-
Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.
Existing Users:.
Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.
New Users:
Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.
Fans from other clubs
We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.
Assistance Required
For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.
Stadium plans passed subject to earlier payment phasing...
- Thread starter Always a Shrimper
- Start date
I read that sometime ago that the owners of The Royals development were not happy.
TTS
Manager
In answer to both Cricko and Smiffy, sadly as has been confirmed and discussed to death on here, we have to trust Ron blindly, because there is no other alternative.
He will finish the project or the Club will finish, our future lies in the hand of this one person and one person alone.
Reading some of the comments, not just on this thread, but on many others, some people express themselves on the basis that "Ron will fail and I will be proved right ..........." type mentality - we dont this !
At the end of the day, Ron and Sainsburys are driving this and we have to see it home, without FF and therefore us staying at RH, we are f**ked !
The Council owe the borough of Southend the very best facilities for Southend United. The Football Club has been an interagal part of the community far longer than a/ any of the councillors have been alive even, b/ the Royals and other shops have traded and c/ the people that walk Southend High Street, talking in their foreign language, have been moving Southend in their droves !
All the Council will do, if they refuse the Club what it so desperatly needs, is again support a High Street that has been crumbling for years, long before Ron's own FF plan has been crumbling !
He will finish the project or the Club will finish, our future lies in the hand of this one person and one person alone.
Reading some of the comments, not just on this thread, but on many others, some people express themselves on the basis that "Ron will fail and I will be proved right ..........." type mentality - we dont this !
At the end of the day, Ron and Sainsburys are driving this and we have to see it home, without FF and therefore us staying at RH, we are f**ked !
The Council owe the borough of Southend the very best facilities for Southend United. The Football Club has been an interagal part of the community far longer than a/ any of the councillors have been alive even, b/ the Royals and other shops have traded and c/ the people that walk Southend High Street, talking in their foreign language, have been moving Southend in their droves !
All the Council will do, if they refuse the Club what it so desperatly needs, is again support a High Street that has been crumbling for years, long before Ron's own FF plan has been crumbling !
That would be great, but Sainsbury's have only agreed to stump up 15 mil to cover the costs of the 3 sided bits.. We will have no main stand so god knows how we will survive with just that.
Fish
Manager
One thing that no-one has mentioned on here yet is the fact that some of them will be up for re-election before the next time the application comes up, should it be referred.
If I were a councillor on the DC committee, I would feel distinctly uneasy about the proposal right now, and, if I was being re-elected, would push for it to be deferred until after the elections.
Not a very positive thought I know, but that's how it seems to me.
In the interests of getting a decision, I would at the least push for greater assurances from the applicant that the monies promise as part of the scheme do actually materialise. Therefore, anything that could cause a reduction in the monies paid to SBC should be resisted/amended, meaning greater promises about the completion of the last retail unit and the West Stand.
If I were a councillor on the DC committee, I would feel distinctly uneasy about the proposal right now, and, if I was being re-elected, would push for it to be deferred until after the elections.
Not a very positive thought I know, but that's how it seems to me.
In the interests of getting a decision, I would at the least push for greater assurances from the applicant that the monies promise as part of the scheme do actually materialise. Therefore, anything that could cause a reduction in the monies paid to SBC should be resisted/amended, meaning greater promises about the completion of the last retail unit and the West Stand.
southend_aussies
I come from a land down under
surely if we get another delay then it's close to curtains. Ron won't have the support to keep this dragging on for 6-12-18 months.
My thoughts exactly.
It's another unknown isn't it?
Much like will we survive with potentially a 3 sided stadium?
It's not a great position to be in either way.
Hopefully whatever the outcome, we get a decision that gives us a bit of security, hope for the future and a football club at the end of it.
onceknownasrab
President
Well! A very interesting situation. The points raised to be considered by the council appear loaded. Statements like the FF project will have more impact on the High St. now than ever before is substantiated how? Indeed I believe the council were/are planning a regeneration of the High St and bandied around figures of 300m. Will they then compensate FF for the possible impact on Blues development?
There are questions to be answered and all of us would like reassurances but lets just cut to the chase. Build FF or die. I know which I would prefer. As for impact on the High St the council needs to stop with this blinkered approach and stop the lies. The High St has a long history of decline and that has had nothing to with Southend United and furthermore the new FF project can be advantageous to the town as a whole in terms of amenity, employment and profile. Its time to stop pandering to the High St retailers, who are not representative of the town majority, and judge this project on its merits.
