Question for rightwing

[uncle buck]

Interesting article about the Exeter chiefs in the telegraph and several other newspapers about the rise of the club .I was intrigued as to how the chiefs before they sold the county ground were offered 20 alternatives before taking sandy park as the chosen venue ,I know a lot were dismissed due to covenants on the land but just wondered if the football club were ever offered so many potential sites in the enquiring of potential sites

 

[PeteUSA]

I dont see why that question is exclusively for rightwing, except that you can guarantee he'll be abused whatever information he might impart.

As far as the "20 alternatives" for the Chiefs goes, I suspect that very few of them would have been what they had in mind, and would have been playing fields and pitches dotted about the place. Bear in mind that they had no clue how rugby would take off for them as it did when they opted for Sandy Park; when they were leaving behind a ground and a team that was lucky to see 200 people pay to watch on a good day.

 

[uncle buck]

Yes your right shouldn't be exclusive to right-wing,it was just that I know he was privy to a few details when the club was looking for alternatives back in the day so thought he may have a bit more info,but yes your right in one way about the chiefsthey wouldn't have known for sure how things were going to pan out,but I think the people on board and the business plan were a big factor of it being failsafe,just a pity we don't have any people with the business acumen and foresight on board

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Interesting article about the Exeter chiefs in the telegraph and several other newspapers about the rise of the club .I was intrigued as to how the chiefs before they sold the county ground were offered 20 alternatives before taking sandy park as the chosen venue ,I know a lot were dismissed due to covenants on the land but just wondered if the football club were ever offered so many potential sites in the enquiring of potential sites

I didn't know they were "offered" 20 sites and I was professionally involved with the Sandy Park scheme from day one. More likely they considered 20 sites, but Sandy Park was the only one that ticked all the boxes.

When City commissioned the Drivers Jonas study in 2006/7 there were originally a significant number of potential relocation sites that were on the agenda. These were whittled down to five in the end. Cost was always a big factor for City as we has no ground to sell for development and, consequently, little bargaining power. In the end the only viable option was to remain at SJP and make the best of it. Also, there was no groundswell of supporter enthusiasm for moving to a new location.

The rugby club has (in my opinion) enjoyed significant guidance and disproportionate assistance from the local authorities. City have never had that (although I do feel the current administration is more sympathetic to us).

Everything has fallen into place for the Chiefs but the whole way that the rugby club is organised, run and promoted is totally different to City and it is impossible to make a proper comparison imo.

 

[uncle buck]

Thanks for that Pete,i suppose that was what I was aiming at was the help the chiefs had from the local authority as to the apathy shown to the football club in days gone by

 

[rightwing]

Interesting article about the Exeter chiefs in the telegraph and several other newspapers about the rise of the club .I was intrigued as to how the chiefs before they sold the county ground were offered 20 alternatives before taking sandy park as the chosen venue ,I know a lot were dismissed due to covenants on the land but just wondered if the football club were ever offered so many potential sites in the enquiring of potential sites

Uncle Buck,

We were never offered any sites directly by Exeter City Council. Fourteen sites were originally identified and considered by Drivers Jonas . These were:-

1. Matford
2. St.James’ Park
3. Westpoint
4. St.Bridget’s Nursery
5. Darts Land, Topsham Road
6. Pratts Land
7. Middlemore College
8. Eastern Fields
9. Polsloe Road/Prince Charles Road
10. Newberry Stables
11. Matford Livestock Market
12. Sandy Park (on sharing basis)
13. Cat and Fiddle Training Ground
14. Haven Road Gas Works.

These sites were identified by Drivers Jonas purely on the basis of their suitability as flat land on which a stadium could be developed. However some of the chosen sites were not available, whilst others were discounted for various other factors. Consequently the list was quickly whittled down to five on which a more intensive study could be based. These five were:-

1. St. James’ Park
2. Easter Fields
3. Sandy Park
4. Darts Land, Topsham Road
5. Westpoint

I believe that the help given to Exeter Chiefs by Exeter City Council far exceeded any help given to us. In fact I would go so far to say that that ECC were particularly unhelpful towards us. I say this because I thought that the best site available was Matford (immediately adjacent to Bad Homburg Way). However this was one of the sites discarded quickly because ECC had designated the land for employment use and were not prepared to alter that classification although I thought that it would be relatively easy to do so. The other main bugbear with ECC is that they wouldn’t give a guarantee that the sale proceeds (or even a large part of them) of St. James’ Park would be handed over to us to finance a move to any alternative site.

The unhelpfulness of ECC is further demonstrated by the fact that we have been ‘negotiating ‘ a new lease of St. James’ Park for the nine year period post Drivers Jonas. Why has it taken this long? – it has not even been settled yet! Furthermore, the current redevelopment proposal requires the land behind the Big Bank to be legally transferred to Yelverton. However the mechanism under which the transfer is effected was certainly not agreed before the planning application and even at the time when I made an FOI request to determine how it was being done (in an effort to try and establish the value of the enabling contribution). David Treharne stated the other day that there were still issues to be resolved, so I presume that the transfer mechanism is still one of these. Consequently anyone who thinks that ECC are being helpful towards us is living in cloud cuckoo land!

We certainly have not helped ourselves as leadership throughout the whole project has been extremely poor (10 years post Driver Jonas? – come on!) We appear to have no one who can engage effectively with ECC – has the art of courting gone out of favour? The leadership couldn’t even recognise some of the potential problems that could occur with the St. James’ Forum!

 

[rightwing]

I should add that, even after Drivers Jonas, ECC has had plenty of opportunity to suggest possible redevelopment sites for us, particularly when they have been working on the annual update of their Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. This is where they review all unused land within their boundaries. Suitable sites have been available but these have now mostly been used for housing purposes. If our leadership had put more pressure on ECC to help identify a site then we might be looking at an alternative site today. I think however the horse has bolted- the sites have all gone.

 

[iscalad]

I dont see why that question is exclusively for rightwing, except that you can guarantee he'll be abused whatever information he might impart.

As far as the "20 alternatives" for the Chiefs goes, I suspect that very few of them would have been what they had in mind, and would have been playing fields and pitches dotted about the place. Bear in mind that they had no clue how rugby would take off for them as it did when they opted for Sandy Park; when they were leaving behind a ground and a team that was lucky to see 200 people pay to watch on a good day.

Why? If he gives a good answer that's factual, it will be fine. He doesn't get abuse every time he posts, Behave yourself. Having read his answer it was quite enlightening.

 

[uncle buck]

Uncle Buck,

We were never offered any sites directly by Exeter City Council. Fourteen sites were originally identified and considered by Drivers Jonas . These were:-

1. Matford
2. St.James’ Park
3. Westpoint
4. St.Bridget’s Nursery
5. Darts Land, Topsham Road
6. Pratts Land
7. Middlemore College
8. Eastern Fields
9. Polsloe Road/Prince Charles Road
10. Newberry Stables
11. Matford Livestock Market
12. Sandy Park (on sharing basis)
13. Cat and Fiddle Training Ground
14. Haven Road Gas Works.

These sites were identified by Drivers Jonas purely on the basis of their suitability as flat land on which a stadium could be developed. However some of the chosen sites were not available, whilst others were discounted for various other factors. Consequently the list was quickly whittled down to five on which a more intensive study could be based. These five were:-

1. St. James’ Park
2. Easter Fields
3. Sandy Park
4. Darts Land, Topsham Road
5. Westpoint

I believe that the help given to Exeter Chiefs by Exeter City Council far exceeded any help given to us. In fact I would go so far to say that that ECC were particularly unhelpful towards us. I say this because I thought that the best site available was Matford (immediately adjacent to Bad Homburg Way). However this was one of the sites discarded quickly because ECC had designated the land for employment use and were not prepared to alter that classification although I thought that it would be relatively easy to do so. The other main bugbear with ECC is that they wouldn’t give a guarantee that the sale proceeds (or even a large part of them) of St. James’ Park would be handed over to us to finance a move to any alternative site.

The unhelpfulness of ECC is further demonstrated by the fact that we have been ‘negotiating ‘ a new lease of St. James’ Park for the nine year period post Drivers Jonas. Why has it taken this long? – it has not even been settled yet! Furthermore, the current redevelopment proposal requires the land behind the Big Bank to be legally transferred to Yelverton. However the mechanism under which the transfer is effected was certainly not agreed before the planning application and even at the time when I made an FOI request to determine how it was being done (in an effort to try and establish the value of the enabling contribution). David Treharne stated the other day that there were still issues to be resolved, so I presume that the transfer mechanism is still one of these. Consequently anyone who thinks that ECC are being helpful towards us is living in cloud cuckoo land!

We certainly have not helped ourselves as leadership throughout the whole project has been extremely poor (10 years post Driver Jonas? – come on!) We appear to have no one who can engage effectively with ECC – has the art of courting gone out of favour? The leadership couldn’t even recognise some of the potential problems that could occur with the St. James’ Forum!

Thanks right-wing very in depth answer,there were a couple of sites you mentioned that I had heard about and many more that are new to me the interesting one being middlemoor what with Morrison's developing the land then the plug being pulled ,I would guess if we were lucky enough to get to the stage of owning the freehold and looking to investors to build a stadium with the ease of access for transport links then middlemoor would be the obvious choice .But like you say and I have heard it from other people over the years that the football club is not something that ECC hold dear to their heart so it would be a go it alone project ,shame really

 

[grecianstew]

There is no doubt whatsoever that ECC have been way more supportive of the Chiefs than of us. I guess though, a fairly pragmatic support in so far as they knew that it would not take much to achieve Premiership status for the rugby team and thus put the City firmly on the map (though few might have predicted that they would become upper echelon). On the other hand due to the differing economies of the sports, no amount of support could have boosted City to beyond L1 status and so relative obscurity.