of a local issue that people will take note of.
Forget buying Graham Potter, the club sould be helping to fund and orchestrated movement with the help of fans, womens teams, centre of excellence.
I personally feel the club deserve to be where they are.
This town is great, but it sucks. Ill go to Wolves Civic to see the Human League, go to NIA to see the WonderStuff. Ill go to Wrexham to see league football (sorry EBF - its Wolves I hate).
Everyone needs to rally around and give each other a kick up the ass.
Do we want it or are we going to let the dying people of Shrewsbury stop this town from progressing. The council needs new blood, new ideas, a new direction.
We have to be more political, more influential, more demanding.
Ade, Ian and ALL who help.. sorry its not enough.
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Dec 24, 2003 2:32:10 GMT 1
Well, at least he gave his reasons. One point though. He says Oteley Road (the New Meadow site) is the wrong site. Why? Ok, he represents the Sutton Ward nearby but hasn't the site planning permission for a stadium? According to the Shropshire Star, all the Tories & Independents seem to have opposed the purchase whilst the Labour & Lib Dems were in favour. Is it right that the tory leader of the council runs a sports shop in town? If so, maybe fans should vote with their feet. As the Star puts it "Standing Stillsbury"
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Dec 24, 2003 2:32:26 GMT 1
but it is a start
and it's a foundation we can build from
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Dec 24, 2003 2:48:55 GMT 1
Albie Fox the great sopkesman for the people of sutton Lives in Bayston Hill He used to represent Bayston Hill as well until he got kicked out. Note that the current Bayston Hill councillors voted to purchase the ground.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 24, 2003 10:29:15 GMT 1
It is difficult when you don't know all the facts, but I question Alaska's involvement in this (not for the first time).
Is that what Mr Fox is hinting at here ?
"I suspect that it is because some people would not be making as much money from the deal. "
|
|
|
Post by Money Making on Dec 24, 2003 10:42:16 GMT 1
but then how can the tories possibly object to a private firm making money out of a construction deal?
they were never going to do it for free
It's incredible, that this, the party who are all for enterprise, free market economy and contracting out seem determined to not allow a construction firm to make any money out of a construction project
they aren't going to do it for fun are they?
|
|
|
Post by Talking Bollox on Dec 24, 2003 10:55:02 GMT 1
Mr Fox refers to Tax Payers money-------- Was it not the Council who wisely spent 4.5 million pounds on cobbling High Street only to dig it back up again. Was it not the Council who fiddled the New Council Offices. How can Albie Fox justify some of his comments when he is part of the biggest money wasters in this Town.
There is 4000 regular supporters of STFC, so lets have a March through Town and protest on a regular basis with the use of the press and highlight the needs of STFC and at the same time embarrass these inept Tory tosspots.
Its time to modernise this Town and not become a Haven for retiree's like Eastbourne.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 24, 2003 10:56:31 GMT 1
But weren't the Council being asked to pay £14m just for the land ?
|
|
|
Post by Talking Bollox on Dec 24, 2003 10:59:59 GMT 1
If sold to a Company like Waitrose or Asda it would fetch £14 million, I would expect!
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Dec 24, 2003 11:07:51 GMT 1
The theatre will be built as the councillors want it to happen. Albie Fox " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He could have saved himself time by just using the one line from the middle.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 24, 2003 11:09:39 GMT 1
I may be talking bollox as well, but Cllr Fox said £14m was well in excess of the District Valuers valuation. That would make it difficult to justify.
The valuation of the Gay Meadow site is also affected by the covenant, which is there to stop STFC selling it to a supermarket.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Dec 24, 2003 11:16:16 GMT 1
With Scooter on this. 14m does seem way over the top.
But you have to look at it in a way that how long will it take for the 14m to be recouped before a profit is made?
Luxury flats (I know we already have god knows how many) may be the way forward because high rent costs would recoup the 14m a lot quicker than a theatre would because of its running costs.
Why would the council want the meadow site when there is a site on smithfield ready to go, and it would be a cheaper option with better access and parking facilities nearby?
We have to be a bit more realistic here and offer options rather then objections.
|
|
|
Post by petetheloon on Dec 24, 2003 11:19:43 GMT 1
Also does anyone think that the Labour and Lib Dem councillors would have voted the way they did if they knew they were going to win? They must have known that they would be out voted by the tories and voted yes in order to make a political gain before the next election to give them the image of wanting progress? would they have voted any different if they were certain to win?
Just a theory.....
|
|
|
Post by Talking Bollox on Dec 24, 2003 11:21:27 GMT 1
The "Talking Bollox" refers to Albie Fox and not you Scooter. The covenent issue will be the same for houses being built on the Area too!
The real fact is, when the New Meadow got its approval, it was under a stronger Labour council. But since the Tories have got control..... IMO they will doing anything to stop it from going ahead.
The only way that STFC will get anywhere is if all the Labour voters get off there arse at the next local elections and see that they get over all control. This can be clearly seen by the way the voting went, Tories against and Labour/libDems For.
For anyone who normally votes Tory on this board may I recommend throwing away your principles and vote Labour next time and think of your beloved STFC. Its the only way forward IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 24, 2003 11:44:25 GMT 1
I have never voted Tory yet, and I've been voting since 1971.
But I think Petetheloon has a point. Did Labour/Lib Dems have a real plan to take this forward or is everyone just playing politics ?
We might all be talking bollox, because I don't think any of us have all the facts.
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 24, 2003 12:29:25 GMT 1
"First of all I am not allowed to reveal the value the District Valuer has out on the land as it exempt. Suffice to say the land is not worth anywhere near the £14m being asked by club."
There's a fair chance i'll be able to get an answer to the district valuers vaulation over the next week or so, i'll let you know if I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2003 13:11:15 GMT 1
It is £7 million.
|
|
|
Post by Gallon on Dec 24, 2003 13:11:35 GMT 1
My God, reading this thread some of you are starting to beleive Fox's drivel.
Some quick answers to some of his mistaken points:
1) The valuation of £14mil was for the Gay Meadow and the land next to the New Meadow. Someone has offered over £10mil for the GM, so manybe £14mil is not over the odds for the 2 pieces of land. STFC are saying that the GM is unsuitable for a 10,000 capacity redevelopment, the Theatre would be 700 seats, so why the suspicison there is no comparsion.
2) If SABC spent the money on GM and NM land they wouldnt need to spend money on the Music Hall and Sundourne sports village.
3) An Inspector never determined the planning app for the New Meadow. He is misleadingly reffering to an earlier proposal on the land for industrial use that was promoted during the Review of the SABC Local Plan by the landownerproir to ALsaka and STFC's involvement. How does he know the rest of the land cannot be developed, there will be Policies in the Local PLan supporting the provision of Sports facilites for the community.
4) Not sure if this is true anyway isint only fair the should share some of the infrastructure costs if they were develop the land adjoining the NM.
5) Again cant comment on the valuation
6) Delays, well STFC waited 6 months for land deal suggestion for Dundine, the orginal application for housing on GM was only withdrawn becasue the planners recmmended refusal of the app on design grounds. First i have heard that SABC have offered financial assistance,,but all along hes been saying public funds shouldnt support a private company.
Matt, i have been frustrated sometimes with Alsaka but they have put alot of time and money into the proposal. We have consent for the NM, if we get the funding through the sale of GM for housing then so be it. Opportunity is lost for the Theatre, but that is out of STFC's hands. The NM proposal is still very much on, despite what FOx et al think
They are trying to grind us down, dont let b@stards alter our reslove. Togehter we are bigger than them.
|
|
|
Post by Salop_Ian on Dec 24, 2003 17:27:44 GMT 1
If my memory serves my right the price that was agreed for the land at Oteley Road was £3-3.5 million. If you take it that GM might be worth £10 million then that is where you get your £14 million from.
However, the key about the £14 million "price tag" for Gay Meadow is that it reflects the costs of relocating the football club. Basically what STFC and Alaska said to the Council was: "If you want Gay Meadow and Oteley Road then we need £14 million for it to become available." The Council considered it and said no. Fine. The idea that STFC would have sold Gay Meadow to the Council at a price that wouldn't have funded the new stadium is ludicrous. The Lab/Lib supporters of the purchase agrued that Gay Meadow was such a special site that it was worth paying £14m for.
OK you can say "well this is so many thousands an acre and that is very expensive in comparison to other sites" but are these other sites the sort of place that you would want to put a theatre? What's that saying about knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing!
As Gallon points out above most of Fox's points are policital spin. They are fig leaves to cover the fact that it is in his own political interests to stop the stadium plan. He has promised his electors that he will stop the stadium - if he doesn't he hasn't got a great deal of credibility.
The interesting thing is that when the Dunedin deal was being discussed he actually backed it because it "was good for Shrewsbury". He then went to the Council to try and get a parking permit scheme in place to protect the residents. Later he back tracked again and didn't actually vote for it when it went to council.
Take for example his comments about the Land Inspectorate. Yes it is true that the Inspectorate confirmed that the land should be designated as Countryside in the Local Plan. However, when the New Meadow application was put in the Planning Officer recommended accepting the application because the Oteley Road site was the best available in accordance with the local plan. Fox is on the relevant council planning committee and spoke and voted against planning permission being given, but he was in the minority and should really accept that this was a valid democratic decision. David Banks applied for a Judicial Review of the planning application and the High Court ruled that the decision was in accordance with local planning policy. To suggest that there is something illegitimate about the planning decision is being misleading in the extreme. He might not believe it the right decision, but he can't claim that it was not a legitimate democratic decision.
Also it was stated that the planning Application for NM had been summitted and withdrawn on a number of occasions. That is wrong. As Gallon says above that was done once and that was because the application had no chance of succeeding.
|
|