Stadium Redevelopment
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 grumpymort  US/Thailand/UK 20 Apr 20 1.11pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle
Any planning permission comes with strings attached. We are building (or not) a new strand to both increase the match day capacity and to generate revenue on a non match day. That brings a benefit to the club it will also generate more people using the local area and that puts a strain on it. It is therefore only reasonable that the club who will cause this increase chips in. It is not a public/private thing, it is a cost of doing business. If you build a housing estate would you expect the council to stump up the cost of a new road and street furniture? They are not selling the houses and getting the profit.
Plus their is regulations and standards you need to meet now back when a lot of that area was built it would of been different so if you do work you need to bring it up to modern standards. Every other club has had to do this so they are not just playing hard ball to Palace. The current site is not fit for purpose anymore and to expect to built that up yet not do anything is madness the transport round that area is awful anyway (I know some will say no it's not yes it is remove the rose tinted specs)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
JRW2  Dulwich 20 Apr 20 3.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle
Any planning permission comes with strings attached. We are building (or not) a new strand to both increase the match day capacity and to generate revenue on a non match day. That brings a benefit to the club it will also generate more people using the local area and that puts a strain on it. It is therefore only reasonable that the club who will cause this increase chips in. It is not a public/private thing, it is a cost of doing business. If you build a housing estate would you expect the council to stump up the cost of a new road and street furniture? They are not selling the houses and getting the profit. I accept what you say in principle. But in this case it's the nature of the items on their shopping list that gets me: bus shelters, measures to encourage cycling, vague management charges, plans for the wider area, etc. And since Palace aren't planning to build anything that would require a new road, I don't really see the relevance of your last point. The council is demanding items of expenditure outside - in fact in some cases several hundred yards away from - our existing site.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sansbup Norfolk 20 Apr 20 3.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
When all’s said and done, we are talking about Wilf and Benteke’s wages for a week to get it moving. Just to give it a bit of context....
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 20 Apr 20 4.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sansbup
When all’s said and done, we are talking about Wilf and Benteke’s wages for a week to get it moving. Just to give it a bit of context.... So true!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| martin2412 Living The Dream 20 Apr 20 6.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's often the case that when a large company is applying for planning permission, part of the conditions/negotiations are that surrounding areas be upgraded by the company making the application. Years ago when Tesco wanted to close their town centre shop in Ramsgate and open a large 'out-of-town' site near Manston, the local council said that they would grant the permission as long as Tesco refurbished the whole of the street (Harbour Street) where their existing shop was. The street was quite run-down. Tesco agreed to this and also paid for the approach roads to their new store. This saved the local council tax payers a fortune, and was obviously worthwhile financially to Tesco, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. My understanding is that this is common practice. Parish is doing his usual by talking a good game. As I've always said, he's all pi55 and wind.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Online Croydon 20 Apr 20 7.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by grumpymort
Plus their is regulations and standards you need to meet now back when a lot of that area was built it would of been different so if you do work you need to bring it up to modern standards. Every other club has had to do this so they are not just playing hard ball to Palace. The current site is not fit for purpose anymore and to expect to built that up yet not do anything is madness the transport round that area is awful anyway (I know some will say no it's not yes it is remove the rose tinted specs) Croydon Council, especially under Labour control has never encouraged any development, apart from housing. They have managed to scupper the Westfield development in Croydon Town Centre, leaving shops empty. Don't expect them to help Palace.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 21 Apr 20 8.54am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
