• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Ownership of St James Park

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,997
Location
Plymouth
If SJP was valued at £750k in 1996, what makes you think it's available now for less than £800k? Average (residential) property prices have gone up more than 320% in that time period.
Boyo I said the St. James' Centre was available for less than £800k, not St. James' Park!
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,997
Location
Plymouth
Just for my memories sake, didn't the council push us towards Beazer Homes in the first place after turning down the rokeagle Matford plans? Then they turned down planning for the Beazer Homes Digby plans as well despite them recommending it to us in the first place.
Rosencrantz, I'm not too sure what happened with the Matford plans as I wasn't involved at the stage. As for Beazer, the only scheme I was involved with them was the Lower Hill Barton Scheme. This was classified as 'white land' with anticipated development potential in ten years time. I couldn't persuade Chester Long to bring forward that date.
 

Pete Martin (CTID)

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,386
Location
Here and there
So Rightwing tells us that City have paid the council around £1million in rent over 24 years .....
3249

Just for the sake of balance, Oxford United pay the same per year for the Kassam....this from their website April 2019.....

3250

Perhaps not such a bad deal after all? 🤔
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,997
Location
Plymouth
So Rightwing tells us that City have paid the council around £1million in rent over 24 years .....
View attachment 3249

Just for the sake of balance, Oxford United pay the same per year for the Kassam....this from their website April 2019.....

View attachment 3250

Perhaps not such a bad deal after all? 🤔
Different circumstances Pete. The Oxford rent is based on a construction cost of £13m, not £750k as in our case.
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,122
Location
Tiverton
Rosencrantz, I'm not too sure what happened with the Matford plans as I wasn't involved at the stage. As for Beazer, the only scheme I was involved with them was the Lower Hill Barton Scheme. This was classified as 'white land' with anticipated development potential in ten years time. I couldn't persuade Chester Long to bring forward that date.
Thanks, it just what I remember being reported at the time. It doesn't excuse the selling of the ground to Beazer before actually having planning permission for the development at Digby, but I was always under the impression that as well as needing the cash quick, the club also thought it was a done deal because the council introduced Beazer to us in the first place even though the ground was less attractive than RokEagle's plans for the Matford stadium. As such the council stepping in to effectively save the club was almost a moral obligation as much as practical.
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,997
Location
Plymouth
Thanks, it just what I remember being reported at the time. It doesn't excuse the selling of the ground to Beazer before actually having planning permission for the development at Digby, but I was always under the impression that as well as needing the cash quick, the club also thought it was a done deal because the council introduced Beazer to us in the first place even though the ground was less attractive than RokEagle's plans for the Matford stadium. As such the council stepping in to effectively save the club was almost a moral obligation as much as practical.
Yes the Club desperately needed cash as it was in Administration and had a Corporate Voluntary Agreement in place. Beazers knew that they had got their hands on SJP at a bargain price and that was their major goal. They also knew that the new homes development and stadium new build would be on white land. They left it to the Club to try and bring permission forward. I think the Club was quite naive in accepting this position. However, as far as Beazers were concerned, they did not anticipate the prospect of a CPO buy back.
 

John William

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
9,915
Location
Undisclosed
The Club have already bought back SP and JTs shareholdings in OTR. They (not the Trust) have the right to buy out the other shareholders "at par" but although I know some work was being done on this a while ago it was unclear what "par" might be and in present circumstances no cash is surely to be committed on non-essential expenditure?
 

Pete Martin (CTID)

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,386
Location
Here and there
Rosencrantz, I'm not too sure what happened with the Matford plans as I wasn't involved at the stage. As for Beazer, the only scheme I was involved with them was the Lower Hill Barton Scheme. This was classified as 'white land' with anticipated development potential in ten years time. I couldn't persuade Chester Long to bring forward that date.
None of the Matford schemes were ever going to get planning permission. Two, with different layouts, involved an 8,000 - 10,000 seat stadium and a 70,000 square foot supermarket, both very close to the protected wildlife area. The other, for a similar stadium and a park and ride site. Only one of the supermarket schemes was ever considered by the council and was refused pp, on 4 or 5 different policy grounds. The other two were withdrawn before being considered by the planners.
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,997
Location
Plymouth
The Club have already bought back SP and JTs shareholdings in OTR. They (not the Trust) have the right to buy out the other shareholders "at par" but although I know some work was being done on this a while ago it was unclear what "par" might be and in present circumstances no cash is surely to be committed on non-essential expenditure?
I would assume that the fairest way of interpreting "at par" would be to divide each shareholder's percentage holding into the current net worth of the company as displayed on the latest balance sheet. Do we know what the Club paid for SP's and JT's holding? That would give an indication. I agree it's not feasible to buy during the present crisis.
 

fred binneys head

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
22,060
Location
Loving the boy Stanno
At par normally means the value the shares were originally issued at. So if someone had 100 Ordinary shares of £1 each, the par value would be £100. You can find the par value from looking in the accounts.

It’s unusual for this to be the case as it means any shareholder cannot benefit from capital growth in the company.
 
Top