The Club, the Trust, and lack of capital spending.

[rightwing]

There seems to be a sense of euphoria at the Club at the moment that the arrival of the Grimes’ money is the panacea for all our problems. Once again scarce resources are being spent on the pitches, both at SJP and also the Cat and Fiddle. Whilst this might be desirable in a perfect situation, I would query whether this is entirely necessary - after all it was only a couple of years ago that Tony Badcott raised the money to rejuvenate the pitch at SJP for the second time. Similarly there will be a big increase in the playing budget next season. To my mind these are very short termist solutions as I regard both elements as unsustainable profligate spending. This money will not last forever. We are currently living beyond our means and simply not driving the commercial sector hard enough to sustain that level of budget/expenditure unless we get a big increase in numbers through the gates. That however is a very big gamble.

I would much prefer to see the Club taking a safer route by getting its priorities right in applying the majority of that money (after fully satisfying our creditor problem) to capital rather than revenue spending. A sound capital base always generates additional revenue! I think it was the **** Pym transfer that funded the purchase of St. James’ Park in the first place. I’m sure the freehold of SJP is available at a bargain price at the moment, so why can’t we do the same again? Other areas we should be concentrating on are the purchases of the St. James’ Centre and the jungle path. Without owning the freehold of all these properties we will never be able to undertake a sensible ground redevelopment funded by optimum enabling projects that only arise if all the freeholds are held by the Club or Trust. Certainly I would prefer the freeholds to be held by the Trust. The facilities built into the redeveloped ground would then give the opportunity of allowing much needed additional revenue to be generated.

It has been stated that much further spending will take place at the Cat and Fiddle, particularly with the building of an indoor arena. Again, whilst I think that this is admirable, (indeed I even had some correspondence with Collinsons some years ago and obtained a fully detailed estimate for a 60 x 40 yard model which was given to the Club at the time I was a Trustee) I would much prefer that the Club or Trust first addressed the freehold ownership of that land. It can’t be that expensive as it is basically in an agricultural belt. Instead I understand that the Club has opted to lease it. However I would wager that the average Trustee hasn’t got a clue about the terms of that lease, i.e :-

1. How secure is it?
2. How long is it?
3. What is the annual rent?
4. Are rent review periods built in, if so how often, and what level of increase could be applied?
5. What restrictions apply to building on/developing the land?
Etc., etc.

Perhaps one of the current Trustees could comment on their knowledge of the lease? It would be a dangerous practice to sanction developments here without being aware of the full picture.

 

[elginCity]

I’m sure the freehold of SJP is available at a bargain price at the moment, so why can’t we do the same again?

A couple of years ago you bemoaned the fact that it was ECC policy not to sell SJP, has the policy changed ?

While the council is obliged to realise best value on disposal of its assets, by law I think, how do you figure it is now available at a 'bargain' price ?

 

[Avening Posse]

A couple of years ago you bemoaned the fact that it was ECC policy not to sell SJP, has the policy changed ?

While the council is obliged to realise best value on disposal of its assets, by law I think, how do you figure it is now available at a 'bargain' price ?

Sorry to butt in chaps, there are ways to protect Council's when disposing, they could sell the asset to the Trust (as probably the biggest community group in Exeter) and covenant that it's use is sport in perpetuity (and therefore agree a value on that basis), and on top of that they could say it could be disposed of in the future for another use but if that happens there are clauses (overage and the like) to ensure they get their piece if it happens. Definitely not impossible, although I gather there is an issue as one of our 2 regular Trustee's on here said it is unlikely. There could be a million reasons for that which would not necessarily be made public, but it is certainly theoretically possible to acquire at a reasonable price if the Council had the appetite

 

[rightwing]

A couple of years ago you bemoaned the fact that it was ECC policy not to sell SJP, has the policy changed ?

While the council is obliged to realise best value on disposal of its assets, by law I think, how do you figure it is now available at a 'bargain' price ?

Yes I believe that, provided that adequate safeguards are built into a sale agreement which would prevent the land falling into the hands of speculators, then ECC would now be prepared to sell. I also understand that it would be more amenable to sell to the Trust with the safeguard that ownership would revert to ECC if the Trust ever folded.

There has also been a change in Government legislation which allows a council to sell freeholds for community use at below market value.

 

[Spoonz Red E]

There seems to be a sense of euphoria at the Club at the moment that the arrival of the Grimes’ money is the panacea for all our problems.

Except for the fact that there isn't 'euphoria'.

What there is at the club is a follow through to the strategy outlined back in December
http://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/news/article/early-board-discussions-on-possible-future-funds-2159751.aspx

 

[ALOTBSOL]

Once again scarce resources are being spent on the pitches, both at SJP and also the Cat and Fiddle.... Similarly there will be a big increase in the playing budget next season.

Two sections I want to highlight here- Firstly, the SJP pitch would have been redone even without the Grimes money, as it is every year under the maintenance model we are following. The fact that we have such a good pitch, and anything remotely comparable at the Cat and Fiddle is a big part of persuading people to come and play for us, which then boosts performances and the income that is based on results. We could just leave it alone for 5 years, but then who would want to watch a team of hoofers playing head tennis because the pitch is a mud bath...?

Second- What makes you think that here has been a big increase in the playing budget? There has probably been a small increase from the Grimes money, probably to the tune of Holmes' wages, but other than that I see little evidence of any change. The only difference we've seen so far in the transfer policy is that we actually know up front how much money is available, meaning that business can be done early. We aren't having to wait for a player to leave before we can bring in a replacement, nor are we contending with a transfer embargo like we have in previous years.

 

[rightwing]

Yes I believe that, provided that adequate safeguards are built into a sale agreement which would prevent the land falling into the hands of speculators, then ECC would now be prepared to sell. I also understand that it would be more amenable to sell to the Trust with the safeguard that ownership would revert to ECC if the Trust ever folded.

There has also been a change in Government legislation which allows a council to sell freeholds for community use at below market value.

I should have also added that local authorities are being encouraged by government to sell land holdings in order to finance budget deficits.

 

[rightwing]

Except for the fact that there isn't 'euphoria'.

What there is at the club is a follow through to the strategy outlined back in December
http://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/news/article/early-board-discussions-on-possible-future-funds-2159751.aspx

I still think that strategy is wrong Mike as there is no provision for the purchase of any freeholds.

 

[rightwing]

Second- What makes you think that here has been a big increase in the playing budget? There has probably been a small increase from the Grimes money, probably to the tune of Holmes' wages, but other than that I see little evidence of any change. The only difference we've seen so far in the transfer policy is that we actually know up front how much money is available, meaning that business can be done early.

The strategy document states that one third of the Grimes money will be applied to the playing budget for possibly a three year period. That amounts to an additional £583k over that period. I didn't know that Holmes was costing us that much.

 

[ALOTBSOL]

The strategy document states that one third of the Grimes money will be applied to the playing budget for possibly a three year period. That amounts to an additional £583k over that period. I didn't know that Holmes was costing us that much.

£583k over 3 years only amounts to less than 3.5k a week... That's hardly a large increase. There is also nothing to say that the money is additional, as opposed to insuring that current levels are maintained- IE, being able to offer longer contracts because we know the money is there.