Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Anything yellow and blue
Kairdiff Exile
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Kairdiff Exile »

What do we make of yesterday's news and today's statement then?

All feels a bit depressing to me. The new site is much smaller, and it's hard to see how the Board can develop all the ancillary facilities around the stadium that they presumably need in order for the whole thing to wash its face financially.
Dr Bob
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Dr Bob »

My thoughts precisely. Looking at the previous plan, that little triangle is much smaller than the intended size for just the stadium, let alone everything around it. It is not at all clear to me how the "considerable challenges" will be resolved simply by moving the stadium site across the road. Nor is it clear to me whether this new plan would see the club develop new facilities for the cricket and rugby clubs. What do they make of it I wonder?
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by slappy »

Examples have been given off Brentford and Wimbledon's stadia being built on similar or smaller footprints to the Frieze site. But those included high rise apartments which presumably aren't in the club's plans.

Apparently the sticking points over the Brake and the potential Frieze site have been known for a few months, which presumably means our Indonesian owners have been kept up to date prior to their September takeover.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

slappy wrote: Mon Nov 14, 2022 12:23 pm I was looking at some Firoka accounts on Friday and was quite surprised to read this.
The stadium was previously treated as a fixed asset of freehold land and buildings at depreciated cost of some £6M.
As a prior period adjustment, it is now shown as an investment property with a value of £29M at 31 Dec 2021, "having regard for rent and capitalisation rates".

I'm no property valuer, but the turnover is only some £1.5M a year, so would it be a good guess to suggest this is the value of knocking it down and building property on the land? If so, it's very much in Kassam's interest for Stratfield Brake to go ahead. Any idea how many houses / flats could be built on the stadium and overflow car park footprint?
There is a requirement to consider valuation of assets every year.

The concept of investment assets isn’t restricted to revenue yield. Capital gain might also be considered.

It may well also be to reflect greater asset value to enable raising of finance.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

slappy wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:42 pm Examples have been given off Brentford and Wimbledon's stadia being built on similar or smaller footprints to the Frieze site. But those included high rise apartments which presumably aren't in the club's plans.

Apparently the sticking points over the Brake and the potential Frieze site have been known for a few months, which presumably means our Indonesian owners have been kept up to date prior to their September takeover.
Maybe high rise apartment blocks are part of the club’s plans, as additional easy “affordable” housing might well be seen as greasing the Cherwell DC wheel. CDC are under pressure on one side for not meeting their new housing criteria, and on the other side for building in the wrong places.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

Kairdiff Exile wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:36 am What do we make of yesterday's news and today's statement then?

All feels a bit depressing to me. The new site is much smaller, and it's hard to see how the Board can develop all the ancillary facilities around the stadium that they presumably need in order for the whole thing to wash its face financially.
I wonder if the Frieze site might only be one part of a larger deal.

Stratfield Brake whilst ideal for many supporters, is facing some loud voices against of late. Any delays might make the scheme impractical, given how late the club has come to the new stadium party. An alternative site, without the removal of existing facilities, removes many potential arguments against.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

Dr Bob wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:26 pm My thoughts precisely. Looking at the previous plan, that little triangle is much smaller than the intended size for just the stadium, let alone everything around it. It is not at all clear to me how the "considerable challenges" will be resolved simply by moving the stadium site across the road. Nor is it clear to me whether this new plan would see the club develop new facilities for the cricket and rugby clubs. What do they make of it I wonder?
If Stratfield Brake we’re not used, why would the rugby and cricket clubs need new facilities?
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by slappy »

OtmoorYellow wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:02 pm
Dr Bob wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:26 pm My thoughts precisely. Looking at the previous plan, that little triangle is much smaller than the intended size for just the stadium, let alone everything around it. It is not at all clear to me how the "considerable challenges" will be resolved simply by moving the stadium site across the road. Nor is it clear to me whether this new plan would see the club develop new facilities for the cricket and rugby clubs. What do they make of it I wonder?
If Stratfield Brake we’re not used, why would the rugby and cricket clubs need new facilities?
I saw there is a letter of support for the triangle plot from Kidlington Youth FC https://www.kidlingtonyouthfc.co.uk/new ... 47435.html in which they look forward to their facilities being improved. As you say, if their current site isn't going to be taken, why would we do this? Perhaps it's part of the general planning rules that I think large scale developments have to give something to the community?
Kairdiff Exile
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Kairdiff Exile »

Yeah, any major development that close would see a sizeable Section 106 contribution towards improving local amenities - ie, the developer would be required to make a significant financial contribution which the council would likely earmark for nearby community / youth sports facilities given the circumstances.
Last edited by Kairdiff Exile on Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

Kairdiff Exile wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:10 pm Yeah, any major development that close would be a sizeable Section 106 contribution towards improving local amenities - ie, the developer would be required to make a significant financial contribution which the council would likely earmark for nearby community / youth sports facilities given the circumstances.
Good point
Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Kernow Yellow »

What confuses me most is that this plot of land was always in the original proposal. So I don't get the point about it being an 'alternative site'. Is that just dressing it up to make it look like something different to what locals have objected to? This part of the site is more logical for a stadium anyway, being very well located for transport.

Interesting that both the football and rugby clubs that use SB have written supportive statements of these latest plans, so they must have an idea of how they're likely to benefit. As for the rest of the plans/proposals, who knows what was/is going to be built anyway?

Meanwhile, in Indonesia (where our owners seem to have some influence):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-marriage
Dr Bob
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1064
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Dr Bob »

I heard or read something recently that suggested that The Triangle offers rather more limited opportunities for off-field revenue-raising than Stratfield Brake. Any sense that that option weakens the economic viability of the move fatally? What might that imply for the economics of the project and for the club going forwards?
OtmoorYellow
Puberty
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by OtmoorYellow »

I'm very concerned that the Dairylea Triangle is going to be far too small for the club's needs.

Using Google Maps, I've measured the footprint of the KasStad, including the perimeter road, but excluding the additional car parking and it measures 220m E to W and 200m N to S.

Putting those measures on the Triangle leaves very little room for any further commercial development, but it is the commercial development that will be needed to a) fund the new stadium, b) fund higher calibre playing staff, and c) cover the club's already significant annual losses.

Wimbledon's very basic (and unfinished) stadium has cost them more than £30m for 9,000 seats. Brentford spent more than £70m for 17,250 seats.

The interest alone on £70m would be in the region of £4.9m per year @ a very low commercial rate of 7%. Then there would be capital repayments over 25 years at an average of £2.8m per year. Plus the maintenance costs. We presently pay in the region of £1m a year to play at the KasStad. So there is a shed load of extra cash that needs to come from commercial profits (not just from commercial revenue). Add to that additional commercial profits needed to fund the large annual football losses and additional investment in the playing squad to make us a top 30 club, and we are talking very serious money here. That sort of money comes from large commercial development, not from a cinema and a hot dog stand, and such development needs a lot of space. Space not available at The Triangle.

We are not going to be homeless when the KasStad license ends as some have talked about, as there is a clause that permits renewal of the license on the same terms as the existing license.

Much as I want a new stadium in a better location, with The Triangle, I'm concerned we may be replacing one white elephant with another, just to fill the pockets of investors.
Isaac
Dashing young thing
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 9:32 am

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by Isaac »

One thing on the size - the new Spurs stadium is 200m by 250m in terms of footprint (at least according to wikipedia) so bigger than your theoretical Kassam footprint, but only by 30m in one direction (the Kassam is a spacious, terribly designed stadium after all). Obviously their capacity is bigger, so it'll go up higher but they've managed to build in various money making ventures into that Stadium, so presumably the same would apply for us. It cost in the region of £1billion though.

You'd hope the owners have a costed plan, if they don't we are well and truly up the creek. I share your concerns.
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Give Us A (Stratfield) Brake

Post by slappy »

I agree that the smaller triangle plot puts the whole enterprise at risk. Originally I believe the idea put to us was that everything within the stadium benefited the club, and that what was outside would fund the building and development. I feel that accepting the triangle will be a real blow to our owners' ambitions.

Whilst we have had positive noises from the UK directors, our overseas owners haven't had anything to say for months. Perhaps they are keeping a low profile to avoid being openly seen as "foreign investors" tearing up the Oxford green belt, whilst the councils decided what to do.

The other issue is the Kassam stadium. We as a club have said the license cannot or will not be renewed. Perhaps they mean "commercially it is not viable to renew it". Kassam must be planning what is going to happen to it with no football club. The council have already identified the overflow car park as potential housing. The South side of Grenoble Road is I think in the district council and has planned development. The Stadium I think is in the City council boundary, who are struggling to find land to meet their own housing development needs. With the current stadium valuation of £29.1M, does that mean housing? I can't see any of the Premier Rugby clubs looking to take it on as lead tenant.
Last edited by slappy on Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply