Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Saw this on 606 (don't laugh..) - what actually caused the Stoneham Plan to fall through? I remember that the usual NIMBY's paraded themselves to try to block it - the post on 606 (below) makes some big accusations against RL though, saying that the planners just got fed up of him. If true, it does make a mockery of the 'We Built it, You fill it' claim...if Stoneham would have been built (and with the Retail Units financing the Payments on the Stadium) we could have been in a totally different financial position to now. Instead we have the £20M over our heads. Hardly the evidence of good business acumen. Come on guys...what happened? I know that as the post was on 606 it may be as realistic as the Skates' Championship hopes but it is worthy of discussion. --- Channon wide to Golac who crosses to Osgood and bang into the top corner. (U11922071) posted 23 Hours Ago Absolutely incorrect, you clearly don't know the history of why we are where we are. 1. The Stoneham site was near the M27 and included proposed retail and leisure outlets and facilities. 2. Those outlets pay rent which covers the ground mortgage payments. 3. Lowe angered the planners to the point they threw the whole proposal out for good. 4. Lowe had already agreed the old ground sale and time was pressing. 5. Lowe was saved from total humiliation when Southampton City Council came up with a plot in a run down industrial area right next to the gas storage units. We are where we are through his arrogance and incompetence and cannot support our stadium costs without selling everything. Lowe has never acknowledged the Council saved his bacon and our stadium is nothing special at all. Still, all the many Uefa games we have staged has been really handy! Go and see Derby's ground to see what might have been, cinema's, shops, pubs, hotels, restaurants a plenty. The stadium is nothing to what the right man could have achieved. ----- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 In fairness to Lowe, it was a combined ****up by both EBC and Lowe. EBC did not want the development proposed by Lowe and Lowe was inflexible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I know it is the fashionable thing to blame lowe for everything but wasnt the stoneham thing on and off way before he came to the club..? you say about derby....were they not in the ****e financially before they got taken over..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Not sure it was a while ago - I seem to remember that Lowe wanted to include shops and a cinema but Eastleigh retailers/Council objected to this. As for denigrating Lowe's involvement in St Mary's, I do know that McMenemy was going on about needing a new ground from 1976 (and others before that) and that Lowe did deliver one whereas many other people didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Basically the club wanted more shops and parking spaces to reduce the cost to the club. Eastleigh BC didnt want any shops or spaces to protect Eastleigh town centre. Southampton CC were supportive of the club. After much haggling Hants CC tried to split the difference - which would have been uneconomic for the club and still ****ed Eastleigh off. End result Southampton CC offered the gasworks site, which was the best for everyone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 indeed.. lowe gets alot of stick for things that happened on "his watch"....one MASSIVE positive that happened on his watch was the delivery of a new ground... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L1Minus10 Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I know that the current St.Mary's site kind of fell into SFC's lap. Coincidentally, I was working at British Gas at the time of the sale and as far as I know, St Mary's is built ont he site of the old Brittania Road depot. Stoneham had fallen through and it was all dead in the water. I always had the feeling that Lowe was happy to take the credit for St.mary's when in fact, all he really did was purchase a site that fell into his lap, got a mortgage and called in Barr's Construction. Call me a cynic but I reckon any reasonably competent man could have sorted that one out. I heard there was a lot of opposition to the retail schemes from the retailers in Eastleigh. Also, there were problems Eastleigh Council being a pain because the stadium wasn't to be inside Southampton. IMO, these objections are not the sort of stop a football stadium on their own. I don't what else caused it to be shelved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 EBC would have granted planning consent except Rupert moved the goalposts at the last minute by saying the project needed shopping to make it financially viable. EBC (nor anyone else) could seriously support an out of town shopping centre. Why are we dragging this up though? Its history and we've ended up in a far better location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Sorry buctootim - I must have been typing the same time as you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 EBC would have granted planning consent except Rupert moved the goalposts at the last minute by saying the project needed shopping to make it financially viable. EBC (nor anyone else) could seriously support an out of town shopping centre. Why are we dragging this up though? Its history and we've ended up in a far better location. and a bigger stadium... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 indeed.. lowe gets alot of stick for things that happened on "his watch"....one MASSIVE positive that happened on his watch was the delivery of a new ground... True, but to be fair there is hardley a club in the country that hasn't built a new ground or redeveloped their existing one in the last 10 years. Even portsmouth have a roof now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2009 EBC would have granted planning consent except Rupert moved the goalposts at the last minute by saying the project needed shopping to make it financially viable. EBC (nor anyone else) could seriously support an out of town shopping centre. Why are we dragging this up though? Its history and we've ended up in a far better location. Saw the post and was interested to find out - no conspiracy - It is getting like the Thought Police on here regarding Rupert! I was at college in Brock at the time, and remember that the locals were up in arms, but didn't know about the Eastleigh retailers kicking off. You would have thought that the location would have been ideal though, closer to the Motorway links etc. Thanks for the input, can now be consigned to the memory bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I know it is the fashionable thing to blame lowe for everything but wasnt the stoneham thing on and off way before he came to the club..? you say about derby....were they not in the ****e financially before they got taken over..? I wasn't the one mentioning Derby...the guy on 606 did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Basically the club wanted more shops and parking spaces to reduce the cost to the club. Eastleigh BC didnt want any shops or spaces to protect Eastleigh town centre. Southampton CC were supportive of the club. After much haggling Hants CC tried to split the difference - which would have been uneconomic for the club and still ****ed Eastleigh off. End result Southampton CC offered the gasworks site, which was the best for everyone anyway. Yes this is accurate - Lowe was the man who came in and altered the plans to include more retail which gave Eastleigh BC the opening to object. It became political as well with the Tories in Hampshire CC (which included Mike Han**** from Portsmouth) basically point scoring over their Labour counterparts in Southampton CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Happy to be shot down in flames, but i think the new plans we submitted included a cinema, which was one of the main things ESB were against as they wanted one in the town centre. I'm really not sure this is something to beat lowe with. As previously mentioned, he ultimately did deliver the stadium and whilst he made some unfullied promises as to where that would take us and what it would enble us to do, even as a now "Anti Lowe" am happy to recognise the part he played. However..............why Mr Askham ever let the "Toy's are Us" site go at a time that when the infrastructure we would of had, by the time Sky came to town, really would have let us compete, is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Happy to be shot down in flames, but i think the new plans we submitted included a cinema, which was one of the main things ESB were against as they wanted one in the town centre. I'm really not sure this is something to beat lowe with. As previously mentioned, he ultimately did deliver the stadium and whilst he made some unfullied promises as to where that would take us and what it would enble us to do, even as a now "Anti Lowe" am happy to recognise the part he played. However..............why Mr Askham ever let the "Toy's are Us" site go at a time that when the infrastructure we would of had, by the time Sky came to town, really would have let us compete, is beyond me. Thanks Gem, I've not been trying to beat Lowe with this one, just thought that the Stoneham issue was interesting. I only cut and pasted what I saw from 606 - there's lots of conspiracy theorists on here, perhaps including me at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Yes this is accurate - Lowe was the man who came in and altered the plans to include more retail which gave Eastleigh BC the opening to object. It became political as well with the Tories in Hampshire CC (which included Mike Han**** from Portsmouth) basically point scoring over their Labour counterparts in Southampton CC. ...and another obnoxious skate, Freddie Emery Wallis (if memory serves) who was more obstructive. The thing that guaranteed it would never succeed was the fact that the bit of land involved, partly 'in' Southampton, was owned by 3 different authorites - Labour Southampton, Lib-Dem Eastleigh and Tory HCC. How were they ever likely to agree...particularly when, as previously mentioned, Lowe drastically moved the goalposts with a dramatic added "commercial engine". Now the nearby Rose Bowl was a totally different story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 A lot of water has passed under the bridge but my tuppence worth: The whole public-facing raison d'etre of the reverse takeover was to provide a new ground (which by hook or crook was eventually achieved, granted). Now most outsiders may have assumed this would involve some capital investment coming into the club pursuant to this. What probably peeved some of the councillors was that the reality of Askham's grand plan was nothing more than a market listing, a piffling amount of cash and a pompous ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Many years ago (I think) the club was offered the land where Toys R Us is built for a new ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Many years ago (I think) the club was offered the land where Toys R Us is built for a new ground. It went as far as 3 different models being constructed and displayed in Southampton library, spectaular they were to, it was just a case of