Croydon Council, especially under Labour control has never encouraged any development, apart from housing. They have managed to scupper the Westfield development in Croydon Town Centre, leaving shops empty. Don't expect them to help Palace. As stated above by the reasonable posters, we are being asked to make a small contribution, in both real terms and in the overall cost of the project, towards some infrastructure improvements to help deal with the greater footfall from the increased capacity and use. We knew that we would be required to do this during the planning and negotiations and it's not believable that a major project is stalled on an amount that is around 2.5% of the total cost. Parish was originally seeking to purchase a "sliver" of land from Sainsbury's, required for the footprint of the new stand. If the latest reports are to be believed, we're now looking to purchase sufficient land for a 200 space car park. That is, if correct, considerably more than a sliver and would inevitably carry a significant cost. The bottom line is that, without a substantial cash injection, this project is not going to happen. The US investors want out and, if reports are to be believed, there doesn't seem to be anyone out there prepared to match our purchase valuation. It's probably time to put this one on the CPP and the new club shop 'too difficult' pile, and what's the betting that the training ground project will be joining them in due course.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Henry of Peckham  Eton Mess 21 Apr 20 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by bexleydave
As stated above by the reasonable posters, we are being asked to make a small contribution, in both real terms and in the overall cost of the project, towards some infrastructure improvements to help deal with the greater footfall from the increased capacity and use. We knew that we would be required to do this during the planning and negotiations and it's not believable that a major project is stalled on an amount that is around 2.5% of the total cost. Parish was originally seeking to purchase a "sliver" of land from Sainsbury's, required for the footprint of the new stand. If the latest reports are to be believed, we're now looking to purchase sufficient land for a 200 space car park. That is, if correct, considerably more than a sliver and would inevitably carry a significant cost. The bottom line is that, without a substantial cash injection, this project is not going to happen. The US investors want out and, if reports are to be believed, there doesn't seem to be anyone out there prepared to match our purchase valuation. It's probably time to put this one on the CPP and the new club shop 'too difficult' pile, and what's the betting that the training ground project will be joining them in due course. Not sure if the project will be on hold or actually dead in the water because of all the above. Bear in mind, the majority of us would see absolutely no benefit from any of the redevelopment but the cash rich corporate mob who the club are hoping to attract will require facilities far exceeding our match day expectations. Edited by Henry of Peckham (21 Apr 2020 10.49am)
Denial is not just a river in Egypt |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 20 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssliver lol.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nead1 21 Apr 20 11.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
These kind of projects - especially when multiple stakeholders are involved - are always subject to much delay/negotiation. Personally, I remain optimistic it will happen and be transformational for the club. Although Parish receives a lot of negativity on these boards, let's remember his track record over 10 years. A very run down Championship club and now well established in the PL. That's quite some achievement in my book even if there have been some mistakes along the way.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Apr 20 12.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nead1
These kind of projects - especially when multiple stakeholders are involved - are always subject to much delay/negotiation. Personally, I remain optimistic it will happen and be transformational for the club. Although Parish receives a lot of negativity on these boards, let's remember his track record over 10 years. A very run down Championship club and now well established in the PL. That's quite some achievement in my book even if there have been some mistakes along the way. He really needs to leave something behind beyond memories. Training ground, decent scouting outside of the prem or championship we still can’t finalise deals in, main stand, a recruitment track record and policy that doesn’t leave us hamstrung because of only proven players including a few we cannot afford if it means being hamstrung elsewhere in the squad and for several seasons after. Although achievements are recognised in the prem (note plucky Bournemouth overspending every season and gladly paying the £7mil ffp fines, pundits waxing lyrical about clubs winning things by spending insane amounts of money), Parish’s real achievement will be how he navigates us into a more sustainable path to the future, whatever the league we find ourselves in. These aims have been planned rather than physically started. Let’s hope they’re implemented successfully. What concerns me finance wise is Zaha’s sale was a financial way out. But that looks unlikely to be the case to the level we thought. We did however get lucky with AWB. The Americans were always going to want their Allardyce transfer window money back so it was going to be paid after the Zaha sale if it wasn’t after AWB’s sale.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
jeeagles  21 Apr 20 10.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The last article I read said that along with the S106, there was also issues about how to purchase properties from the local authority and replace them. Croydon Council are probably being greedy on the road works they want and the housing they want replaced. Let us get on with building the ground, creating a venue people want to come to in Croydon, and generating some jobs. With all the Stanhope disputes in East Croydon, the Westfield fiasco, and this Croyon Council need to learn that being greedy is resulting in a load of crappy housing developments and no investment in businesses.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.