Tagg's Trust AGM speech - 3 option

DB9

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
7,945
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
And their backer would not have had the financial muscle to have turned them into a top flight club in the far more competitive world of football. Tony Rowe has done an excellent job with Chiefs, but the sale of the County Ground for iirc £11m was an excellent starting point. He also had zero consideration for putting Exeter Falcons out of business in the process.
Indeed, If someone had only say a £11m starting point in footballl you'd be lucky to be L2, To get where the Chiefs are in the footballing world would take hundreds of millions
 

Oldsmobile-88

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
14,281
Location
In RaWZ we trust....Amen.
And their backer would not have had the financial muscle to have turned them into a top flight club in the far more competitive world of football. Tony Rowe has done an excellent job with Chiefs, but the sale of the County Ground for iirc £11m was an excellent starting point. He also had zero consideration for putting Exeter Falcons out of business in the process.
He is a hard nosed businessman.
CB,I stand to be corrected but I believe the Falcons were given substantial compensation by their landlord the Rugby club on the closure of the County Ground?

EDDC got cold feet about a planned Speedway facility at Westpoint after objections from the Mobile Home Park behind the C & F pub.

The £11m for the County Ground was well over the odds for the land(£8m was expected I believe)hence the overcrowded clusterfkcu that is on the former site now.
 

Colesman Ballz

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
6,153
He is a hard nosed businessman.
CB,I stand to be corrected but I believe the Falcons were given substantial compensation by their landlord the Rugby club on the closure of the County Ground?

EDDC got cold feet about a planned Speedway facility at Westpoint after objections from the Mobile Home Park behind the C & F pub.

The £11m for the County Ground was well over the odds for the land(£8m was expected I believe)hence the overcrowded clusterfkcu that is on the former site now.
I don't know anything about financial compensation, that's not to say it didn't happen though. I do recall the Falcons were initially given notice to quit, but were then given a period of grace and allowed to stay on for a couple of seasons or so whilst Sandy Park plans were finalised. Whether any conditions were attached or not to that, such as Falcons not raising formal objections, I don't know.

Falcons were always on a hiding to nothing from nimbyists in finding a new site.

I got involved with the residents fighting "the clusterfkcu" and used freedom of information to go through the planning application files at ECC. There seemed to me that were things going on behind the scenes, and off the record. Whether the offer from Westpoint was ever a serious one I know not, but it certainly arose at a convenient time.
 

grecIAN Harris

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
20,475
Location
In the drivers seat..........
Going back a few pages, why in God's name would you move to The Science Park? The while site is on a slope. Any area that is flat is getting houses built on it or further out again is already earmarked for industrial units.
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,845
Location
Plymouth
If the CCT own the bits mentioned then RW plan is no way a goer unless he thinks the club would either persuade the CCT to sell?
I'm sure that there was provision in the agreement with DCC that the Club could utilise the area for its own benefit provided that suitable alternative accommodation was given to them.
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
21,256
Location
Touring Central Java...
Quite. And we could include some kind of an anti-embarrassment clause so that should we sell the ground for a lot more money, the Council would get some of the profits, though of course they’d likely have to change the land use restriction on the site for the club to make lots of money, so would be in a strong position anyway. Owning the ground would put right one of the great wrongs of the past.
Owning the ground is good, but RW's argument is that we should build a new stadium at C & F, so I asked him how we would finance the new stadium at C & F.
If the only way is to purchase the SJP land, get the land restrictions removed (is it the council's prerogative to do that or another authority!), sell the land on at a considerable profit, and then give the council commission for collaborating, I'm not sure that questions would not be asked.
The other problem is that even if the above could be carried out and somehow we had enough money to build the new stadium, would we lose some of our fanbase and would it be worth risking our financial stability, bearing in mind that the original estimate is always much lower than the real cost?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for me City's identity is engrained at the Park. We've already upgraded the facilities and the 9k capacity seems more than enough. I think it would be awful to have a stadium like MKs , where the ground feels like a cemetery on match day.
Regarding a new stadium and being able to offer space for conferences and for general rental, that is true and might be a good source of income. But if I'm not mistaken we already have some facilities like that at SJP. Would income from such business increase significantly at a new stadium?
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
21,256
Location
Touring Central Java...
What you have missed Mike is this. Designated sports grounds cannot be built on, unless equal or better facilities are provided to replace them (with equal or better accessibility too). So if we were to purchase SJP, we could subsequently provide new facilities elsewhere and get change of use at a future date.

The Chiefs sale of the County Ground nearly fell foul of this, as Sport England Southwest placed an objection. It was accepted that Sandy Park was an appropriate provision for Rugby, but no suitable provision was being made for Speedway. The Council concluded that it could not grant Planning Permission whilst the objection from SE SW existed. Subsequently a letter appears in the planning file from SE SW withdrawing their objection. There is however nothing in the files to show how SE SW were persuaded to do this.
That's useful information : I've just seen this after sending my post above.
But what comes first : the chicken or the egg? If we offered an alternative site to the council at the C & F we still wouldn't have the capital to purchase it because we would still be the owners of SJP. So any permission to change the land use restrictions would be based on a hypothetical buyer of SJP, a hypothetical piece of land and a hypothetical contractor.
I guess in business that can happen - prrcontracts- but if something we t wrong during the process?
 

IndoMike

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
21,256
Location
Touring Central Java...
Yes I do know but I'm fed up with pointless points scoring on this site so I'll keep that information to myself.
I'm not points - scoring, RW. If you make a proposal it has to be feasible, and I've been asking you about the feasibility of your idea and if there are any pitfalls. Surely you would expect that.
 
Top