New Stadium - Sainsburys loan means we have to move?

[londonblue]

Here's an interesting angle on this new stadium. This is what someone said to me a couple of days ago. Basically he said that we simply can't afford to pay Sainsburys back and therfore have to build this new stadium.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Do you mean we have to proceed with the move, or do you mean we have to build it?

 

[londonblue]

I guess both...

 

[Holy Joe]

Here's an interesting angle on this new stadium. This is what someone said to me a couple of days ago. Basically he said that we simply can't afford to pay Sainsburys back and therfore have to build this new stadium.

What does everyone else think?

Yes - without vacating Roots Hall (or a rich benefactor coming in) we cannot repay Sainsburys. But remember Sainsburys have taken security on the loans so if we do not repay the loans they get the club and pieces of land.

 

[ElstreeBlue]

Here's an interesting angle on this new stadium. This is what someone said to me a couple of days ago. Basically he said that we simply can't afford to pay Sainsburys back and therfore have to build this new stadium.

What does everyone else think?

Of course that's why they've lent the money. Although Ron has talked about borrowing from Sainsbury's Bank, it's because they want us out of Roots Hall asap so they can build the supermarket there asap. Why else lend/guarantee £8m or whatever the figure now is? And on what terms - I hope the interest rate is no worse than the PFA's loan!

The trouble is: for a whole host of reasons, I just can't see the new stadium being built.

And even IF the stadium were ever to be built, the club still owes loads of money and would be a mere tenant at the new stadium.

So what happens next? Can anyone reassure me how we're anything but absolutely screwed?

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

The trouble is: for a whole host of reasons, I just can't see the new stadium ever being built.

?

Agree with you, and for each month work fails to start on the F.F. area, Sainsburys patience will start to wear thin. How long are they prepared to wait for their superstore?. Obviously they know how long F.F. should take to construct (without any problems), but i would have thought they plan to be up and running within a 2 year maximum.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Of course that's why they've lent the money. Although Ron has talked about borrowing from Sainsbury's Bank, it's because they want us out of Roots Hall asap so they can build the supermarket there asap. Why else lend/guarantee £8m or whatever the figure now is? And on what terms - I hope the interest rate is no worse than the PFA's loan!

The trouble is: for a whole host of reasons, I just can't see the new stadium being built.

And even IF the stadium were ever to be built, the club still owes loads of money and would be a mere tenant at the new stadium.

So what happens next? Can anyone reassure me how we're anything but absolutely screwed?

The club is already a tenant, so if the new stadium is built then they are in no worse position then they already are in.

Is it the club who owes loads of money, or Ron Martin's other companies?

 

[BrettieAngell]

If the new ground isn't built, surely it adios SUFC??

 

[ElstreeBlue]

The club is already a tenant, so if the new stadium is built then they are in no worse position then they already are in.

Is it the club who owes loads of money, or Ron Martin's other companies?

The club is currently a tenant but not paying rent at the moment. (Do we know whether the current rent is owing but not being charged and therefore accuring as a debt to be repaid at a later date, or has it actually been written off?) Anyway, would this position continue for on-going rent once the means (ie the club's relocation) to achieve the end (of building the more lucrative property aspects, ie the rest of the development at FF) is attained? Currently, it is important to keep the club alive (otherwise the development won't happen) even if it means not requiring payment of any rent. How many tenants don't pay rent? Would that position continue at FF? What would be the reason for the landlord not to charge rent then? What rent would be charged?

Both owe money. Ron Martin's other companies owe loads of money. The club owes or has owed (depending on what has recently been paid off by the club from Sainsbury's money via Ron's other companies) various people money, and the accounts show that the club also owe a lot to Ron Martin's companies. What would happen to the club's debts to Ron Martin's companies (if the new complex ever gets built)? Would they (or anyone to whom they sell their interest in the new development) just write off the debt especially if they also owe lots of money and need as much money in as possible, or would that be the time to require the club to start paying large sums? The Greek public sector debt situation comes to mind. Never mind the day to day needs - we could be told to pay back £x each year to those companies that control the debt first or they could pull the plug. Not a pleasant thought.