There are questions to be answered and all of us would like reassurances but lets just cut to the chase. Build FF or die. I know which I would prefer. As for impact on the High St the council needs to stop with this blinkered approach and stop the lies. The High St has a long history of decline and that has had nothing to with Southend United and furthermore the new FF project can be advantageous to the town as a whole in terms of amenity, employment and profile. Its time to stop pandering to the High St retailers, who are not representative of the town majority, and judge this project on its merits.
"Representations from the Town Centre Partnership were submitted on 13 December 2012 but are not referred to in the committee report and yet the revised Town Centre Contribution sum of £2.25m but is considered in detail in the report, and is understood to have been proposed by the Football Club as late as on 14 December 2012. This material change in the planning case put forward by the applicant has not been the subject of any statutory public re-consultation. It is disappointing therefore that Members will not review the representations from the Town Centre Partnership as part of the main report, but will instead only be able to quickly review these ‘on the day’.
I understand that the planning consultants for the owners of the Royals shopping centre are advising them on the potential to seek a legal challenge in the event that the proposals are approved, so the Town Centre Partnership is not alone in its concerns regarding the manner in which the Council is driving the applications to be determined before the end of the year – as sought by the Football Club.
Therefore the STCP would be against any suggestion of the removal of this part of the section 106".
The PDF can be found here. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...M91svQufgNewPW9FA&sig2=JXqjJRMgLSrjMp_Xh8H-cg
fbm
Blue tinted optimist⭐🦐
Guys, this is the way I see it and I must admit I do think everyone is getting a bit hung up about the 4th side scenario. When the original application was amended to do the three sides first, the council acknowledged that in granting that permission, they had to consider whether they would be happy to approve a three sided stadium unconditionally, because there was no guarantee that the 4th side could ever be built. They voted and agreed that a 3 sided ground would be better than no ground and I can't see anything that would change that view now.
Also, I think the fact that a refusal will scupper the whole scheme will be a key factor in this. There will be no development of Roots Hall, no flagship Sainsburys, no new sports stadium and most likely no football club. The recent Wembley attendance will show how much potential interest there is and any council that votes to effectively shut down it's football league club can't have particularly serious ambitions to be re-elected.
But the main reason I think they will come down in favour of the club is this.
Firstly, the original application was for the whole stadium, which, at the time, we were pretty much to a man in favour of.
However, the credit crunch/banking crisis/change in economic conditions since October 2007 are much to blame for everything actually. Personally, I thank God that the stadium hadn't been built at that time because the deals and agreements entered into back then may have killed any existing business and we could have an empty and failing development by now. It's all well and good to say that the excuse doesn't wash any more but it is key to absolutely everything. It's the reason so many people can't get work. It's the reason that I couldn't move house, despite having an excellent income and credit rating, because the mortgage rules have changed. It's the reason people are switching en masse to online shopping where there are no overheads and everything is cheaper, which in turn is the reason so many shops are closing. It's the reason gambling sites and companies now take up a massive proportion of advertising space and airtime as people try to bet and trade their way to a living. Our society is changing and things that we are used to having done a certain way don't work anymore. To illustrate my point, here's a question for anyone in their late 40's upwards. How many newsagents and sweet shops were there when you were growing up? And how many are there now?
Years ago, Leigh Broadway was a reasonably busy secondary shopping area with lots of small, local shops and Woolworths. Now, it has some speciality shops that, unless they have a good online presence, are doomed to fail quickly, plus some major chains like Tesco and Costa, together with a good many bars and restaurants. Leigh has become the place to socialise, eat and drink. However, there are now signs that even that is changing as many of these bars/restaurants are up for sale.
Shops stand empty for ages because landlords need a certain amount of rent. If rents drop, values of commercial properties plummet. That's no good for the economy as banks have millions of pounds worth of debt secured on these properties and if the loans are defaulted on, the banks solvency is called into question. Bear in mind the taxpayer owns large chunks of the banks and it doesn't take a genius to see that if that happens, we are all in trouble.
But what has this got to do with SUFC? Simple.
The banking crisis didn't just affect Ron; it affected everyone. The council needs money. It gets a huge chunk of that from the Council taxes and business rates in it's locale, so in areas of unemployment and stagnant shopping areas it doesn't get as much as it needs to. A successful football club brings people and money into the area. In other areas of the town, things are thriving. The airport is expanding, the Uni is getting more established and there are plans approved for a new medical campus out near Rochford. The Thames Corridor development is also massive and the benefits will be felt this far down. In time, the whole area will thrive, but the demographics have to change a little first.
In time. The key words. Time is the one commodity Ron, SUFC and Sainsburys do not have. The whole project has been inching along the last mile for so long now it must feel like they are going backwards.
Sainsburys have, in my opinion, been upping the ante and trying to push everything through. Initially, the whole stadium was to be built at once but ownership of the ground is not uniform. The fourth side - the main stand - is in separate ownership and under separate funding. This one I think is Ron's and we know he can't bankroll it at the moment as every available penny he has is probably being used to keep us out of administration.
It is my view - and I'm not "in the know" on this at all, so may well way off the beam - that the lack of building partner for this stand was holding up the entire project, so Sainsburys forced the club to submit the revised application based on the three sides going up first and the fourth following afterwards.
Once the 3 sides are built, the club can start playing there and Sainsburys can develop Roots Hall.
It would appear to me that some people think that, for Ron at least, that's it. That's what he wants and that's where it will stay.
Personally, and only using logic, I can't see why that would be the case. Firstly, if the 4th stand is going to be the one that provides him with his family's legacy, then he will need it built and producing asap. Secondly, it does seem as though it is crucial to the clubs income as well and there is no point whatsoever in building a development like this, putting a club with no income there and watching them almost immediately fold. And finally, the footfall to that whole development is going to be predominantly visitors to the stadium, several thousand every match. The other businesses and outlets there will be totally reliant on consumers visiting the development, and if the club fails then there is a good chance those businesses won't thrive either. That means that the company that owns the rest of the development - of which I'm sure Ron and Sainburys will have significant interests in - won't be receiving rent.
It makes no logical or commercial sense on any level to leave the club in a 3 sided stadium without any form of income.
So, the council have to decide. Do they say "No" now, kill off something that could, in a few years, be a potentially fantastic, revenue producing development and end up with no s106 payment at all, plus no additional revenue and taxes from all of the new businesses around the development (including the new Sainsburys and all of the affordable housing going up at RH)? Or do they agree, take whatever money they can now and then hope to reap the rewards in the future or, if it doesn't work out, be no worse off than they are now?
That's the way I see it but if anyone can demonstrate how Ron will be better off with the club having 3 sides and no income then I'm happy to be persuaded.
Also, I think the fact that a refusal will scupper the whole scheme will be a key factor in this. There will be no development of Roots Hall, no flagship Sainsburys, no new sports stadium and most likely no football club. The recent Wembley attendance will show how much potential interest there is and any council that votes to effectively shut down it's football league club can't have particularly serious ambitions to be re-elected.
But the main reason I think they will come down in favour of the club is this.
Firstly, the original application was for the whole stadium, which, at the time, we were pretty much to a man in favour of.
However, the credit crunch/banking crisis/change in economic conditions since October 2007 are much to blame for everything actually. Personally, I thank God that the stadium hadn't been built at that time because the deals and agreements entered into back then may have killed any existing business and we could have an empty and failing development by now. It's all well and good to say that the excuse doesn't wash any more but it is key to absolutely everything. It's the reason so many people can't get work. It's the reason that I couldn't move house, despite having an excellent income and credit rating, because the mortgage rules have changed. It's the reason people are switching en masse to online shopping where there are no overheads and everything is cheaper, which in turn is the reason so many shops are closing. It's the reason gambling sites and companies now take up a massive proportion of advertising space and airtime as people try to bet and trade their way to a living. Our society is changing and things that we are used to having done a certain way don't work anymore. To illustrate my point, here's a question for anyone in their late 40's upwards. How many newsagents and sweet shops were there when you were growing up? And how many are there now?
Years ago, Leigh Broadway was a reasonably busy secondary shopping area with lots of small, local shops and Woolworths. Now, it has some speciality shops that, unless they have a good online presence, are doomed to fail quickly, plus some major chains like Tesco and Costa, together with a good many bars and restaurants. Leigh has become the place to socialise, eat and drink. However, there are now signs that even that is changing as many of these bars/restaurants are up for sale.
Shops stand empty for ages because landlords need a certain amount of rent. If rents drop, values of commercial properties plummet. That's no good for the economy as banks have millions of pounds worth of debt secured on these properties and if the loans are defaulted on, the banks solvency is called into question. Bear in mind the taxpayer owns large chunks of the banks and it doesn't take a genius to see that if that happens, we are all in trouble.
But what has this got to do with SUFC? Simple.
The banking crisis didn't just affect Ron; it affected everyone. The council needs money. It gets a huge chunk of that from the Council taxes and business rates in it's locale, so in areas of unemployment and stagnant shopping areas it doesn't get as much as it needs to. A successful football club brings people and money into the area. In other areas of the town, things are thriving. The airport is expanding, the Uni is getting more established and there are plans approved for a new medical campus out near Rochford. The Thames Corridor development is also massive and the benefits will be felt this far down. In time, the whole area will thrive, but the demographics have to change a little first.
In time. The key words. Time is the one commodity Ron, SUFC and Sainsburys do not have. The whole project has been inching along the last mile for so long now it must feel like they are going backwards.
Sainsburys have, in my opinion, been upping the ante and trying to push everything through. Initially, the whole stadium was to be built at once but ownership of the ground is not uniform. The fourth side - the main stand - is in separate ownership and under separate funding. This one I think is Ron's and we know he can't bankroll it at the moment as every available penny he has is probably being used to keep us out of administration.
It is my view - and I'm not "in the know" on this at all, so may well way off the beam - that the lack of building partner for this stand was holding up the entire project, so Sainsburys forced the club to submit the revised application based on the three sides going up first and the fourth following afterwards.
Once the 3 sides are built, the club can start playing there and Sainsburys can develop Roots Hall.
It would appear to me that some people think that, for Ron at least, that's it. That's what he wants and that's where it will stay.
Personally, and only using logic, I can't see why that would be the case. Firstly, if the 4th stand is going to be the one that provides him with his family's legacy, then he will need it built and producing asap. Secondly, it does seem as though it is crucial to the clubs income as well and there is no point whatsoever in building a development like this, putting a club with no income there and watching them almost immediately fold. And finally, the footfall to that whole development is going to be predominantly visitors to the stadium, several thousand every match. The other businesses and outlets there will be totally reliant on consumers visiting the development, and if the club fails then there is a good chance those businesses won't thrive either. That means that the company that owns the rest of the development - of which I'm sure Ron and Sainburys will have significant interests in - won't be receiving rent.
It makes no logical or commercial sense on any level to leave the club in a 3 sided stadium without any form of income.
So, the council have to decide. Do they say "No" now, kill off something that could, in a few years, be a potentially fantastic, revenue producing development and end up with no s106 payment at all, plus no additional revenue and taxes from all of the new businesses around the development (including the new Sainsburys and all of the affordable housing going up at RH)? Or do they agree, take whatever money they can now and then hope to reap the rewards in the future or, if it doesn't work out, be no worse off than they are now?
That's the way I see it but if anyone can demonstrate how Ron will be better off with the club having 3 sides and no income then I'm happy to be persuaded.
londonblue
Topgun Pilot
Same here, but I don't know what negotiations have taken place behind the scenes.
A very good post Mark and I will only comment on your final statement as the retail side is a non starter IMO.. Why would RM care whatsoever once we are off RH he has his development project. The building of the 4th side and the retail would I guess be an added bonus to his plans, but he has covered that not happening to the council by saying the money he promised will really only go to them if the project is completed.
He is at a stage of "Fait accompli" with the whole thing..the only way he can dig himself out is to get us off Roots Hall.
I want the new stadium of course, but only if we have guarantees we will get a 4th side to maintain some way of keeping us afloat before the long 100 year odd history is binned to live in some 3 sided pile of crap in wasteland.
He is at a stage of "Fait accompli" with the whole thing..the only way he can dig himself out is to get us off Roots Hall.
I want the new stadium of course, but only if we have guarantees we will get a 4th side to maintain some way of keeping us afloat before the long 100 year odd history is binned to live in some 3 sided pile of crap in wasteland.
CC51DAS
President
Potentially an agreement has been reached already 'behind the scenes' and this meeting is just a rubber stamping exercise. It seems like no-one has any way of knowing this.
However, if it is not all a 'fait accompli' , then if the councillors have concerns about the project and revenue the Council will derive, rather than take a potentially unpopular decison just after the Wembley spectacle when media attention is high, they may feel safer in deferring the decison, especially if, as has been mentioned earlier, they are up for re-election soon. They have the ammunition to make the deferral by referring to the phrase where the club has stated they do not have enough time to provide all the evidence to support their asssertion that a lower S106 payment is justified.
"Officers have invited the
applicant to provide a viability appraisal of the development in order to
demonstrate that the development is not viable as he has identified above, and
at what point it becomes unviable, so that the issue of the TCC can be
considered in that context. However, the applicant has failed to do so, stating
verbally that this would not be possible in the time available"
Plus as Smiffy and Cricko have pointed out, there is the threat of judicial action if the project gets the go ahead so this too could be a reason for the councillors to want to examine the situaton in more detail.
So if the matter is postponed to a future date, by that time the Wembley euphoria and press coverage is likely to have worn off and if support continues to dwindle, especially if the club finds itself in a very uninspiring league 2 again next year, then potentially they could perceive that they will risk upsetting a regular fan base of some 4,000 people, many of whom live outside the borough of Southend, rather than the 30,000+ who made the day trip to Wembley.
What I am wondering is, if a delay takes place, how will Sainsbury's react towards RM ? They must already be frustrated at the time this has taken and have sunk money into a project which so far has derived no return. When they did their DD they must have built in a contingency period but that may now have expired. I imagine however that they would have conducted independant research and not simply relied on infromation provided by the RM, in which case they will only have themselves (and their consultants) to blame.
Maybe Sherriff H can provide some insight on such matters ?
However, if it is not all a 'fait accompli' , then if the councillors have concerns about the project and revenue the Council will derive, rather than take a potentially unpopular decison just after the Wembley spectacle when media attention is high, they may feel safer in deferring the decison, especially if, as has been mentioned earlier, they are up for re-election soon. They have the ammunition to make the deferral by referring to the phrase where the club has stated they do not have enough time to provide all the evidence to support their asssertion that a lower S106 payment is justified.
"Officers have invited the
applicant to provide a viability appraisal of the development in order to
demonstrate that the development is not viable as he has identified above, and
at what point it becomes unviable, so that the issue of the TCC can be
considered in that context. However, the applicant has failed to do so, stating
verbally that this would not be possible in the time available"
Plus as Smiffy and Cricko have pointed out, there is the threat of judicial action if the project gets the go ahead so this too could be a reason for the councillors to want to examine the situaton in more detail.
So if the matter is postponed to a future date, by that time the Wembley euphoria and press coverage is likely to have worn off and if support continues to dwindle, especially if the club finds itself in a very uninspiring league 2 again next year, then potentially they could perceive that they will risk upsetting a regular fan base of some 4,000 people, many of whom live outside the borough of Southend, rather than the 30,000+ who made the day trip to Wembley.
What I am wondering is, if a delay takes place, how will Sainsbury's react towards RM ? They must already be frustrated at the time this has taken and have sunk money into a project which so far has derived no return. When they did their DD they must have built in a contingency period but that may now have expired. I imagine however that they would have conducted independant research and not simply relied on infromation provided by the RM, in which case they will only have themselves (and their consultants) to blame.
Maybe Sherriff H can provide some insight on such matters ?
united we stand
Life President⭐🦐
Neil 15GB
Schoolboy
Even if the council pass the application it will not be straightforward because Sainsburys have not completed deals on the pizza shop or more importantly Prospect college. So they will have a planning approval without the necessary properties to complete the development. If they go the CPO route it will take years.
Chairman Trigg
Coach
Does anyone know the exact position of prospects/pizza ,and whats the time scale of a cpo??
God knows. Last we heard was Pizza Man wasn't happy with the offer. And Mr Prospects pulled the plug on the deal as he was being messed around by Ron/Sainsbury on the contract.
I guess if they were both resolved we would of heard by now. All hinges on tomorrows outcome I suppose. Sainsbury wont throw anymore money at a project that hasn't got the green light. Which is fair enough.
A CPO would put the whole lot back many months I think.
And that is not taking into account a potential judicial review, which maybe called by the Town Centre Partnership if the plans are passed. Or a deferral by the council to seek further info.
In short its a frigging mess still.
ShrimperZone Sponsors
ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship
Southend United Away Travel
All At Sea Fanzine
