Stadium Update

[onceknownasrab]

Perhaps we should also look at it from another viewpoint.

The vast majority of the people living in Southend-on-Sea don't support Southend United. 5,000 current average crowds, peaking at around 10,000 in the Championship, and taking up to 20,000 for a Cup Final. That in a population of 160,000. It can't be questioned, either, that a sizeable proportion of the support don't live in the town, too.

Now, that non SUFC-supporting electorate has seen the council fritter away millions already on an ill-planned renovation of Victoria Circus. They then find out that a previously agreed £6m payment due from the club to the council for the new stadium is reduced significantly or withdrawn completely

Those non-football loving locals would be pretty peeved at what may be seen as the council in effect throwing millions more away. The council are, as well, accountable to all the local electorate, not just those supporting Southend United. That just might be how the councillors see it.

And the same non-football loving locals benefit from greater town prestige, a new retail park and lots of jobs. The majority of people do not go to theatres but we have them. I doubt the majority play on seafront slot machines but we have them. The FF project is far more than just a football club and even if it were not it would still be justified.

 

[Beefy]

For the same reason the stadium has gone from a 22,000 seater to a 14,000 seater.

Would us fans have been as keen to march to the Southend and Rochford Council offices for a 3 sided monstrousity?

He has dangled the carrot and is attempting to whip it away just before the donkey grabs it. But it would appear the donkey now has the *** ache and is considering kicking the man dangling it in the nuts.

I don't really understand your preoccupation with the number of sides the stadium will have if it ever gets built. It's not ideal but does it really matter in the short term? It's a logistical necessity to build it in stages because of the way the ground is being funded. So long as the agreement remains in place that Ron can't move on with the rest of the development until the main stand is built I don't see any real issue.

Of course judging by recent events you couldn't put it past him to try to move the goalposts again a few months down the line.

The bigger issue is, and always has been, whether a single brick will be laid at Fossetts Farm and not that it will only have three sides for a year if it does get built.

 

[Pubey]

Perhaps we should also look at it from another viewpoint.

The vast majority of the people living in Southend-on-Sea don't support Southend United. 5,000 current average crowds, peaking at around 10,000 in the Championship, and taking up to 20,000 for a Cup Final. That in a population of 160,000. It can't be questioned, either, that a sizeable proportion of the support don't live in the town, too.

Now, that non SUFC-supporting electorate has seen the council fritter away millions already on an ill-planned renovation of Victoria Circus. They then find out that a previously agreed £6m payment due from the club to the council for the new stadium is reduced significantly or withdrawn completely

Those non-football loving locals would be pretty peeved at what may be seen as the council in effect throwing millions more away. The council are, as well, accountable to all the local electorate, not just those supporting Southend United. That just might be how the councillors see it.

Southend might be 160k but South East Essex (Castle point, some of Basildon I think and Rochford) is over 300k. With success we could potentially tap into mid-Essex (Chelmsford) and South West Essex (Thurrock). RM is right in that we do have a large catchment and low competition (nearest Football league clubs are Daggers, Gillingham and Colchester, all at least 45 mins drive away).

 

[Jam_Man]

And the same non-football loving locals benefit from greater town prestige, a new retail park and lots of jobs. The majority of people do not go to theatres but we have them. I doubt the majority play on seafront slot machines but we have them. The FF project is far more than just a football club and even if it were not it would still be justified.

Which are bought and maintained by a private company who make money from them.Im sure if the same company wanted to build a new 80 million pound arcade in greenbelt then that might have some relevance.

As for theatres I heard the Cliffs had about 340,000 annual visitors which is far more than Roots Hall gets, and they arent trying to build a 22,000 capacity one.

 

[leeblue]

Southend might be 160k but South East Essex (Castle point, some of Basildon I think and Rochford) is over 300k. With success we could potentially tap into mid-Essex (Chelmsford) and South West Essex (Thurrock). RM is right in that we do have a large catchment and low competition (nearest Football league clubs are Daggers, Gillingham and Colchester, all at least 45 mins drive away).

The issue with competition has nothing to do with daggers, gills or col ewe, its all the kids you see running round town in arsenal,spurs,west ham, man utd and liverpool shirts that is the big issue, we have to have some kind of 'glamour' to attract them (and the parents buying them the toilet shirts) yes we could draw from a large populace its usurping the idea that 'supporting' chelsea from your from room is better than getting off ya backside and cheering on the local boys.

 

[Jam_Man]

I don't really understand your preoccupation with the number of sides the stadium will have if it ever gets built. It's not ideal but does it really matter in the short term? It's a logistical necessity to build it in stages because of the way the ground is being funded. So long as the agreement remains in place that Ron can't move on with the rest of the development until the main stand is built I don't see any real issue.

Of course judging by recent events you couldn't put it past him to try to move the goalposts again a few months down the line.

The bigger issue is, and always has been, whether a single brick will be laid at Fossetts Farm and not that it will only have three sides for a year if it does get built.

I think the worry is that theres little chance it will be a year.

If we cant even get the ball rolling now, what is going to happen to suddenly facilitate us financing a stand on our own when we cant seem to finance anything ?

Its that concern that fixates me with 3 sides personally.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I accept your point. My point is that councils should not be expecting / asking for a "legal bung" just to pass a large planning application in the first place. It is a point of principle.

s106 agreements are pretty standard.

The idea is that if someone builds a block of flats that will put extra strain on, for example, traffic, so the council ask for money to fund roadworks to counter this so everyone doesn't end up adversely affected by this big development.

Here a big retail development on the outskirts of town will effect the High Street. Only the High Street seems to have died before the scheme that was supposed to adversely affect it has been implemented.

Perhaps we should also look at it from another viewpoint.

The vast majority of the people living in Southend-on-Sea don't support Southend United. 5,000 current average crowds, peaking at around 10,000 in the Championship, and taking up to 20,000 for a Cup Final. That in a population of 160,000. It can't be questioned, either, that a sizeable proportion of the support don't live in the town, too.

Now, that non SUFC-supporting electorate has seen the council fritter away millions already on an ill-planned renovation of Victoria Circus. They then find out that a previously agreed £6m payment due from the club to the council for the new stadium is reduced significantly or withdrawn completely

Those non-football loving locals would be pretty peeved at what may be seen as the council in effect throwing millions more away. The council are, as well, accountable to all the local electorate, not just those supporting Southend United. That just might be how the councillors see it.

The difference is that non-football loving locals might be pretty peeved, but the football loving locals will be very, very peeved.

Very peeved people vote in local elections, people who are only pretty peeved not much so.

 

[onceknownasrab]

The issue with competition has nothing to do with daggers, gills or col ewe, its all the kids you see running round town in arsenal,spurs,west ham, man utd and liverpool shirts that is the big issue, we have to have some kind of 'glamour' to attract them (and the parents buying them the toilet shirts) yes we could draw from a large populace its usurping the idea that 'supporting' chelsea from your from room is better than getting off ya backside and cheering on the local boys.

It is very difficult to be a major attraction whilst basking in the murky mire of lg2. We all have to hope that we are on an upward curve which will bring old and new faces to the stands. Roots Hall though will never be able to deliver the supporters aspirations and sustain them. FF is the only chance/choice. It will be difficult to win over some people but not impossible. We have no choice but to try.

 

[Pubey]

The issue with competition has nothing to do with daggers, gills or col ewe, its all the kids you see running round town in arsenal,spurs,west ham, man utd and liverpool shirts that is the big issue, we have to have some kind of 'glamour' to attract them (and the parents buying them the toilet shirts) yes we could draw from a large populace its usurping the idea that 'supporting' chelsea from your from room is better than getting off ya backside and cheering on the local boys.

I completely agree. It's about turning plastic fans who support a PL team into 'football fans' who support a club and go to games. We do have a lot of potential in this town. Sheffield has a population of 400k and is able to attract over 20k to TWO large teams with a rich history (although it seems the success cannot be achieved for both at the same time). There is no reason why a decent and ambitious stadium can't mean that we can start to really build a strong football club who will attract more fans and give people in this town a genuine footballing identity. So that when kids start school in Southend many of their friends will be supporting Southend and not ****ing West Ham or Spurs.

 

[Jam_Man]

I completely agree. It's about turning plastic fans who support a PL team into 'football fans' who support a club and go to games. We do have a lot of potential in this town. Sheffield has a population of 400k and is able to attract over 20k to TWO large teams with a rich history (although it seems the success cannot be achieved for both at the same time). There is no reason why a decent and ambitious stadium can't mean that we can start to really build a strong football club who will attract more fans and give people in this town a genuine footballing identity. So that when kids start school in Southend many of their friends will be supporting Southend and not ****ing West Ham or Spurs.

Indeed, the idea of the stadium has always been a good one.

Its the fact that we dont seem to be able to afford to build it thats the sticking point.

 

[Willie Coulson's Red Cheeks]

s106 agreements are pretty standard.

The idea is that if someone builds a block of flats that will put extra strain on, for example, traffic, so the council ask for money to fund roadworks to counter this so everyone doesn't end up adversely affected by this big development.

Here a big retail development on the outskirts of town will effect the High Street. Only the High Street seems to have died before the scheme that was supposed to adversely affect it has been implemented.

s106 agreements may be standard......but it does not make them right. Of course a council can come up with a tenuous reason for demanding a payment - it has to or it would be deemed blackmail.

 

[leeblue]

s106 agreements are pretty standard.

The idea is that if someone builds a block of flats that will put extra strain on, for example, traffic, so the council ask for money to fund roadworks to counter this so everyone doesn't end up adversely affected by this big development.

Here a big retail development on the outskirts of town will effect the High Street. Only the High Street seems to have died before the scheme that was supposed to adversely affect it has been implemented.


s106 agreements may be standard......but it does not make them right. Of course a council can come up with a tenuous reason for demanding a payment - it has to or it would be deemed blackmail.

One quick walk down the high street will tell you that our planned development will have naff all impact on something that is already dead. Im sure the council will agree to a lesser amount and all will proceed, will the council say no we dont want anything or yes we will accept something

 

[southend4ever]

The issue with competition has nothing to do with daggers, gills or col ewe, its all the kids you see running round town in arsenal,spurs,west ham, man utd and liverpool shirts that is the big issue, we have to have some kind of 'glamour' to attract them (and the parents buying them the toilet shirts) yes we could draw from a large populace its usurping the idea that 'supporting' chelsea from your from room is better than getting off ya backside and cheering on the local boys.

Kids for a Quid day would be a good start
Family Days
Training with Frankie Banks (equivalent) lunch and then off to Roots Hall

The above are the sort of things you need to do to get youngsters to the Hall and after that we need to start winning and get the youngsters engaged with the history of the club and meaning of Southend so that they have pride in supporting the club.

 

[hockleyeast1964]

Tell southend council to cut their benefit payments to the immigrants who frequent southend highstreet and take Rons reduced offer and we can move on.

 

[Smiffy]

I don't really understand your preoccupation with the number of sides the stadium will have if it ever gets built. It's not ideal but does it really matter in the short term? It's a logistical necessity to build it in stages because of the way the ground is being funded. So long as the agreement remains in place that Ron can't move on with the rest of the development until the main stand is built I don't see any real issue.

Of course judging by recent events you couldn't put it past him to try to move the goalposts again a few months down the line.

The bigger issue is, and always has been, whether a single brick will be laid at Fossetts Farm and not that it will only have three sides for a year if it does get built.

Thats my point Beefy. The way I read the amended S106 agreement is RM can start building Phase 2 (Retail Park) before the Main Stand is even built. That is the issue I have with it all.

 

[Pubey]

Thats my point Beefy. The way I read the amended S106 agreement is RM can start building Phase 2 (Retail Park) before the Main Stand is even built. That is the issue I have with it all.

Why do you have an issue with that? Broken ground for the retail park will see rental agreements with stores begin and potentially line up the financing required for the main stand.

Also, where can i find the S106 doc?

 

[Jam_Man]

Kids for a Quid day would be a good start
Family Days
Training with Frankie Banks (equivalent) lunch and then off to Roots Hall

The above are the sort of things you need to do to get youngsters to the Hall and after that we need to start winning and get the youngsters engaged with the history of the club and meaning of Southend so that they have pride in supporting the club.

Kids can get into the game for a quid every game already in the family enclosure but its still pretty empty. (albeit with an adult).

Deals get a short term increase, but they never last, to really attract kids to the club will be easier if the new stadium is completed. Going to a fantastic stadium will count far more to long term retention than ticket deals. Needs 4 stands first though.

 

[Beefy]

I think the worry is that theres little chance it will be a year.

If we cant even get the ball rolling now, what is going to happen to suddenly facilitate us financing a stand on our own when we cant seem to finance anything ?

Its that concern that fixates me with 3 sides personally.

We were never going to be financing a stand on our own. There will be a partner brought in to handle the bulk of the finance. Until there's movement on the other three stands though - which an agreement to the modified S106 would be - I don't see it as very likely that there's going to be visible movement on the main stand. But at the same time there's a clear business case for that stand and my understanding of the revised planning agreement is that Ron can't move on with the rest of the project without that stand being also built.

 

[Smiffy]

Why do you have an issue with that? Broken ground for the retail park will see rental agreements with stores begin and potentially line up the financing required for the main stand.

Also, where can i find the S106 doc?

Why?

Because if RM can raise the funds for a pointless Retail park, then he should be ploughing that into getting the Main Stand built, before anything else.

Or is that me being a selfish fan?

 

[Beefy]

Thats my point Beefy. The way I read the amended S106 agreement is RM can start building Phase 2 (Retail Park) before the Main Stand is even built. That is the issue I have with it all.

If that's the case then I take back what I said and would be equally concerned. However that wasn't my reading of the proposed agreement. My understanding was that phase two could only begin in conjuction with the construction of the main stand.

Does anyone have the wording to hand?