Redevelopment

Page 9 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Peter Newman on Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:36 pm

When the term "Board" is used I assume it is referring to the Society rather than the board of the Ltd Co.
The hybrid structure of the overall club does create some confusion.

Peter Newman

Posts : 66
Join date : 2015-09-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by comrade powell on Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:15 pm

When I referred to the board's reasons for recommending the proposal I meant the football club's board. Unfortunately the Society board have not made clear in their EGM announcement or in what is mentioned on its website what position it is taking. Personally I think that members should be told and I've requested that this happens.
avatar
comrade powell

Posts : 4113
Join date : 2014-01-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by BenE on Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:08 pm

Perhaps it ought to be called the Society Committee.Or even Cabinet.
avatar
BenE

Posts : 1794
Join date : 2014-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by OliverH Yesterday at 12:59 am

BenE wrote:Perhaps it ought to be called the Society Committee.Or even Cabinet.

It was always known as the Society Committee in the past until a previous Secretary had the genius idea to rename it the "Society Board" in official communications, in keeping with its enhanced post-Bid position/prestige...

Regarding the EGM motion (which I've only just seen), my biggest issue is that the feasibility study conditions do not rule out the possibility of the club borrowing in order to fund the upfront costs - in fact, the study even says: "The club’s ownership of Twerton Park may provide the necessary asset backing to secure third party debt for the project."

Nick Blofeld appeared to rule that out during the Q&A, but I would need to see it in writing before I could even consider voting for 3G - I'd rather watch us in the Southern League than vote for more debt.
avatar
OliverH

Posts : 339
Join date : 2015-01-04
Age : 37
Location : Bath

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Ashley Yesterday at 1:41 pm

kermit wrote:
Manchester Romans wrote:I genuinely don’t know how i’ll vote on the pitch issue - the arguments for and against are so well balanced - but isn’t there a compromise solution? Some clubs now have a pitch which combines grass with artificial fibres, offering greater durability than grass but acceptable to the EFL. I believe it is this type of pitch that Sutton plan to install if they win promotion. No doubt they are very expensive but wouldn’t this be worth considering?
I believe that this is what Bristol City have installed, which I assume was deemed necessary to have the egg chasers playing there as well. I doubt very much that it is of a standard that allows hours of use every day, so therefore it would not help our finances........unless of course that mob on the wreck decide to move in with us!! I'll get my coat.

I believe that's called 'Desso' turf and it's pretty common in the top level stadiums.
avatar
Ashley

Posts : 791
Join date : 2014-02-20
Age : 28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by SteveBradley Yesterday at 1:49 pm

OliverH wrote:
BenE wrote:Perhaps it ought to be called the Society Committee.Or even Cabinet.

It was always known as the Society Committee in the past until a previous Secretary had the genius idea to rename it the "Society Board" in official communications, in keeping with its enhanced post-Bid position/prestige...

Regarding the EGM motion (which I've only just seen), my biggest issue is that the feasibility study conditions do not rule out the possibility of the club borrowing in order to fund the upfront costs - in fact, the study even says: "The club’s ownership of Twerton Park may provide the necessary asset backing to secure third party debt for the project."

Nick Blofeld appeared to rule that out during the Q&A, but I would need to see it in writing before I could even consider voting for 3G - I'd rather watch us in the Southern League than vote for more debt.

There's debt and then there's debt though, Oliver.

The previous type of debt was built up just to keep the team going - which is definitely not a sustainable way to run a club.

If the club borrowed to install an artificial pitch, and made a credible case that it would significantly increase revenues, then that would be borrowing to invest - which would be a very different type of debt IMO.

One is like borrowing to fund your lifestyle, whilst the other is like borrowing to buy a house to reduce your rent payments. Not all debt is inherently bad or to be feared.

SteveBradley

Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-02-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by OliverH Yesterday at 2:21 pm

I appreciate the distinction, but all debt carries risk and this sounds like a lot of debt.
avatar
OliverH

Posts : 339
Join date : 2015-01-04
Age : 37
Location : Bath

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by pete mac Yesterday at 2:31 pm

Our problem is income. This investment would give us a steady income stream. We can't rely on results and the massive efforts of people through all sorts of initiatives to get money in.

pete mac

Posts : 708
Join date : 2014-02-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Mark Tanner Yesterday at 3:38 pm

I'm expecting at least 500/600 people at the table tennis on Sunday!

In all seriousness though there isn't an alternative to 3G being put in at the moment. I just feel that we are learning to walk as a community club at the moment and that the infrastructure isn't there to have a 3G pitch...yet.

I would never say never to it but at the moment I would vote no as we don't have the data available for how our increased community effort has gone, after 3-5 years and our efforts have failed (introducing a full time GM and 1000BC etc) then yeah invest in 3-4 part time staff members and launch a 3G by all means if the numbers work.

