Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
New alternative to Falmer
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
I'm probably repeating someone but have just returned home and read the last few posts on this thread...
1. This whole 8 miles from Brighton thing (where I think the reference point was The Pavillion) - wasn't this a term of the FL allowing us to play at Gillingham, ie "you must return to Brighton". We've been playing at Withdean for years now - we have returned to Brighton.
2. Even if the above didn't meet the FL criteria, I believe we lodged a bank guarantee that if we did not return to Brighton we would turf up £500k. Well, in all honesty, whoopy doo. £500k is small beer in terms of the cost of a brand spanking new stadium. If we piss £500k up the wall to get ourselves a stadium worthy of the name, then so be it.
What is a concern, to me, is the levels of debt that Leicester, Derby and Bolton are in. Clubs with great new facilities but also with huge borrowings. You can build a new ground, you can fill it playing Premiership football. But if you don't play that level of the game it seems you suffer terribly financially. And I would imagine these clubs are as able to take advantage of "grants" etc as we are...
1. This whole 8 miles from Brighton thing (where I think the reference point was The Pavillion) - wasn't this a term of the FL allowing us to play at Gillingham, ie "you must return to Brighton". We've been playing at Withdean for years now - we have returned to Brighton.
2. Even if the above didn't meet the FL criteria, I believe we lodged a bank guarantee that if we did not return to Brighton we would turf up £500k. Well, in all honesty, whoopy doo. £500k is small beer in terms of the cost of a brand spanking new stadium. If we piss £500k up the wall to get ourselves a stadium worthy of the name, then so be it.
What is a concern, to me, is the levels of debt that Leicester, Derby and Bolton are in. Clubs with great new facilities but also with huge borrowings. You can build a new ground, you can fill it playing Premiership football. But if you don't play that level of the game it seems you suffer terribly financially. And I would imagine these clubs are as able to take advantage of "grants" etc as we are...
I share Bozza’s cost accounting concerns over Falmer, or any site.
However, it may well be that the Leicester debt was occurred as previous running expenses rather than the cost of the new stadium.
Cost accounting stadia is much more difficult than getting Planning Permission and this may be (most likely) what Martin Perry and the rest of the Board have the expertise. I estimated that the loan requirements were at least £12 million, before Brighton University wanted their cut. (These figures are all secrets.)
COSTS:
Cost of the stadium plus infrastructure, sewage, drainage whatever: assumed to roughly the same for most locations.
Cost of road junctions, approach roads etc. Falmer has an expensive road junction but there is only a short run to the actual stadium (and with single carriageways at £2 million a kilometre, this is an important cost for larger sites).
Costs of shifting huge mounds of earth, which appears to be unique to Falmer, but other costs of similar lines, like drainage, foundations may be incurred on other sites. This may actually be a small % of the total cost.
Paying off Brighton University. This is just a waste of dosh without any advantages.
Park ‘n Ride park. This is more space than cost compared to a grassed over car parking area which would be possible at larger sites?
Cost of any delay. Falmer has an advantage if there are no further delays as there would be no extra operating losses whilst at Withdean.
Landowner: price to pay (or conditions with Brighton Council). Negotiable. This factor would be prohibitive on just about any urban or brownfield site, only farmland or wasteland qualifies. (I do NOT think using public open space, e.g. Waterhall or Sheepcote, is acceptable and would receive legal objections.)
Railway station: already installed at Falmer. (From what I gather it is worthwhile for Railtrack to build and run a railway station at their own cost, if there are quarter of a million passengers a year and it does not mess up the train timetables, i.e. only on branch lines, not main lines.)
INCOME:
Any stadium in a good location would initially be thought to have the same income if it is the same size.
This could be subject to a % of people who would be put off by park ‘n ride, not being able to pay at the gate for run of the mill matches, or traffic jams, poor public transport etc.
Car parking income.
Ancillary activities, like concerts in the new stadium. Number allowed, suitability?
Ancillary developments producing income from the investment, depending on tenants for offices etc.
OFFSETTING THE CAPITAL COST:
Ancillary developments permitted on the same site, but run by a third party. No direct income, but the capital cost of the infrastructure could be shared (or even paid in total) by these developments.
It has been known that a third party would even pay for a stadium (or the shortfall after grants) if the rest of the development makes a huge profit.
INCIDENTALS
Goodwill.
Possibilities for expansion in the future.
This is meant to be a fair assessment without any prejudices.
However, it may well be that the Leicester debt was occurred as previous running expenses rather than the cost of the new stadium.
Cost accounting stadia is much more difficult than getting Planning Permission and this may be (most likely) what Martin Perry and the rest of the Board have the expertise. I estimated that the loan requirements were at least £12 million, before Brighton University wanted their cut. (These figures are all secrets.)
COSTS:
Cost of the stadium plus infrastructure, sewage, drainage whatever: assumed to roughly the same for most locations.
Cost of road junctions, approach roads etc. Falmer has an expensive road junction but there is only a short run to the actual stadium (and with single carriageways at £2 million a kilometre, this is an important cost for larger sites).
Costs of shifting huge mounds of earth, which appears to be unique to Falmer, but other costs of similar lines, like drainage, foundations may be incurred on other sites. This may actually be a small % of the total cost.
Paying off Brighton University. This is just a waste of dosh without any advantages.
Park ‘n Ride park. This is more space than cost compared to a grassed over car parking area which would be possible at larger sites?
Cost of any delay. Falmer has an advantage if there are no further delays as there would be no extra operating losses whilst at Withdean.
Landowner: price to pay (or conditions with Brighton Council). Negotiable. This factor would be prohibitive on just about any urban or brownfield site, only farmland or wasteland qualifies. (I do NOT think using public open space, e.g. Waterhall or Sheepcote, is acceptable and would receive legal objections.)
Railway station: already installed at Falmer. (From what I gather it is worthwhile for Railtrack to build and run a railway station at their own cost, if there are quarter of a million passengers a year and it does not mess up the train timetables, i.e. only on branch lines, not main lines.)
INCOME:
Any stadium in a good location would initially be thought to have the same income if it is the same size.
This could be subject to a % of people who would be put off by park ‘n ride, not being able to pay at the gate for run of the mill matches, or traffic jams, poor public transport etc.
Car parking income.
Ancillary activities, like concerts in the new stadium. Number allowed, suitability?
Ancillary developments producing income from the investment, depending on tenants for offices etc.
OFFSETTING THE CAPITAL COST:
Ancillary developments permitted on the same site, but run by a third party. No direct income, but the capital cost of the infrastructure could be shared (or even paid in total) by these developments.
It has been known that a third party would even pay for a stadium (or the shortfall after grants) if the rest of the development makes a huge profit.
INCIDENTALS
Goodwill.
Possibilities for expansion in the future.
This is meant to be a fair assessment without any prejudices.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Being a simple person why can't Brighton & Hove Clouncil build the Stadium and lease it back to us like Kirklees Council have done for Huddersfield. They didnt do it initially but have now I believe.
The Goldstone was owned by Clark's Bakery and leased to us on a 99 year lease until it was sold in the 90s
Dont Northampton Council own The Sixfields Ground as a Community Stadium
The Goldstone was owned by Clark's Bakery and leased to us on a 99 year lease until it was sold in the 90s
Dont Northampton Council own The Sixfields Ground as a Community Stadium
Last edited:
The Albion chose the in-house potentially more profitable and risky strategy, by getting the developers on Board and paying for the planning aspect out of the pockets of the builders (not ours really) on the Board. If Falmer goes up the swanny (or the Adur) their £2 million plus investment would be in tatters.
An alternative then would be get a third party developer to pay for the costs and lease out the stadium with an option for the Albion to purchase. Then there would be relatively little risk but less reward. It is all complicated by the position of Brighton Council. I expect there are limitations in what the Council are exactly allowed to do nowadays, to prevent them squandering public money.
My inclination to think it does not really matter if it is private or public money as long as the figures stack up.
Shrewsbury have got a local development company called Alaska, which just seems to be a local businessman fronting a development company.
If the form book runs true, I'd guess that they wanted to turn Gay Meadow into a supermarket so that they could make as much dosh as possible and the whole thing took ages because the Council would not let them. The same principles (or idea) apply. In return for our development in which the private company makes their fortune, we will build a football stadium for you (if a site is available). This could be called the Planning Gain.
If the football club has got enough financial clout, they can do the development on their own, make a fortune and get a football stadium at the same time. The trouble is that these sort of developments only have a 25% success rate (because they are badly thought out) so it is a better option for the bigger players in the development game. They budget for the failure rate.
I think the smaller developers and landowners get too greedy and they want to stash too many shops and too many houses in a small space and muck it up.
(My interpretation only.)
An alternative then would be get a third party developer to pay for the costs and lease out the stadium with an option for the Albion to purchase. Then there would be relatively little risk but less reward. It is all complicated by the position of Brighton Council. I expect there are limitations in what the Council are exactly allowed to do nowadays, to prevent them squandering public money.
My inclination to think it does not really matter if it is private or public money as long as the figures stack up.
Shrewsbury have got a local development company called Alaska, which just seems to be a local businessman fronting a development company.
If the form book runs true, I'd guess that they wanted to turn Gay Meadow into a supermarket so that they could make as much dosh as possible and the whole thing took ages because the Council would not let them. The same principles (or idea) apply. In return for our development in which the private company makes their fortune, we will build a football stadium for you (if a site is available). This could be called the Planning Gain.
If the football club has got enough financial clout, they can do the development on their own, make a fortune and get a football stadium at the same time. The trouble is that these sort of developments only have a 25% success rate (because they are badly thought out) so it is a better option for the bigger players in the development game. They budget for the failure rate.
I think the smaller developers and landowners get too greedy and they want to stash too many shops and too many houses in a small space and muck it up.
(My interpretation only.)
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Yorkie said:
Could the same have not happened here.
I know we are too far down the road now to consider it but I would have thought that perhaps the Council could have capitalised on the referendum and used it to their own means and pushed ahead with the stadium themselves on this lease back theory.
Whether or not there would have been uproar amongst the tax payers of where their money was going is another matter.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Among the several bits of wrong emphasis and misinformation in perseus's recent posts are the following:-
Cost of road junctions, approach roads etc. Falmer has an expensive road junction but there is only a short run to the actual stadium
The approach to the stadium is indeed "short". But there are other highway costs (including improved access to Sussex University, north of the A27, which is part of the S.106 planning agreement; and the revised junction at the eastern end of Village Way - to say nothing about the transport interchange itself (which is off Village Way).
Paying off Brighton University. This is just a waste of dosh without any advantages.
The contribution that the Club will make towards relocating the University buildings is part of the overall site acquisition costs. The advantage is that the Club gets the site.
Any stadium in a good location would initially be thought to have the same income if it is the same size.
Grant aid, particularly from agencies like SEEDA, is very site specific, given the rules that apply to government funding through regional development agencies for economic regeneration and combatting social exclusion.
The Albion chose the in-house potentially more profitable and risky strategy, by getting the developers on Board and paying for the planning aspect out of the pockets of the builders (not ours really) on the Board.
The Club - not external developers - are paying for the development and the planning process. Builders will be selected by competitive tender.
Perseus seems to understand little about the culture of partnership and added value that pervades public and private sector decision making these days.
Cost of road junctions, approach roads etc. Falmer has an expensive road junction but there is only a short run to the actual stadium
The approach to the stadium is indeed "short". But there are other highway costs (including improved access to Sussex University, north of the A27, which is part of the S.106 planning agreement; and the revised junction at the eastern end of Village Way - to say nothing about the transport interchange itself (which is off Village Way).
Paying off Brighton University. This is just a waste of dosh without any advantages.
The contribution that the Club will make towards relocating the University buildings is part of the overall site acquisition costs. The advantage is that the Club gets the site.
Any stadium in a good location would initially be thought to have the same income if it is the same size.
Grant aid, particularly from agencies like SEEDA, is very site specific, given the rules that apply to government funding through regional development agencies for economic regeneration and combatting social exclusion.
The Albion chose the in-house potentially more profitable and risky strategy, by getting the developers on Board and paying for the planning aspect out of the pockets of the builders (not ours really) on the Board.
The Club - not external developers - are paying for the development and the planning process. Builders will be selected by competitive tender.
Perseus seems to understand little about the culture of partnership and added value that pervades public and private sector decision making these days.
Extra information (and I hope I am up to date?): Ken Bodfish is (or was) the local political representative on SEEDA.
PS: My intrepretation is that the grants MAY only be available in the coastal regeneration zone area between Newhaven and Littlehampton, including Brighton & Hove. This rules out Burgess Hill and any area within the conurbation of Gatwick Airport.
PS: My intrepretation is that the grants MAY only be available in the coastal regeneration zone area between Newhaven and Littlehampton, including Brighton & Hove. This rules out Burgess Hill and any area within the conurbation of Gatwick Airport.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Ken Bodfish ceased to be a Board Member of SEEDA in December 2003.perseus said:
Perseus is wrong about grant funding. A substantial portion of this is now targeted at small area level deprivaton (basically, individual wards), using data in the 2004 Report on the English Indices of Deprivation, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Does we get a huge (or a small one) grant towards the stadium under the regeneration strategy because the wards near Moulscombe, east Brighton or whatever qualify under the "deprived indices" like I expect Hull got as well?
I do not think anybody could argue with that! I have not seen the figures though.
One thing about this current Government is that statistics say that the incomes in less prosperous areas of the UK, (Cornwall, Hull, Nottingham, Leicester etc.) seem to rising an a greater rate (from a very low base line) than the more prosperous areas like Reading, Guildford, Crawley etc. A move towards equality.
It does not really help much if you live in a less prosperous wards of Reading though and I am sure I saw few in passing.
Not that I have seen much evidence of increased pay rates in Brighton. Is it below the national average for income? I bet east Brighton is, but by how much I would be interested to know?
I expect the pay rates in Brighton are below the national average?
They are lower than North Tyneside!
I do not think anybody could argue with that! I have not seen the figures though.
One thing about this current Government is that statistics say that the incomes in less prosperous areas of the UK, (Cornwall, Hull, Nottingham, Leicester etc.) seem to rising an a greater rate (from a very low base line) than the more prosperous areas like Reading, Guildford, Crawley etc. A move towards equality.
It does not really help much if you live in a less prosperous wards of Reading though and I am sure I saw few in passing.
Not that I have seen much evidence of increased pay rates in Brighton. Is it below the national average for income? I bet east Brighton is, but by how much I would be interested to know?
I expect the pay rates in Brighton are below the national average?
They are lower than North Tyneside!
Last edited:
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
This is a general question, and I apologise for my forgetfulness on this, but - If Lewes DC/Falmer PC are succesful in persuading the Inquiry Inspector that an alternative site to Falmer DOES exist, what then happens to the land at Falmer? I seem to remember that in the local plan/structure plan (?) the land (or a part of the land) would be ripe for development. Is this the case? And if so, surely a football stadium be a much better option?
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
Or a free love, free spirit community............
BensGrandad
New member
Yorkie said:
I think that is a good idea you then give the NIMBYs a choice of A or B which would they rather. I think that the answer would be C.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
If the Community Stadium at Falmer doesn't get the go ahead, there is a gaping hole in the local planning policy.balloonboy said:
The land is designated ("zoned" as perseus likes to call it, using out of date planning language) for a Community Stadium in the version of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan that was subject to last year's Local Plan Inquiry. The Inspector's report (to the City Council) recommends that they review that designation, but they are free to reject that recommendation.
Obviously, if an Albion Stadium was to be built elsewhere, the City Council would review the designation of the land at Falmer, unless they decided the City needed two community stadiums!
The previous Local Plan (the Brighton Borough Council Local Plan) had the land designated for development for academic purposes, reflecting a policy in the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan to encourage further development of the so-called "Academic Corridor".
But academic development on the site is no longer part of the City Council's planning policies.
Planning policy would all be a bit of a mess, if the stadium doesn't go ahead. My guess is that any future use of the site would be subject to a further review of the Local Plan, but that wouldn't happen until the final version of the National Park boundary was settled. And that's another story altogether.
PS - If any young person reading this is looking for a secure career, I would recommend Town and Country Planning. These issues drag on FOREVER.
Farming Today
I suspect the the people of Falmer would think that the multiple-story abbatoir and incinerator with a built in McDonalds would be just right for the farming area.
The cows go in one end past the rotating knives with blood splattering up the walls (this can be seen under the floodlights from the tourist gallery). Then (this is the beauty of these high rise abbatoirs) the bits of cow (now called beef) fall down to the second floor my gravity and then they are called steak, mince meat. But the real beaut is that done on the bottom floor there is a drive-in McDonalds, so the 24 hours a day customers know their meat is fresh as them little black dots churning up the downs with their hooves is the South Downs Conservation Boards system for wrecking the downland turf (so the farmers can screw some more grants out of the system).
Falmer railway station could be turned into a cattle market area, with the cattle trucks going out loaded up with cows for ritual slaughter by foreigners (is this PC?) and then the trains can bring in the tonnes of rubbish that could go in the steak and kidney pud ovens.
I suspect the the people of Falmer would think that the multiple-story abbatoir and incinerator with a built in McDonalds would be just right for the farming area.
The cows go in one end past the rotating knives with blood splattering up the walls (this can be seen under the floodlights from the tourist gallery). Then (this is the beauty of these high rise abbatoirs) the bits of cow (now called beef) fall down to the second floor my gravity and then they are called steak, mince meat. But the real beaut is that done on the bottom floor there is a drive-in McDonalds, so the 24 hours a day customers know their meat is fresh as them little black dots churning up the downs with their hooves is the South Downs Conservation Boards system for wrecking the downland turf (so the farmers can screw some more grants out of the system).
Falmer railway station could be turned into a cattle market area, with the cattle trucks going out loaded up with cows for ritual slaughter by foreigners (is this PC?) and then the trains can bring in the tonnes of rubbish that could go in the steak and kidney pud ovens.
Last edited:
Lord Bracknell
On fire
If I thought this was the right place to comment about the difference between industrial scale agriculture and the activities of the tenant farmers who work the Sussex Downs, I would do so.
It isn't. Besides which, I'd probably get some of you city boys and girls worrying about whether I was turning into some sort of NIMBY.
All I would say is that the real enemies of the Falmer stadium proposal aren't the farming community, but the neo-rural suburbanites who simply like the view. And what they mainly like about the view is that it isn't cluttered up with common people like football supporters. They also like "rambling", whatever that is.
Quite a lot of the South Downs tenant farmers out our way are Albion supporters, who want Falmer as much as the rest of us.
And "rambling" isn't something these countryfolk go in for either.
It isn't. Besides which, I'd probably get some of you city boys and girls worrying about whether I was turning into some sort of NIMBY.
All I would say is that the real enemies of the Falmer stadium proposal aren't the farming community, but the neo-rural suburbanites who simply like the view. And what they mainly like about the view is that it isn't cluttered up with common people like football supporters. They also like "rambling", whatever that is.
Quite a lot of the South Downs tenant farmers out our way are Albion supporters, who want Falmer as much as the rest of us.
And "rambling" isn't something these countryfolk go in for either.
Last edited:
balloonboy said:
I think this is a good question to ask by the Brighton residents. This, however, is none of my business as I live in Adur.
It is not an area of downs (if even this description is correct) that I consider to be even of regional importance, let alone national importance.
PS: The figures I have for incomes in Brighton is that they are 89% of the national average. Adur incomes are 94% of the national average.
Reading is about 133%. These are sourced from different census statistics, so there could be a margin of error of about 3%. Liverpool is 80%. Manchester at 84%.
These out of Sussex figures are statistics by postcode. (Liverpool by LA district is 77%.)
Last edited: