Pre-Match Thread HMRC v SUFC - FINAL hearing on 1st March. DISMISSED

[kentblues]

And in fairness to Ron I would rather he took his eye off that particular ball until he's sorted out the finance. Without that, planning permission means nothing.

Except if the outstanding planning is holding up the bridging loan, of course.

 

[kentblues]

The council statement is them firing back at RM for his "fair wind" remarks. It is unusual for the council to come out with thus kind of statement.

Good, in the end if this thing goes t*ts up there will be inquests and recriminations all round and SBC must know they will be included in all that. They will know (surely) that saying its all the other parties fault is not the shield they may think. So likely with Ron's statement, and actually referencing comments on here, they are also feeling/fearing some heat. Frankly good. And there are elections coming up..and councillors up for re-election...or not.

BTW this deal as they have described it is very innovative, fantastic for the city and SBC, as well as the football club. And that they can be commended for. But if defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory then, with great regret, they may find that counts for very little.

 

[Sammy Shrimper]

Well firstly just shows how remembering to focus on the important stuff on here as well as rumours, however exciting, can get noticed and deliver a response/information. And actually whilst some of this has not perhaps been validated/believed/fully understood (delete as appropriate) previously from disparate club communications I think coming from SBC actually in a few areas gives some comfort.

Of course, they point out that the decision is outstanding as they are waiting for information from glorious leader. So back to him & particular to confirm that this is not holding up any bridging loans. Further, these things are not as clear as might seem- one party asks for information, other party provides, goal posts move or not, further or different information is required, and so on and so forth. So it would nonetheless be quite an assumption to believe the delays are all down to Ron (to be fair- which I know is strictly verboten). Anyhow, SBC are clear it's not their fault... (hold the front page..)

Edit: BTW does it suggest that the original approval means we can get on with building the first three sides as the amendment covers main stand and amended housing element? Gives that impression?

RM could start the Consented stadium but the risk is that SBC doesn’t grant consent for the revised scheme.
Also the funding process wouldn’t start as they will assess the risk to be too great to commence the development without Full Planning Consent for the scheme that RM wants to build.

 

[kentblues]

RM could start the Consented stadium but the risk is that SBC doesn’t grant consent for the revised scheme.
Also the funding process wouldn’t start as they will assess the risk to be too great to commence the development without Full Planning Consent for the scheme that RM wants to build.

And back to the question is the failure (whoever is to blame- ultimately both will be like it not, fair or not) to grant revised planning holding up the bridging loan?

 

[TJC]

RM could start the Consented stadium but the risk is that SBC doesn’t grant consent for the revised scheme.
Also the funding process wouldn’t start as they will assess the risk to be too great to commence the development without Full Planning Consent for the scheme that RM wants to build.

So if he decided to build what has already been passed given the time pressures, would the financing not be released? Did he ever intend to build the larger stadium or was it always his intention to downscale? From what I recall, it was just a tier being removed from one stand?

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

Seeing Anna Firth in the supporters group meeting I think she's the person to get this log jam moving. So many people involved. Get them together and don't let them leave until it's sorted

 

[danbowen]

Good, in the end if this thing goes t*ts up there will be inquests and recriminations all round and SBC must know they will be included in all that. They will know (surely) that saying its all the other parties fault is not the shield they may think. So likely with Ron's statement, and actually referencing comments on here, they are also feeling/fearing some heat. Frankly good. And there are elections coming up..and councillors up for re-election...or not.

BTW this deal as they have described it is very innovative, fantastic for the city and SBC, as well as the football club. And that they can be commended for. But if defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory then, with great regret, they may find that counts for very little.

100% agree.

From my extremely limited experience of the council (watching the video when they passed things about a year or so ago) it cam across like a circus with the weird bloke with cote of arms taking photos of his cat in the christmas tree whilst they were having a debate. Councillors seem a waste of time full stop who only have their own interests at heart. Look at the council in Clarksons Farm for example. One of them didnt want to approve his restaurant because he likes looking at a dark sky and they all rejected a farm track which would have had no downfalls for anyone at all. Councillors should all be younger people who can make decisions that will benefit people in the future and not just miserable old bastards.

 

[Sammy Shrimper]

And back to the question is the failure (whoever is to blame- ultimately both will be like it not, fair or not) to grant revised planning holding up the bridging loan?

Probably.

 

[kentblues]

The original plans stopped when the hotel piece became unviable in the current environment. So naturally the 100 room hotel disappearing from a stand left a bit of a hole.... So no choice but a revised proposal. Difficult to believe replacing a 100 room hotel with 50 flats amongst a total 1200 residence development would have much marginal impact on anything or necessitate in itself a raft of new hurdles. But the evidence is to the contrary as this has been under consideration since Sept 22. remember its always someone else's fault...

 

[Smiffy]

Summary of current planning position​

The club has full planning permission for a new stadium and outline planning permission for the housing element. A reserved matters application has been submitted seeking full planning permission in relation to some of the housing elements.

There is also a standalone application seeking full planning permission for a smaller new stadium. However, we don’t yet have all the information required from the applicant to determine either application. The applicant is aware of what is required and discussions are ongoing.

Whilst target determination dates are set at validation, it is normal practice for these to be extended where this is mutually agreed between the applicant and the local planning authority.

So in summary, as we know RM has reduced the stadium capacity again to a total of 16,276 (10,994 with only the three sides - which is a lot of our concerns) and replaced the Hotel in the main (North) stand with 42 extra residential units. There's other things such as an increase of the height of the residential towers from the permitted 6 storeys, to part 7/8 storeys and extra residents car parking for about 100 cars. There's plenty of other things as well related to the S.106 which either requires further info, or of course gold coins...

It is these amendments and lack of required info from RM which has delayed progression. Although I don't doubt SCC are exactly breaking sweat themselves to get everything moving.

 

[Sammy Shrimper]

So if he decided to build what has already been passed given the time pressures, would the financing not be released? Did he ever intend to build the larger stadium or was it always his intention to downscale? From what I recall, it was just a tier being removed from one stand?

Probably not. Once the hotel operator fell away, it made sense to convert the space in the north stand to residential, and at the same time lower the stadium capacity to reduce construction costs!

 

[kentblues]

So if he decided to build what has already been passed given the time pressures, would the financing not be released? Did he ever intend to build the larger stadium or was it always his intention to downscale? From what I recall, it was just a tier being removed from one stand?

Homes England are only financing the three sides. i don't think that's changed. Would they release that with planning on 4th side? Don't know. Will bridging loan be possible without planning on the 4th side don't. But if not then this is a major issue.

 

[kentblues]

So in summary, as we know RM has reduced the stadium capacity again to a total of 16,276 (10,994 with only the three sides) and replaced the Hotel in the main (North) stand with 42 extra residential units. There's other things such as an increase of the height of the residential towers from the permitted 6 storeys, to part 7/8 storeys and extra residents car parking for about 100 cars. There's plenty of other things as well related to the S.106 which either requires further info, or of course gold coins...

It is these amendments and lack of required info from RM which has delayed progression. Although I don't doubt SCC are exactly breaking sweat themselves to get everything moving.

I doubt anyone ever has accused them of rushing to do anything. But again you assume it's all down to Ron. From my experience (I hasten to add not with SCC as it is now) you are asked for information. You provide it. A few weeks later you are told its not satisfactory. You provide more information. It is now satisfactory but results in the need for different information- you are told a few weeks later. And repeat. And so information is still outstanding from the applicant. And so its quite some assumption to say its all down to Ron. And then there's the question who really is under the most incentive to get this approved urgently?

 

[damien]

What? Have you been at the back? :-)
We all know that the stadium is to be 16/17K capacity (can't remember which) not the originally approved 21K- because as we know the plans have changed including no longer a 100 room hotel and instead an additional circa 50 housing units.
Nothing new, nothing bad and in particular no opportunity for any negative rumours :-)

I was under the impression that his had been approved already. Fully aware of the change of plans and at the time I actually thought it was sensible as why on earth do we need immediate access to 21,000 seats. Endless rumour and speculation perhaps muddied the waters there.

We are in agreement on negative rumours, sick to death with it. Just need to see what plays out in the next fortnight.

Although I did just hear that ron martin has a 3rd nipple and that is why the council need more information. Proof of funds for removal

 

[in the know]

Whoever it is.......
If it's someone at SBC holding it up by not signing off the revised plans quickly...
or Ron by not returning stuff quickly....
Or someone at the loan firm dithering.....
If it goes txts up, that person could have the end of SUFC, the livelihood of all its associated staff and players, the beloved weekly hobby of thousands of supporters and the falied development of a large housing and stadium project on their record.
If whoever it is isn't a Ron fan, (are there any who are?), they may get some satisfaction out of seeing it fail and seeing Ron bite the dust.
On the flip side....
If it just needs a decision stamped on it and that person's favourable to what sufc brings to the community, it maybe could all happen so quickly.
Approved plans, approved loan, debts staff and players paid, embargo lifted. The whole mood of everyone changes to positivity and a bright end to the season.
Whoever that person is, (in case you're also a fan reading this) ....c'moooooon ffs. Make it happen and be the saviour.

 

[Smiffy]

I doubt anyone ever has accused them of rushing to do anything. But again you assume it's all down to Ron. From my experience (I hasten to add not with SCC as it is now) you are asked for information. You provide it. A few weeks later you are told its not satisfactory. You provide more information. It is now satisfactory but results in the need for different information- you are told a few weeks later. And repeat. And so information is still outstanding from the applicant. And so its quite some assumption to say its all down to Ron. And then there's the question who really is under the most incentive to get this approved urgently?

We can only go from the info provided on the SCC website:

However, we don’t yet have all the information required from the applicant to determine either application. The applicant is aware of what is required and discussions are ongoing.

So at that point of writing the ball is in RM's court. To be honest I don't care, who's "fault" it is. After 20 years of this we are all bored of it. I doubt a stadium in the world has taken this long to not get built.

Whoever it is, needs to sort it pronto.

 

[TJC]

We can only go from the info provided on the SCC website:

However, we don’t yet have all the information required from the applicant to determine either application. The applicant is aware of what is required and discussions are ongoing.

So at that point of writing the ball is in RM's court. To be honest I don't care, who's "fault" it is. After 20 years of this we are all bored of it. I doubt a stadium in the world has taken this long to not get built.

Whoever it is, needs to sort it pronto.

If the council are awaiting further details, quite honestly I cannot see said info being prepared, submitted, reviewed and approved before 1 March. Not a chance!

 

[Jai]

If the council are awaiting further details, quite honestly I cannot see said info being prepared, submitted, reviewed and approved before 1 March. Not a chance!

No, and it probably doesn't change much in that respect but this council statement is dated almost a week ago. Makes you wonder what the Echo have been doing for the last five days if they didn't consider this a worthy update.

 

[kentblues]

If the council are awaiting further details, quite honestly I cannot see said info being prepared, submitted, reviewed and approved before 1 March. Not a chance!

Lock both sides in a room and tell them they can’t come out until it’s done…works quite well with contract negotiations

 

[Fairport]

It's an old planning trick. Developers promise new schools, doctors surgeries etc to get approval. Then when it starts they get left off and replaced with more houses

You are 100 per cent correct. Never trust property developers/building companies. They almost always renege on all or part of the deal and the Council don't challenge them because they would have to pay legal fees.