3G pitches also take the spontaneous nature away from football and the weather in this part of the world is hardly extreme - opposed to deepest darkest Wales/Scotland. I feel that we are slowly getting the crowds back to Twerton Park and to divide or potentially lose some of them would be devastating in the short term (you could argue that we will gain lots in the future but again it's speculating). Also playing on Twerton Park would be the norm rather than a privilege/dream for young and non so young aspiring footballers!
avatar
Mark Tanner

Posts : 282
Join date : 2014-02-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by pete mac Yesterday at 4:09 pm

Mark, not denegrating the massive work you and others have done and continue to do and maybe we do need more time to see the results. I just think we need a more certain income stream. I love grass and all that you say about the traditions is true for me but our Club is continuing to lose money. We can't keep racking up debt in this way.

pete mac

Posts : 708
Join date : 2014-02-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by bonzo dog Yesterday at 5:09 pm

I'm all for freedom of speech and protests etc... but what alternative is there? What other income stream can the 'Romans Against 3G' propose? Unless they have one of those magic  money trees all governments seem to have when it suits.
Having had a quick look through the development proposal, there's no mention of a car park? If we're going to be a hub of the community and be more involved in Bath as a whole, you're gonna need someone to park........
avatar
bonzo dog

Posts : 16
Join date : 2014-02-23
Location : Here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Steve Whites Missus Yesterday at 6:03 pm

I still can’t get my head round how many people believe if the pitch is put down it will automatically make money.

Steve Whites Missus

Posts : 635
Join date : 2015-02-05
Age : 50
Location : Bath

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by pete mac Yesterday at 6:40 pm

The assumptions in the report were reasonable. It didn’t assume full on usage and did assume void time and didn’t appear to me to be charging top dollar. But I agree nothing is automatic but doing nothing is a recipe for failure

pete mac

Posts : 708
Join date : 2014-02-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by SteveS Yesterday at 7:08 pm

For many years the club has relied on Directors loans to keep it going year on year. We have now hit the brick wall on this, the league will now longer allow loans. New capital has to be in the form of share issue or gifts. Bath City has run up a huge debt through Directors loans and the time has now come when these loans have to be repaid. The club can only continue to trade at the moment due to a generous loan from a benefactor that was agreed before the new rules came into force.

Therefore, as pete mac says, there is a desperate need for more income. The lump sum from the redevelopment will allow the majority of the loans to be repaid but the club has now reached the point where radical changes are necessary. I am not sure if everyone appreciates how serious the situation is. If we don't get more income things won't just continue as they are and the alternative is one which I hope I do not need to spell out.

If the 3G can be financed without further damaging the financial situation I believe we have to go for it. It is not just a question of the income from 3G alone it is the fact that this will bring more people into Twerton Park and once there the club will have the opportunity to market other income streams to them.

If there are other ways of increasing income to the tune of £80k - £100k per year then we need to hear them, but so far I have not heard any.

At the last game there was a banner saying vote against the 3G. I also seem to remember a banner saying meet the owners recently. Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to single anyone out here, but as owners you have responsibility and my view is that as community shareholders(owners) we have a responsibility to make the club a viable proposition going forward. If there is another way I would like to hear it but in my book ownership and responsibility go together, you can't pick and choose.

Please think carefully before you vote, this is not just about what surface the club plays on.

SteveS

Posts : 254
Join date : 2014-02-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Marc Monitor Yesterday at 8:04 pm

OliverH wrote:
BenE wrote:Perhaps it ought to be called the Society Committee.Or even Cabinet.

It was always known as the Society Committee in the past until a previous Secretary had the genius idea to rename it the "Society Board" in official communications, in keeping with its enhanced post-Bid position/prestige...

...promptly resigning leaving the rest of us - including those on the Society 'board' - constantly confused as to which was which. I only hope that new parenthood has rendered his intellectual faculties as dulled as us older folk. I am doing a flag "Romans for the reinstatement of 'Society' status" next game.
avatar
Marc Monitor

Posts : 1471
Join date : 2014-02-20
Age : 51
Location : Within the sight of Twerton Park floodlights (Well, at the end of my street)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by cbtroman Yesterday at 10:35 pm

Can’t say I keep informed on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis regarding the clubs finances but I honestly thought that the big Bath city bid success meant that in the short term at least the club was financially stable??

Longer term, I was under the impression that residential accommodation was what was the key to gaining the income over 5 years with the 3G pitch just a potential side bonus.

So if the club is in real dire straits and 3G is a must I question why I bought my big bath city bid shares! Maybe I didn’t research enough!

On another note i don’t see the evidence for people to play on 3G on a regular basis bearing in mind we have facilities at odd Down and university to compete with too.

Finally it was pointed out that there is no reason why 3G would equal a non competitive club. If the football league don’t allow it then at the very least it’s making the prospect of playing at a higher level harder.

Bristol Rovers used to get regular gates at Twerton of over 6,000 without 3G so it’s stating the obvious I know but the football shouldn’t somehow be second priority to generate income.

Not suggesting the club play roulette and do a Rushden but don’t think it would do any harm to get out of a very uninspiring league!

cbtroman

Posts : 45
Join date : 2016-04-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Marc Monitor Yesterday at 11:04 pm

comrade powell wrote:When I referred to the board's reasons for recommending the proposal I meant the football club's board. Unfortunately the Society board have not made clear in their EGM announcement or in what is mentioned on its website what position it is taking. Personally I think that members should be told and I've requested that this happens.

Here is the recommendation .
avatar
Marc Monitor

Posts : 1471
Join date : 2014-02-20
Age : 51
Location : Within the sight of Twerton Park floodlights (Well, at the end of my street)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by comrade powell Today at 9:02 am

Thanks Marc. I've suggested that this be sent to members as I doubt that many read this forum or read the Society website regularly.
avatar
comrade powell

Posts : 4113
Join date : 2014-01-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Redevelopment

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 9 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum