AG Redevelopment latest

[Kid in the Riot]

ETMs case is that BCC didn't properly consider the impact that new housing would have on their business, as new residents may complain about various forms of pollution that the site produces.

Now BCC have evidence that ETM have been breaching their planning restrictions of when and how they operate, and further have refused planning for them to extend their business. 

Next stage will be that ETM will appeal the refusal for extending their business. That could take 6 months to a year.

Shouldn't directly impact on the separate court case. But absolutely no doubt BCC lawyers will be bringing up the breaches of planning by ETM... 

[City Rocker]

15 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I`m amazed ETM were allowed to build a waste disposal facility on that lovely village green in the first place................................

Won't anyone think of the newts??

[38MC]

58 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It is hard to say as I've noticed their directors put in almost as much as they took out in respect of the Business and Idk if you could reduce the Dividend to minority Shareholders if required.

Legal costs can rack up and up but a quick Judicial Review search makes me wonder.

It really does depend upon the complexity and it’s really an impossible guess to try to guess the exposure, but it’s probably less expensive than people think. 

Part of that will be that BCC has a panel of law firms to chose from which will have tendered for judicial review support over the next X years with pre-agreed discounted rates. They’ll also have an in-house legal team which will try to do most of the work with any external lawyers consulting. 

ETM themselves might even be covered by a legal expenses insurance policy (though I would doubt that). 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could pave the way for some kind of we drop ours if you drop yours plea bargain brinkhsmanship type game and maybe mutually beneficial on all sides or maybe rearrange the following:

Long Kick Grass The Into?

[Wedontplayinblue]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

My simple take is - no we can’t.  Because unless we can go ahead with Longmoor, we cant fund the SQ.

Funny how you we mentioning “we” but what benefit would it give the football club?

[StGeorge]

4 minutes ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

Funny how you we mentioning “we” but what benefit would it give the football club?

A decent club shop?

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

ETMs case is that BCC didn't properly consider the impact that new housing would have on their business, as new residents may complain about various forms of pollution that the site produces.

Now BCC have evidence that ETM have been breaching their planning restrictions of when and how they operate, and further have refused planning for them to extend their business. 

Next stage will be that ETM will appeal the refusal for extending their business. That could take 6 months to a year.

Shouldn't directly impact on the separate court case. But absolutely no doubt BCC lawyers will be bringing up the breaches of planning by ETM... 

Unusual business strategy , taking your 2 biggest customers to court. 

I don't imagine that usually plays out well.

[Mr Popodopolous]

26 minutes ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

Funny how you we mentioning “we” but what benefit would it give the football club?

The Devil can be in the Detail but..if it plays out as it should.

1) The Hotel, Conference facilties, possibly Arena, Car Parking etc. This revenue should come unfer Ashton Gate Limited and or Bristol City Holdings.

2) Under the FFP rules, AGL and the club are consolidated into Bristol City FC Holdings.  Therefore all relevant Revenue under both counts towards FFP purposes.

3) New proposed Rules directly link Revenue to expenditure in relevant areas- but exclude such items as wages for Hospitality, Directors, regular staff.

Therefore we can benefit from all of the revenue but some of the costs of it will he excluded.

We could rent the Arena for Basketball to the Flyers, bit more cash for the club via the consolidator.

Probably other items that I haven't even considered.

Oh intangible benefits, a big Sporting Quarter and entertainment surely is better for Sponsorship potential etc.

[Dr Balls]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

ETMs case is that BCC didn't properly consider the impact that new housing would have on their business, as new residents may complain about various forms of pollution that the site produces.

Now BCC have evidence that ETM have been breaching their planning restrictions of when and how they operate, and further have refused planning for them to extend their business. 

Next stage will be that ETM will appeal the refusal for extending their business. That could take 6 months to a year.

Shouldn't directly impact on the separate court case. But absolutely no doubt BCC lawyers will be bringing up the breaches of planning by ETM... 

My impression from reading this was that not only were BCC not going to approve 24/7 operations by ETM, that they were looking to prosecute them for already breaching their terms and apply that retrospectively back to at least when they applied for 24/7 working, it not earlier. I would doubt that BCC would have done that without proof of breaking their restrictions by ETM, so I would suggest that ETM are in a real bind legally. They thought that they were being clever and holding SL to ransom and making a million on upgrading their site, but now it doesn’t look good for them. In fact it might be suggested that they would have been better to not push their luck, especially as it should be common it that the only people who really profit from drawn out legal battles are the lawyers…

[View from the Dolman]

Anyone wanting some bedtime reading can find the officer's report here:
https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QPFT1NDNGIK00

Including: "A planning enforcement case was opened on 22.2.2024 when the Council's Public Relations Office contacted the planning department about press reports that they had received about potential breaches of planning control at the site - subsequent to that three further separate complaints have been made; one from a Planning Consultant representing an adjoining landowner on 14.3.2024, one from a nearby business on 17.4.24 and from a neighbouring Sports Club on 25.4.2024."

A neighbouring sports club? The mind boggles!

[38MC]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could pave the way for some kind of we drop ours if you drop yours plea bargain brinkhsmanship type game and maybe mutually beneficial on all sides or maybe rearrange the following:

Long Kick Grass The Into?

Between commercial people, agreed. But this is a case involving a local authority which opens much more PR considerations. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, 38MC said:

Between commercial people, agreed. But this is a case involving a local authority which opens much more PR considerations. 

It does, plus legal and regulatory ones, hard and soft power..precedence etc etc.

For the wider benefits of the city but I suppose even with such a 3 way deal, it could raise independent objectors and it all begins again.. 

[The Bard]

16 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

ETMs case is that BCC didn't properly consider the impact that new housing would have on their business, as new residents may complain about various forms of pollution that the site produces.

Now BCC have evidence that ETM have been breaching their planning restrictions of when and how they operate, and further have refused planning for them to extend their business. 

Next stage will be that ETM will appeal the refusal for extending their business. That could take 6 months to a year.

Shouldn't directly impact on the separate court case. But absolutely no doubt BCC lawyers will be bringing up the breaches of planning by ETM... 

Greed + stupidity.  By taking this action they get the spotlight shone on them and get exposed.  

[redsontour]

In summary, ETM are trying to stop the council granting planning for homes because it will lead to complaints when the business operates outside of their operating licence…somebody in their legal team needs firing…the HSE & planning teams will be going through that place with a fine tooth comb and the loss of the Bristol Sport contract for recycling will be a drop in the ocean…

[Clevedon Red]

20 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

Anyone wanting some bedtime reading can find the officer's report here:
https://pa.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QPFT1NDNGIK00

Including: "A planning enforcement case was opened on 22.2.2024 when the Council's Public Relations Office contacted the planning department about press reports that they had received about potential breaches of planning control at the site - subsequent to that three further separate complaints have been made; one from a Planning Consultant representing an adjoining landowner on 14.3.2024, one from a nearby business on 17.4.24 and from a neighbouring Sports Club on 25.4.2024."

A neighbouring sports club? The mind boggles!

Hmmm I suspect all three complainants are actually Lansdown

[Sleepy1968]

37 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

Hmmm I suspect all three complainants are actually Lansdown

Sounds a bit like it. I'm sure an otib member from Ashton Vale made a comment some time ago (maybe on this thread) about their noise out of hours. So I'm sure the council have had prior complaints.

I suppose neighbouring sports club could be David Lloyd's - as it basically back on to ETM it would definitely be impacted by them.

[38MC]

On 12/07/2024 at 19:21, Kid in the Riot said:

ETMs case is that BCC didn't properly consider the impact that new housing would have on their business, as new residents may complain about various forms of pollution that the site produces.

Now BCC have evidence that ETM have been breaching their planning restrictions of when and how they operate, and further have refused planning for them to extend their business. 

Next stage will be that ETM will appeal the refusal for extending their business. That could take 6 months to a year.

Shouldn't directly impact on the separate court case. But absolutely no doubt BCC lawyers will be bringing up the breaches of planning by ETM... 

Edit - missed the bit in bold 
 

Could ETM not run their case as ‘notwithstanding the breach’ the planning application was flawed for their original reasons - i.e. sorry guv, we’ll play by the rules, but still even if we do this is going to detrimentally affect us and we were here first? 

Edited July 13 by 38MC

[Hxj]

ETM could also run the argument that you cannot finalise the JR until the planning permission has been finally determined.  In other words, the refusal issued on 10 July starts a new time clock.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I wonder too, whether ETM could try and claim some sort of false or malicious prosecution in respect of the sudden query about Licencing compliance.

Rules are rules but timing..I wonder if they can dispute that, claim X and Y as a partial defence.

*Council are in favour of this development.

*Judicial Review inbound

*Council launch unrelated Proceedings or dispute vs ETM.

When exactly was the date of this Council action vs ETM.

[Barrs Court Red]

56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wonder too, whether ETM could try and claim some sort of false or malicious prosecution in respect of the sudden query about Licencing compliance.

Rules are rules but timing..I wonder if they can dispute that, claim X and Y as a partial defence.

*Council are in favour of this development.

*Judicial Review inbound

*Council launch unrelated Proceedings or dispute vs ETM.

When exactly was the date of this Council action vs ETM.

It can’t be malicious if the council is enforcing their statutory obligations 

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Barrs Court Red said:

It can’t be malicious if the council is enforcing their statutory obligations 

Hmm, but timing..anything to muddy the waters..raise questions about timing and motive.

I'd be looking for any holes, loose ends etc.

Something as small as undotted i's uncrossed t's but more seriously any small failing in process or motive.

Edited July 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[JAWS]

I appreciate the plan is for the housing to fund the Sporting Quarter but I guess SL has enough funds to go ahead with the SQ regardless. Just thinking it might attract more interest in any prospective sale of City etc 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, JAWS said:

I appreciate the plan is for the housing to fund the Sporting Quarter but I guess SL has enough funds to go ahead with the SQ regardless. Just thinking it might attract more interest in any prospective sale of City etc 

When I was involved with the Flyers Fans Group re the basketball bit of the SQ, the club rep who I had a couple of zooms with said - SQ doesn’t go ahead without Longmoor funding it.

[Kid in the Riot]

13 minutes ago, JAWS said:

I appreciate the plan is for the housing to fund the Sporting Quarter but I guess SL has enough funds to go ahead with the SQ regardless. Just thinking it might attract more interest in any prospective sale of City etc 

Both planning permissions are linked so he can't implement one without the other. 

[Wedontplayinblue]

28 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Both planning permissions are linked so he can't implement one without the other. 

Could withdraw and submit new plans?

The poster is correct, the blokes insanely rich he doesn’t need to build houses to fund it, but then I guess that’s why he’s rich. 

[Kid in the Riot]

6 minutes ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

Could withdraw and submit new plans?

The poster is correct, the blokes insanely rich he doesn’t need to build houses to fund it, but then I guess that’s why he’s rich. 

Not that simple I'm afraid. They have argued that the SQ is not financially viable without all of the enabling housing being market units (i.e. no social housing), and that the Longmoor development is also required to assist fund it and will provide a % of social housing. 

That's why SL won't be funding the SQ on his own.  

Notwithstanding that, at this point I don't believe he'd fund it on his own anyway. He wants a return on this particular investment. 

[JAWS]

3 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Both planning permissions are linked so he can't implement one without the other. 

Do you know why they did that? For viability reasons? Otherwise would seem to make sense to separate them. Just thinking if a prospective bidder was interested but only if the SQ was part of the deal having them separate provides more flexibility otherwise the SQ is hamstrung in planning by the housing

[JAWS]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Not that simple I'm afraid. They have argued that the SQ is not financially viable without all of the enabling housing being market units (i.e. no social housing), and that the Longmoor development is also required to assist fund it and will provide a % of social housing. 

That's why SL won't be funding the SQ on his own.  

Notwithstanding that, at this point I don't believe he'd fund it on his own anyway. He wants a return on this particular investment. 

This crossed with my post below. Makes sense now. BUT on the flip side, SL may be losing out on a better offer for city etc if a prospective bidder wanted the SQ. Even if it just had planning consent. SL could sell with a planning consent & the bidder would be free to build the SQ if SL didn't want to. Then SL could pursue the housing separately. I appreciate that may mean social housing but it keeps it cleaner & better options. Just wonder if trying to be too clever/greedy & perhaps cutting his nose off. I would imagine the viability agreement would restrict how much SL could sell the SQ for anyway (would have to show funds separately in a financial appraisal) such that any uplift would probably mean a payback to the Council in the future to.fund the social housing lost. Whereas if kept separate he would be free to sell the SQ with planning without any scrutiny. He must be running out of enthusiasm to build it anyway so a sale with planning may be a more attractive option.

Bit late now obviously but may need to go down that route if the JR successful 

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 13/07/2024 at 19:48, 38MC said:

Edit - missed the bit in bold 
 

Could ETM not run their case as ‘notwithstanding the breach’ the planning application was flawed for their original reasons - i.e. sorry guv, we’ll play by the rules, but still even if we do this is going to detrimentally affect us and we were here first? 

The councils arguement is that during planning they considered this matter and determined that as long as ETM operate within their allowed times then it would have no impact on those living in the houses. 

[Wedontplayinblue]

13 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Not that simple I'm afraid. They have argued that the SQ is not financially viable without all of the enabling housing being market units (i.e. no social housing), and that the Longmoor development is also required to assist fund it and will provide a % of social housing. 

That's why SL won't be funding the SQ on his own.  

Notwithstanding that, at this point I don't believe he'd fund it on his own anyway. He wants a return on this particular investment. 

If you have enough money, does it matter if it isn’t financially viable ?

As your last paragraph stays, he wants a return on this, it’s not for the glory of Bristol as such. 

[beaverface]

1 hour ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

If you have enough money, does it matter if it isn’t financially viable ?

As your last paragraph stays, he wants a return on this, it’s not for the glory of Bristol as such. 

I said it months ago, if SL really wanted to push the development through, he had the means to placate ETM, but stuck his heels in, and refused to pay for the roof, even though in the outset he\they offered to help ETM. SL talks about wanting to leave a legacy, but he's not operating in a philanthropist manner, but purely about churning that money pot over and over again.

I'm pretty sure he could probably cover the costs of the SQ development without the housing if he chose to, but he wants the money cow to keep topping his bank account up.

Unless there's something we don't know about, he has plenty of money to keep him comfortable for the rest of his days, and indeed his descendants after he's long gone.

 

[TV Tom]

9 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I said it months ago, if SL really wanted to push the development through, he had the means to placate ETM, but stuck his heels in, and refused to pay for the roof, even though in the outset he\they offered to help ETM. SL talks about wanting to leave a legacy, but he's not operating in a philanthropist manner, but purely about churning that money pot over and over again.

I'm pretty sure he could probably cover the costs of the SQ development without the housing if he chose to, but he wants the money cow to keep topping his bank account up.

Unless there's something we don't know about, he has plenty of money to keep him comfortable for the rest of his days, and indeed his descendants after he's long gone.

 

Of course he could build it without the new development if he wanted to but that’s not the point, he didn’t become a billionaire by rolling over and having his belly tickled

[Monkeh]

20 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I said it months ago, if SL really wanted to push the development through, he had the means to placate ETM, but stuck his heels in, and refused to pay for the roof, even though in the outset he\they offered to help ETM. SL talks about wanting to leave a legacy, but he's not operating in a philanthropist manner, but purely about churning that money pot over and over again.

I'm pretty sure he could probably cover the costs of the SQ development without the housing if he chose to, but he wants the money cow to keep topping his bank account up.

Unless there's something we don't know about, he has plenty of money to keep him comfortable for the rest of his days, and indeed his descendants after he's long gone.

 

Why should he pay for the roof?

You don't pay to repair your neighbours roof

[Slacker]

34 minutes ago, beaverface said:

I said it months ago, if SL really wanted to push the development through, he had the means to placate ETM, but stuck his heels in, and refused to pay for the roof, even though in the outset he\they offered to help ETM. SL talks about wanting to leave a legacy, but he's not operating in a philanthropist manner, but purely about churning that money pot over and over again.

I'm pretty sure he could probably cover the costs of the SQ development without the housing if he chose to, but he wants the money cow to keep topping his bank account up.

Unless there's something we don't know about, he has plenty of money to keep him comfortable for the rest of his days, and indeed his descendants after he's long gone.

 

Just a thought but maybe it is the businessman in him.I don't know how involved he is in the day to day running of any of his schemes,but maybe he sees this as some kind of challenge or project that scratches his entrepreneurial itch?

[1960maaan]

29 minutes ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

If you have enough money, does it matter if it isn’t financially viable ?

As your last paragraph stays, he wants a return on this, it’s not for the glory of Bristol as such. 

Just because he has loads of money why should he not do business like a business man ?
The plan was in place, as KitR said , one funds (partially) the other. 

I was told a long time ago when the "New" Ground was still a thing, and again later by someone involved , that Steve saw the build as his legacy . I bet he didn't expect it to be so difficult or so expensive .
He has already spent what ? North of £200m on the Club , more on the land and planning to be stopped at almost every turn . 

[beaverface]

47 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Why should he pay for the roof?

You don't pay to repair your neighbours roof

Actually some do!

I've had neighbours offer to build walls, fences, driveways to help improve the boundary. I've also had neighbours do the pointing on our shared chimney breast. The point I'm making, is that sometimes if you want something, you need to compromise or take a small hit.

I just don't get this philanthropist angle that people suggest SL is doing all this for the good of Joe Public - IMO everything SL does, is for himself and his families benefit, which happens to leave a bit of a legacy on the side. I bet SL wouldn't be leaving a legacy if there wasn't a few quid in it for himself.

[Kid in the Riot]

19 minutes ago, beaverface said:

Actually some do!

I've had neighbours offer to build walls, fences, driveways to help improve the boundary. I've also had neighbours do the pointing on our shared chimney breast. The point I'm making, is that sometimes if you want something, you need to compromise or take a small hit.

I just don't get this philanthropist angle that people suggest SL is doing all this for the good of Joe Public - IMO everything SL does, is for himself and his families benefit, which happens to leave a bit of a legacy on the side. I bet SL wouldn't be leaving a legacy if there wasn't a few quid in it for himself.

Submitted with the planning application were the required air, noise, dust reports which all showed their would be no adverse impact on the future residents of the site. The council agreed with these assessments.

So why should Steve pay ETM £1 million for a roof when all his own consultants, and council officers, do not think there is an issue? 

[beaverface]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

Submitted with the planning application were the required air, noise, dust reports which all showed their would be no adverse impact on the future residents of the site. The council agreed with these assessments.

So why should Steve pay ETM £1 million for a roof when all his own consultants, and council officers, do not think there is an issue? 

Yep, you're right..........his choice.

[Wedontplayinblue]

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Just because he has loads of money why should he not do business like a business man ?
The plan was in place, as KitR said , one funds (partially) the other. 

I was told a long time ago when the "New" Ground was still a thing, and again later by someone involved , that Steve saw the build as his legacy . I bet he didn't expect it to be so difficult or so expensive .
He has already spent what ? North of £200m on the Club , more on the land and planning to be stopped at almost every turn . 

You have already mentioned it, he wants a legacy, well go build that legacy then.

200M to a billionaire is absolutely tiny. 
 

let’s not forget that in % terms, a city fan on minimum wage puts more in a year than lansdown does with his wealth. 

[Eddie Hitler]

38 minutes ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

200M to a billionaire is absolutely tiny. 

 

Er, check your workings there.

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Er, check your workings there.

I love this place! (Sometimes)

Edited July 16 by REDOXO

[phantom]

I love the (ever growing) pages of conjecture on this topic all based on an adjourned court date

[Wedontplayinblue]

50 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Er, check your workings there.

It is though Eddie, that isn’t 200m in one hit is it, that’s Over the years.

Lansdown Would of easily made enough passive income from his wealth to cover city last year.

I think sometimes it needs to be put into perspective. 
 

50 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Er, check your workings there.

It is though Eddie, that isn’t 200m in one hit is it, that’s Over the years.

Lansdown Would of easily made enough passive income from his wealth to cover city last year.

I think sometimes it needs to be put into perspective. 
 

[Mr Popodopolous]

£260m or so I think is the SL input.

Of that we 'only' owe £70-80m of it.

There is interest but..

A) All debt converted to equity is no longer owed by us.

*B) Assuming interest rate stays consistent on the total debt pile, conversion of equity should reduce it. ie say 3% of £90m, convert £13m to equity and that becomes 3% of £77m.

*Subject of course to the interest not adding to the debt ie that £2m gets added.

Edited July 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

20 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

They have argued that the SQ is not financially viable without all of the enabling housing being market units (i.e. no social housing), and that the Longmoor development is also required to assist fund it and will provide a % of social housing.

All I will say on this issue is that there is a statutory definition of 'unviable' for 'affordable housing' provision to be removed.  That statutory provision can still result in a very handsome profit arising to the developer.

My understanding is that the restriction is also a one-way one.  If Longmoor is to proceed, then the funds arising have to be applied to the Sporting Quarter.  However if the developer decided to proceed with the Sporting Quarter alone then the planning permission allows that.

[Kid in the Riot]

5 minutes ago, Hxj said:

All I will say on this issue is that there is a statutory definition of 'unviable' for 'affordable housing' provision to be removed.  That statutory provision can still result in a very handsome profit arising to the developer.

My understanding is that the restriction is also a one-way one.  If Longmoor is to proceed, then the funds arising have to be applied to the Sporting Quarter.  However if the developer decided to proceed with the Sporting Quarter alone then the planning permission allows that.

Yes, that's correct I think.

Viability assessments are generally open to interpretation though, and enforced differently depending on which council is dealing with the application. 

Developer profit is generally assumed to be at 18-20% of the GDV. 

[The Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

I think sometimes it needs to be put into perspective. 

Yes, it does. 

Easy to spend someone else's money, isn't it. 

[JAWS]

26 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Yes, that's correct I think.

Viability assessments are generally open to interpretation though, and enforced differently depending on which council is dealing with the application. 

Developer profit is generally assumed to be at 18-20% of the GDV. 

I do find it odd how the two developments are allowed to be linked. Ordinarily a viability assessment is linked to the one site ie. Affordable reduced or omitted to allow the site itself to be developed, in the interests of allowing development & housing supply to happen not for a totally detached site & different facility to happen. Not looked at the details but that appears to be what has been allowed.

[Eddie Hitler]

2 hours ago, Wedontplayinblue said:

It is though Eddie, that isn’t 200m in one hit is it, that’s Over the years.

Lansdown Would of easily made enough passive income from his wealth to cover city last year.

I think sometimes it needs to be put into perspective. 
 

It is though Eddie, that isn’t 200m in one hit is it, that’s Over the years.

Lansdown Would of easily made enough passive income from his wealth to cover city last year.

I think sometimes it needs to be put into perspective. 
 

 

Fair dos, I can see where you're coming from with that.

[Kid in the Riot]

2 minutes ago, JAWS said:

I do find it odd how the two developments are allowed to be linked. Ordinarily a viability assessment is linked to the one site ie. Affordable reduced or omitted to allow the site itself to be developed, in the interests of allowing development & housing supply to happen not for a totally detached site & different facility to happen. Not looked at the details but that appears to be what has been allowed.

Need to be a bit careful what I say. But sadly social housing is still viewed by many developers as having an impact on the value of market units.

My guess is they don't want the social units on the SQ site, so have erm made sure there is a viability issue there so they can avoid providing onsite. 

Clearly it's a brownfield site with some big units on it so there are significant demo costs. I assume they've thrown contamination issues and maybe a bit of flooding mitigation at it too....to make sure the numbers work in their favour.

[Mr Popodopolous]

23 minutes ago, The Fat Controller said:

Yes, it does. 

Easy to spend someone else's money, isn't it. 

Good evening Steve, lovely of you to join us.

[JAWS]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Need to be a bit careful what I say. But sadly social housing is still viewed by many developers as having an impact on the value of market units.

My guess is they don't want the social units on the SQ site, so have erm made sure there is a viability issue there so they can avoid providing onsite. 

Clearly it's a brownfield site with some big units on it so there are significant demo costs. I assume they've thrown contamination issues and maybe a bit of flooding mitigation at it too....to make sure the numbers work in their favour.

Oh yeah, forgot housing (flats) on the SQ site too. And as you say above viability rules will allow a reasonable case/costs to be put forward especially on a brownfield site. To be honest I don't blame SL for not wanting social housing within teh SQ. It is a sad reality i'm afraid, but a reality nonetheless.

 

 

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Oh yeah, forgot housing (flats) on the SQ site too. And as you say above viability rules will allow a reasonable case/costs to be put forward especially on a brownfield site. To be honest I don't blame SL for not wanting social housing within teh SQ. It is a sad reality i'm afraid, but a reality nonetheless.

A lot of social housing providers wouldn't take on that scheme anyway, logistically too difficult to separate from market. 

[JAWS]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

£260m or so I think is the SL input.

Of that we 'only' owe £70-80m of it.

There is interest but..

A) All debt converted to equity is no longer owed by us.

*B) Assuming interest rate stays consistent on the total debt pile, conversion of equity should reduce it. ie say 3% of £90m, convert £13m to equity and that becomes 3% of £77m.

*Subject of course to the interest not adding to the debt ie that £2m gets added.

Lucky you're on the ball Pops. 

What are the general thoughts on the value of the Bristol Sport set up including the stadium/land & other assets? Excluding the SQ & Longmoor while it remains in abeyance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is IF SL sold tomorrow would be realistically recoup the full input or face a loss & what kind of loss?

I wonder then what the value would be if the SQ/Longmoor were included, either developed or sold with planning.

 

[JAWS]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

A lot of social housing providers wouldn't take on that scheme anyway, logistically too difficult to separate from market. 

Yes I agree. They don't even like to mix their own tenures ie. shared ownership & rent

[JAWS]

9 minutes ago, JAWS said:

Yes I agree. They don't even like to mix their own tenures ie. shared ownership & rent

It's ironic because LA Housing Enablers will require that social housing is pepper potted through a development & tenure blind with private in order to integrate & then in the next breath will request that social rented units are not attached (semi or terrace housing or within flat block) to shared ownership! 

[Kid in the Riot]

2 minutes ago, JAWS said:

It's ironic because LA Housing Enablers will require that social housing is pepper potted through a development & tenure blind with private in order to integrate & then in the next breath will request that social rented units are not attached (semi or terrace housing or within flat block) to shared ownership! 

Yeah, my experience is they're increasingly giving up on the "tenure blind" approach! They've gotta manage them at the end of the day.

[City Rocker]

11 minutes ago, JAWS said:

It's ironic because LA Housing Enablers will require that social housing is pepper potted through a development & tenure blind with private in order to integrate & then in the next breath will request that social rented units are not attached (semi or terrace housing or within flat block) to shared ownership! 

Social housing providers - housing associations anyway - are generally now looking to build communities with the potential to deliver community-led projects, that are sustainable for generations to come. Which would ideally mean a mix of homes on a well-designed suburban development (e.g. Longmoor Village) rather than a handful of flats in a multi storey block in the midst of a major sports and leisure complex. 

[JAWS]

15 minutes ago, City Rocker said:

Social housing providers - housing associations anyway - are generally now looking to build communities with the potential to deliver community-led projects, that are sustainable for generations to come. Which would ideally mean a mix of homes on a well-designed suburban development (e.g. Longmoor Village) rather than a handful of flats in a multi storey block in the midst of a major sports and leisure complex. 

I think if you want to integrate then the principal shouldn't be any different for flats, it's just the management (& legal) side of things (as KITR points out) that has provided difficulties & subsequently is generally not desired by both developers & RP's, though i'm pretty sure Whapping Wharf had a 40% affordable requirement unless that was negotiated away!?

[Wedontplayinblue]

2 hours ago, The Fat Controller said:

Yes, it does. 

Easy to spend someone else's money, isn't it. 

Well not really, it’s obviously larger sums of money but % wise it’s the same.

Lansdown can’t be harping on about legacy when he’s precious with the money when being a billionaire. 
 

Take a city fan on £11 an hour, so 56p over minimum wage, he takes home £20,300 a year. 

Using the dolman centre as middle priced season ticket at £585, that city fan has just spent 2.88% of his whole yearly take home wage to watch city. 

Lansdown putting £13,000,000 of his £1,000,000,000 is 1.3% (obviously lansdown is making money on his money, city fan on minimum wage isnt)

Who’s putting more of their wealth into city? Lansdown or the city fan on minimum wage?

Its just larger numbers in money terms for lansdown, not as a % of wealth 

Edited July 16 by Wedontplayinblue

[City Rocker]

46 minutes ago, JAWS said:

I think if you want to integrate then the principal shouldn't be any different for flats, it's just the management (& legal) side of things (as KITR points out) that has provided difficulties & subsequently is generally not desired by both developers & RP's, though i'm pretty sure Whapping Wharf had a 40% affordable requirement unless that was negotiated away!?

Yes there's a significant proportion (not sure how much) of affordable homes at Wapping Wharf.

Flats/apartments certainly feature heavily in the future plans of housing associations, but I just don't perceive (purely from the CGI's) that the SQ development is set up to deliver a community sustainable across future generations. Likely more Airbnb and short-term lets.

Edited July 16 by City Rocker
Auto correct

[Kid in the Riot]

49 minutes ago, City Rocker said:

Social housing providers - housing associations anyway - are generally now looking to build communities with the potential to deliver community-led projects, that are sustainable for generations to come. Which would ideally mean a mix of homes on a well-designed suburban development (e.g. Longmoor Village) rather than a handful of flats in a multi storey block in the midst of a major sports and leisure complex. 

Partially true. But HAs are also looking for their units to be in sustainable locations where the tenants have easy access to jobs, facilities, public services and transport. And in that respect AG ticks more boxes than Longmoor.

[City Rocker]

13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Partially true. But HAs are also looking for their units to be in sustainable locations where the tenants have easy access to jobs, facilities, public services and transport. And in that respect AG ticks more boxes than Longmoor.

I hear ya, but it comes down to very different perceptions of "sustainable" as I refer you to my previous post above

[Kid in the Riot]

2 minutes ago, City Rocker said:

I hear ya, but it comes down to very different perceptions of "sustainable" as I refer you to my previous post above

Yep, I see what you're saying

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, JAWS said:

Lucky you're on the ball Pops. 

What are the general thoughts on the value of the Bristol Sport set up including the stadium/land & other assets? Excluding the SQ & Longmoor while it remains in abeyance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is IF SL sold tomorrow would be realistically recoup the full input or face a loss & what kind of loss?

I wonder then what the value would be if the SQ/Longmoor were included, either developed or sold with planning.

 

Thanks, I do try.

Good question JAWS, I think what SL is mooted fo want he won't get by a long stretch.

Kieran Maguire has a few formulas for valuing clubs but a very simple look suggests...

*£190m or thereabouts in Converted to Equity/Share Capital.

*Fixed Assets did cost £57m plus or were valued depending..

£267m on basic reading, in reality for a loss making football club in the 2nd tier you need to look at comparables.

My gut feeling is that unless he cuts his asking price to £20-30m, maybe £50m any sale prospects will remain far in the distance.

*Birmingham- £22m

*Hull- £30m- unsure on debt.

*West Brom- £60m (club itself £28m, remainder debt).

*Sheffield United which is in the works was cited at £115m.

[Mr Popodopolous]

EBIDTA method

I'll let someone else do  

Also Kieran Maguire.

About Watford but that sounds reasonable as a working example, model to go on.

[JAWS]

44 minutes ago, City Rocker said:

Yes there's a significant proportion (not sure how much) of affordable homes at Wapping Wharf.

Flats/apartments certainly feature heavily in the future plans of housing associations, but I just don't perceive (purely from the CGI's) that the SQ development is set up to deliver a community sustainable across future generations. Likely more Airbnb and short-term lets.

Or investors from the Far East! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ah yes the Accounts said our EBITDA was..

-£18.107m 

How you value that by a conventional model??

It seemed to include Profit on Player Tradng too which the traditional metric doesn't.

Edited July 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[JAWS]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EBIDTA method

I'll let someone else do  

Also Kieran Maguire.

About Watford but that sounds reasonable as a working example, model to go on.

It is baffling that he hasn't pushed the boat out that bit more when we have been well positioned & thus trigger the PL income/parachute payments. Luton are now at a significant advantage going back to the championship. They were sensible too after going up which I think it probably the best way if SL seeks sustainability

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, JAWS said:

It is baffling that he hasn't pushed the boat out that bit more when we have been well positioned & thus trigger the PL income/parachute payments. Luton are now at a significant advantage going back to the championship. They were sensible too after going up which I think it probably the best way if SL seeks sustainability

Not as easy as it seems although I agree.

January 2008 could have been the big one pre FFP, SL had the enthusiasm too then probably.

Even Parachute and yoyo clubs aren't always so profitable..Fulham with PL and Parachute cash between 2001 to present, owner and yes post Covid converted some small amount...

..Oh just £116.5m??

WBA went for a mere £28m and £32m in debt repayment.

Otoh Burnley went for £170m albeit a lot was leveraged onto the club..debt free and major cash stockpile.

Edited July 16 by Mr Popodopolous