Page 3 of 5
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:20 am
by SmileyMan
Hmm, reading between (and slightly behind) the lines, I would say that the club are trying to strongarm Kassam into selling up, on the basis that he can't develop the land (thanks to the community asset thing) and so the service charge is all he'll ever get. Once you get the service charge set by arbitration, then it becomes a property with both an immovable tenant paying an immovable rent - absolute poison for a property investor.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:46 pm
by Matt D
we're not immovable though, are we? how long left on the lease now?
that land without a sitting tenant would be absolute ambrosia for a property investor.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:01 pm
by Kernow Yellow
Matt D wrote:we're not immovable though, are we? how long left on the lease now?
That's a good question and one I've asked before. Searching the forum it seems that DE said at a fans forum a couple of years ago that the lease ran to 2026 (though as Snake then pointed out we actually have a license rather than a lease):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5336&hilit=lease+stadium#p70355
Interesting reading that thread back now after 2 years of ENSCO ownership...
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:34 pm
by GodalmingYellow
Kernow Yellow wrote:Matt D wrote:we're not immovable though, are we? how long left on the lease now?
That's a good question and one I've asked before. Searching the forum it seems that DE said at a fans forum a couple of years ago that the lease ran to 2026 (though as Snake then pointed out we actually have a license rather than a lease):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5336&hilit=lease+stadium#p70355
Interesting reading that thread back now after 2 years of ENSCO ownership...
Snake was right, it is a license and it runs for 20 years from 21 March 2006.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:43 pm
by tomoufc
Matt D wrote:we're not immovable though, are we? how long left on the lease now?
that land without a sitting tenant would be absolute ambrosia for a property investor.
Provided alternative uses could be found, and this would require a planning application that the Council would be within its rights to turn down. Or has that permission already been given? Google isn't helping me, although this appears to be the application
https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/cons ... d=&voteid=
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:18 pm
by Myles Francis
tomoufc wrote:
Provided alternative uses could be found, and this would require a planning application that the Council would be within its rights to turn down. Or has that permission already been given? Google isn't helping me, although this appears to be the application
https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/cons ... d=&voteid=
No planning permission has been granted yet - as much as anything because none has been applied for. The document you've linked to is the Oxford City Council strategic plan which identifies the sites for which planning permission would be granted if an application were made which fits in with the stated criteria.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:37 pm
by SmileyMan
My meaning was the Asset of Community Value provision, which isn't exactly a bar to sale, but does devalue the property somewhat for private sale.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:49 pm
by Matt D
I see what you mean. it doesn't stop Us having to go somewhere else though at the natural end of the lease, and from memory there's a period you have to have had the asset used by the community for the specific purpose in the previous years for it to apply.
so yes, it does devalue in the sense that it holds things up for a bit, but I don't think it prevents a situation where a tenant has to leave when their lease (licence) expires and then sometime down the line the land is repurposed/sold off. and the nearer we get to the end of our licence, the more you can envisage a situation where our landlord sits on a mouldering eyesore as public clamour grows to do something useful with it.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:32 am
by OUFC4eva
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/148171 ... discussed/
An update from the Trust was released last night. Keeps the thing in focus.
[770 members strong and growing]
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:35 am
by Hog
"The organisation, which has 770 members, said it believes it has 'workable and deliverable' plans in place. "
So they've rustled up £13m have they?
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:16 pm
by Kernow Yellow
I agree that regular updates help to keep the focus on the project, and I understand why OxVox might not be able to divulge too much detail at the moment. However I'm disappointed that some kind of timescale hasn't been put on the project. IF there are workable and deliverable plans in place, and IF Kassam is really open to a deal, then there must be someone involved who has an idea of how long it's likely to take. I must say I'm a little doubtful about whether both of those big 'if's are actually true.
Is DE's plea to get it done by the end of the season based on some knowledge of the deal? Or merely a hint that if it doesn't get sorted soon, and if FK won't sell to him, then his pockets may start getting shallower...
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:59 pm
by OUFC4eva
Chesterfield FC released their 2016 accounts
and what struck me was that the club's turnover
is around £7.5m. The club made a £42k net profit
and has debt of £8.6m.
I wonder how much income the Proact Stadium
generates? A good chunk I would think.
http://www.chesterfield-fc.co.uk/news/a ... 82100.aspx
http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/sport/ ... -1-8198572
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:29 am
by OUFC4eva
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/147900 ... m_Stadium/
Just flagging up the the Oxford Mail article from 8th October - exactly six months ago
today. Let's hope progress is being made.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 9:19 am
by Kairdiff Exile
From the
Oxford Fail report on last night's AGM, it
sounds increasingly as though OxVox have been sold a pig in a poke by Mr Ka$$am in their stadium talks:
[The Ox Vox Chairman] went into detail about how Firoz Kassam’s £12m asking price could be met. The plan rests on an agreement with Oxford City Council allowing the club’s landlord to develop the overflow car park for housing and then waive the stipulation that those spaces would have to be replaced in a costly multi-storey structure... The remainder would be found by individual donations and a council loan, repayments on which would be funded by gaining control of the site.
But Faulkner now believes a different deal may be more likely. He said: “I don’t think Firoz will go for an outright sale, but instead a renegotiated lease... In that scenario, the rent paid by the club might increase, but it would be offset by the income generated from the stadium’s operations."
So after months and months trying to negotiate a Heads Of Terms, we're now being told that an outright sale isn't likely, and instead we're most likely to be paying
more rent (albeit with a bigger share of matchday income). I'm a proud OxVox member and I am hugely appreciative of the work they've done over the years - but what the hell are they playing at? Once again, Ka$$am has shafted the club for his own ends and played us like a fiddle.
I increasingly think the only way he'll sell up is if fans start taking direct action, protesting outside his hotels and hitting him in the wallet where it hurts.
Re: Stadium matters
Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 9:47 am
by Isaac
I don't understand why they have stopped negotiating while the supposed "takeover" talks are ongoing either. Seems like a convenient excuse for a lack of progress to me.