Anyway, these questions are academic for now. I can't see the new ground being built. Many things need to happen for the new stadium to come to fruition. Wasn't building work meant to have started this summer?

I think we're screwed either way. Tell me why I'm wrong?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The club is currently a tenant but not paying rent at the moment. (Do we know whether the current rent is owing but not being charged and therefore accuring as a debt to be repaid at a later date, or has it actually been written off?) Anyway, would this position continue for on-going rent once the means (ie the club's relocation) to achieve the end (of building the more lucrative property aspects, ie the rest of the development at FF) is attained? Currently, it is important to keep the club alive (otherwise the development won't happen) even if it means not requiring payment of any rent. How many tenants don't pay rent? Would that position continue at FF? What would be the reason for the landlord not to charge rent then? What rent would be charged?

These are all valid questions but are issues the club has to face whether it attempts to stay at Roots Hall long term or relocates to Fossets Farm. What is (was?) the consortium's answer to how would rent be paid?

Theoritically, rent would still be cheaper at an out of town site, notwithstanding the improved facilities. We should also benefit from a rent free period and the rent would be reviewable (upwards!).

Both owe money. Ron Martin's other companies owe loads of money. The club owes or has owed (depending on what has recently been paid off by the club from Sainsbury's money via Ron's other companies) various people money, and the accounts show that the club also owe a lot to Ron Martin's companies. What would happen to the club's debts to Ron Martin's companies (if the new complex ever gets built)? Would they (or anyone to whom they sell their interest in the new development) just write off the debt especially if they also owe lots of money and need as much money in as possible, or would that be the time to require the club to start paying large sums? The Greek public sector debt situation comes to mind. Never mind the day to day needs - we could be told to pay back £x each year to those companies that control the debt first or they could pull the plug. Not a pleasant thought.

Anyway, these questions are academic for now. I can't see the new ground being built. Many things need to happen for the new stadium to come to fruition. Wasn't building work meant to have started this summer?

I think the new ground will get built. The way I see it, Sainsburys are in too deep for it not to proceed. I wouldn't read too much into the slipped deadlines. My best guess would be for further delays and missed targets, but it still getting built.

I think we're screwed either way. Tell me why I'm wrong?

Sorry, can't do. I thought we were already screwed before Ron got involved.

 

[ElstreeBlue]

These are all valid questions but are issues the club has to face whether it attempts to stay at Roots Hall long term or relocates to Fossets Farm. What is (was?) the consortium's answer to how would rent be paid?

Theoritically, rent would still be cheaper at an out of town site, notwithstanding the improved facilities. We should also benefit from a rent free period and the rent would be reviewable (upwards!).

I think the new ground will get built. The way I see it, Sainsburys are in too deep for it not to proceed. I wouldn't read too much into the slipped deadlines. My best guess would be for further delays and missed targets, but it still getting built.

Sorry, can't do. I thought we were already screwed before Ron got involved.

One of these days, I'm going to learn how to quote from bits of people's messages and intersperse my responses with them to make it clearer, as you expertly do! However, if you bear with me, commenting on each of your points in turn:

1 I agree. My concern is that as things currently stand (in the medium and long term - at least we have some breathing space for the next few months but this can't carry on for ever) we're screwed whether or not we stay at Roots Hall. The more money that is borrowed (whether by the club or Ron's companies) and the longer it takes to pay back and also the stadium to get built, the less likely the club (or Ron) has any chance of being able to benefit.

2 I was wondering how long it would take for me to be probed about the consortium! To repeat my previous line, I'm afraid it's not my position to publish any consortium plans (and I'm sure you respect the limits to what I can say, YB) if they have not yet put something into the public domain. All I can say is that I personally would have no concerns about the club's position on paying rent to the landowner at the new stadium if the consortium were in charge. I appreciate that's no comfort to anyone else. That is all totally academic, though. The consortium are not running things and something would drastically have to change to make that happen.

3 I don't think the ground will get built. I absolutely agree that Sainsbury's (and Ron Martin for that matter) are very keen for it to be. Sainsbury's have invested a significant amount (although nothing like as much money as is still needed to make the project happen). But there are too many other factors outside of their control. I believe that they have more chance of getting the development done if they take on the whole project, but again I can't see that happening. You'd also hope that they realise what a minefield they'd be getting themselves into if they build a supermarket on the site of a deceased football club that had been at the centre of an area's community for generations. But there will come a point when they will cut their losses rather than throw more money in if they think they are pouring money down the drain and not getting anywhere. Then what happens?

4 Thanks for your reassurance!! Seriously, I don't think you or anyone can reassure me. I just can't see a way through all of this. If the consortium were in charge, I can see how it would all work out, but I don't think that's going to happen unfortunately. I think we're screwed. Feeling very despondent about it all.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

One of these days, I'm going to learn how to quote from bits of people's messages and intersperse my responses with them to make it clearer, as you expertly do!

By wrapping (quote) and (/quote) around the text, but where the round brackets ( )are replaced with square brackets [ ] . Have a look at the coding when you reply to this!

The important thing to remember is to make sure for every open quote ie (quote) there is also a close quote (/quote).

However, if you bear with me, commenting on each of your points in turn:

1 I agree. My concern is that as things currently stand (in the medium and long term - at least we have some breathing space for the next few months but this can't carry on for ever) we're screwed whether or not we stay at Roots Hall. The more money that is borrowed (whether by the club or Ron's companies) and the longer it takes to pay back and also the stadium to get built, the less likely the club (or Ron) has any chance of being able to benefit.

Agreed. It's in the club's interest to get the stadium built sooner rather than later. Easier said than done - just ask Jobson (although that's also easier said than done unless you are a medium).

2 I was wondering how long it would take for me to be probed about the consortium! To repeat my previous line, I'm afraid it's not my position to publish any consortium plans (and I'm sure you respect the limits to what I can say, YB) if they have not yet put something into the public domain. All I can say is that I personally would have no concerns about the club's position on paying rent to the landowner at the new stadium if the consortium were in charge. I appreciate that's no comfort to anyone else. That is all totally academic, though. The consortium are not running things and something would drastically have to change to make that happen.

It was more curiosity than anything else. I appreciate that there are limits to what people (including RM can reveal). If the project was financially successful, I believe RM would have allowed SUFC to stay at a heavily subsidised rent, maybe even a peppercorn. But it's not going to be a financial success, so its academic and I think we are looking at market rent.

3 I don't think the ground will get built. I absolutely agree that Sainsbury's (and Ron Martin for that matter) are very keen for it to be. Sainsbury's have invested a significant amount (although nothing like as much money as is still needed to make the project happen). But there are too many other factors outside of their control. I believe that they have more chance of getting the development done if they take on the whole project, but again I can't see that happening. You'd also hope that they realise what a minefield they'd be getting themselves into if they build a supermarket on the site of a deceased football club that had been at the centre of an area's community for generations. But there will come a point when they will cut their losses rather than throw more money in if they think they are pouring money down the drain and not getting anywhere. Then what happens?

I see them taking on the development themselves. I therefore expect the cheapest options to be taken with the new stadium and the poster who was worried about cushions on the seats detracting from the football experience of sitting in discomfort has nothing to worry about.

What hurdles are still to be negotiated? I see the existing ones as delaying rather than terminating it. I don't believe Sainsburys would have underwritten this year's losses if they weren't confident that it would proceed.

4 Thanks for your reassurance!! Seriously, I don't think you or anyone can reassure me. I just can't see a way through all of this. If the consortium were in charge, I can see how it would all work out, but I don't think that's going to happen unfortunately. I think we're screwed. Feeling very despondent about it all.

The reason I may appear chipper or blase is that I've been through this sense of despondency. I remember making a big effort to attend as many games as I could a decade or so ago (even though the football was dire), because I thought that I needed to make the most of it, whilst there was still a club to support and I just couldn't see how there would still be a club in a decade's time. But here we are.

Some may interpret that as me now having a false sense of invincibility, but I think it's more a case of I've accepted our fate. At the moment things are exciting on the field, and I'm going to enjoy it whilst I can. It's just I'm now not ruling out the possibility that we'll somehow survive.

 

[EastStandBlue]

What hurdles are still to be negotiated? I see the existing ones as delaying rather than terminating it. I don't believe Sainsburys would have underwritten this year's losses if they weren't confident that it would proceed.

Whilst I think that's true (about Sainsbury's) It entirely depends on what these hurdles actually are. If there's any truth in the Consortium having purchased a plot of land integral to the development, then I guess it's entirely down to them when/if (Especially if, given the expiry of planning permission in 12 months) the relocation plans go ahead.

 

[shallowshrimper]

Must admit hadnt heard that before about consortium buying land integral to FF development and would find that very worrying if true. From what I can hear not too much love lost between Ron and the consortium, also brings into question motive for so doing as would certainly throw spanner in works for quick start. Possible compulsory purchase I wonder?

As far as I can see new development has overwhelming approval from Southend council, Rochford Council as well as from public enquiry. Also Sainsburys seem intent on not just developing Roots Hall but are also co-developers off FF from what I remember of revised 106 agreement. Seems to me too many people have invested too much time and money for it to fail now.

Mind you the way it goes with us, ground sharing with col ewe would never surprise me lol

 

[ElstreeBlue]

Must admit hadnt heard that before about consortium buying land integral to FF development and would find that very worrying if true. From what I can hear not too much love lost between Ron and the consortium, also brings into question motive for so doing as would certainly throw spanner in works for quick start. Possible compulsory purchase I wonder?

As far as I can see new development has overwhelming approval from Southend council, Rochford Council as well as from public enquiry. Also Sainsburys seem intent on not just developing Roots Hall but are also co-developers off FF from what I remember of revised 106 agreement. Seems to me too many people have invested too much time and money for it to fail now.

Mind you the way it goes with us, ground sharing with col ewe would never surprise me lol

The consortium want what's best for the club.

Plenty of things need sorting that have nothing to do with the consortium before there's any hope of a new stadium. Weren't we told at one point that it was down to a pizza shop? It's all far more complicated.

 

[Hotman]

Here's an interesting angle on this new stadium. This is what someone said to me a couple of days ago. Basically he said that we simply can't afford to pay Sainsburys back and therfore have to build this new stadium.

What does everyone else think?

I would have thought that was obvious to anyone looking at the SUFC situation...

 

[Hotman]

If the new ground isn't built, surely it adios SUFC??

Not necessarily, I'm sure there would be an opt-out clause to provide for an inability to leave RH. It will be expensive for whoever succeeds Ron Martin though...

 

[Hotman]

Whilst I think that's true (about Sainsbury's) It entirely depends on what these hurdles actually are. If there's any truth in the Consortium having purchased a plot of land integral to the development, then I guess it's entirely down to them when/if (Especially if, given the expiry of planning permission in 12 months) the relocation plans go ahead.

I'm not privy to whether any land was purchased with the intention of scuppering RM's plans, or if the land was owned before recent developments.

If it has been purchased with this intent recently, then I'm very concerned that RM was not able to fund the purchase of an ancillary plot of land, let alone the development of a football ground and complex.

 

[dashman]

Im non the wiser after reading all this thread lol! Guess we all should remain positive and live in hope, wherever that is.....

 

[Beefy]

I would have thought that was obvious to anyone looking at the SUFC situation...

And should have been obviously for the past 13 years.

Since Vic sold up our only future was the development of a new ground somewhere.