which one was going to be chosen...but we ended up with a toy warehouse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 SCC saved Lowes arse. Lowe had outlined planning permission for Stoneham, and then added shops, cinema etc which fvcked the deal. He just got greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mynameisthehulk Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 It went as far as 3 different models being constructed and displayed in Southampton library, spectaular they were to, it was just a case of which one was going to be chosen...but we ended up with a toy warehouse! Just out of interest, why did this not happen? Just a little before my time I think and not heard about it before so really interested to know more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 SCC saved Lowes arse. Lowe had outlined planning permission for Stoneham, and then added shops, cinema etc which fvcked the deal. He just got greedy. interesting...as a few weeks ago..lowe was given some ****e on here for not having the foresight to add "other facilities" to the SMS site... would you rather have had the stoneham project..? I am glad we got SMS..a bigger and better stadium IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 interesting...as a few weeks ago..lowe was given some ****e on here for not having the foresight to add "other facilities" to the SMS site... would you rather have had the stoneham project..? I am glad we got SMS..a bigger and better stadium IMO I think "bigger" is something of a moot point for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2009 interesting...as a few weeks ago..lowe was given some ****e on here for not having the foresight to add "other facilities" to the SMS site... would you rather have had the stoneham project..? I am glad we got SMS..a bigger and better stadium IMO Missed that bit about the additional facilities at SMS... Would that not be a way of helping us out of this mess though? Same principle as Stoneham, rents etc help to fund mortgage payments... Lowe could look to gather financial support (intros from WH Ireland?) add the necessary units and therefore longer term get his investment back with a BETTER PACKAGE FOR AN EVENTUAL TAKEOVER. Simple. Question is, why hasn't Lowe or Wilde or anyone else attempted it since we moved to SMS?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I think "bigger" is something of a moot point for the foreseeable future. of course..but IN THE PREM (boooo) sms was not big enough IMO....luckily thea fans never got their own way and got the club to add another teir on one of the stands..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Missed that bit about the additional facilities at SMS... Would that not be a way of helping us out of this mess though? Same principle as Stoneham, rents etc help to fund mortgage payments... Lowe could look to gather financial support (intros from WH Ireland?) add the necessary units and therefore longer term get his investment back with a BETTER PACKAGE FOR AN EVENTUAL TAKEOVER. Simple. Question is, why hasn't Lowe or Wilde or anyone else attempted it since we moved to SMS?? stoneham would have been perfect due to its location.. using facilites in st marys...mext to a hell hole of a council estate...bad for traffic and next to a gas works will not be appealling..no matter how many people on here try and justify it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 interesting...as a few weeks ago..lowe was given some ****e on here for not having the foresight to add "other facilities" to the SMS site... would you rather have had the stoneham project..? I am glad we got SMS..a bigger and better stadium IMO I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but how do you know? I never saw any artist impressions of stoneham or heard a figure to do with capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 of course..but IN THE PREM (boooo) sms was not big enough IMO....luckily thea fans never got their own way and got the club to add another teir on one of the stands..lol Didn't Lowe say that if we sold 10,000 season tickets he would increase the capacity, and then upped the figure as soon as that target was met? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but how do you know? I never saw any artist impressions of stoneham or heard a figure to do with capacity. it was common dog..the ground was going to be around 25k....it was in the news more so than not...it would have been a traditional 4-stand stadium (like wolves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I'm not arguing for the sake of it, but how do you know? I never saw any artist impressions of stoneham or heard a figure to do with capacity. Really? There were fully drawn up plans for the stadium. It was to be 25,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 it was common dog..the ground was going to be around 25k....it was in the news more so than not...it would have been a traditional 4-stand stadium (like wolves) Really? There were fully drawn up plans for the stadium. It was to be 25,000. Fair enough. I suppose we just have to guess as to whether the extra 8000 seats at SMS brings in more money than the extra retail would have at stoneham. At the moment, the answer would clearly be no.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Fair enough. I suppose we just have to guess as to whether the extra 8000 seats at SMS brings in more money than the extra retail would have at stoneham. At the moment, the answer would clearly be no.... hmmm..being forward thinking (like all of us would when building a new ground for saints in the prem)...you HAVE to go for more seats over "facilities" if had to choose...simple..more fans in the ground is a winner every day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I wonder what reply we would get if we emailed the club asking for an account of what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 hmmm..being forward thinking (like all of us would when building a new ground for saints in the prem)...you HAVE to go for more seats over "facilities" if had to choose...simple..more fans in the ground is a winner every day... Obviously at the time it's what we all would have chosen, but in hindsight (and I know it's a wonderful thing) a load of shops and a cinema would have brought in more money. Let's not forget that even with a 25,000 seater we would still have 10,000 empty seats. :smt078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Saw this on 606 (don't laugh..) - what actually caused the Stoneham Plan to fall through? I remember that the usual NIMBY's paraded themselves to try to block it - the post on 606 (below) makes some big accusations against RL though, saying that the planners just got fed up of him. If true, it does make a mockery of the 'We Built it, You fill it' claim...if Stoneham would have been built (and with the Retail Units financing the Payments on the Stadium) we could have been in a totally different financial position to now. Instead we have the £20M over our heads. Hardly the evidence of good business acumen. Come on guys...what happened? I know that as the post was on 606 it may be as realistic as the Skates' Championship hopes but it is worthy of discussion. --- Channon wide to Golac who crosses to Osgood and bang into the top corner. (U11922071) posted 23 Hours Ago Absolutely incorrect, you clearly don't know the history of why we are where we are. 1. The Stoneham site was near the M27 and included proposed retail and leisure outlets and facilities. 2. Those outlets pay rent which covers the ground mortgage payments. 3. Lowe angered the planners to the point they threw the whole proposal out for good. 4. Lowe had already agreed the old ground sale and time was pressing. 5. Lowe was saved from total humiliation when Southampton City Council came up with a plot in a run down industrial area right next to the gas storage units. We are where we are through his arrogance and incompetence and cannot support our stadium costs without selling everything. Lowe has never acknowledged the Council saved his bacon and our stadium is nothing special at all. Still, all the many Uefa games we have staged has been really handy! Go and see Derby's ground to see what might have been, cinema's, shops, pubs, hotels, restaurants a plenty. The stadium is nothing to what the right man could have achieved. ----- The other day you were whining on and on about the 6-3 Man United game like it represented some high water mark in the entire history of the club that we have never ever matched since and quite rightly you got laughed out of town. And now this drivel. Who gives a **** any more. It's old news and most of that stuff you've dredged up from some other dinlow on the tinternet is half arsed garbage anyway. And as for "have a look at Derby" - what the f u c k are you talking about? Pride Parkway/The Wyvern is a load of reclaimed brownfield with a Sainsbury's, Toys R Us, Homebase and about twenty other stores, Pizza outlets, burger joins, Car Showrooms and god knows what else. Ie a fu ck of a lot more than you could fit at Stoneham. And lets say, well, absolutely none of it, none of it, NONE OF IT has the slightest thing to do with Derby frigging County football club. Let's hope you never do the old "purity of football/football shouldn't be a business" routine if you're going to slate Lowe for..... not securing planning permission for a frigging supermarket and a burger bar next to our ground. Is that what "football people" would have worked on, then? Turn it in you dopey twonk. No one wants Lowe here anyway, so you going on about stuff that happened over ten years ago really is pis sing in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 I wonder what reply we would get if we emailed the club asking for an account of what happened. the responses on here are pretty accurate.. lowe knew that 25k would have been too small for a city with a club long standing in the top flight (only just at times) that had a population of around a quater of a million...for that, he wanted more on the site than the max capacity allowed..and fair enough IMO.... SMS is better..it is in the city, it is a far better design and it is bigger (and was too small for us until relegation) and a UEFA 4-star stadium...I doubt stoneham would have held a competitive england game.. not that it matters now, but you dont build these things thinking about immediate relegation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewell Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Am I the only one who is delighted that Lowe ****ed it up (allegedly) and we have a stadium in the city centre? OK we could be debt free with Stoneham but **** me who really wants a soulless out of town ground like Reading? Do you remember the buses to get back from the Madjeski this season? I know St Mary's is a far from perfect identikit stadium but give me its location rather than the outskirts of the city every time! Hale Rupert! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Obviously at the time it's what we all would have chosen, but in hindsight (and I know it's a wonderful thing) a load of shops and a cinema would have brought in more money. Let's not forget that even with a 25,000 seater we would still have 10,000 empty seats. :smt078 to be fair..I doubt odeon cinema would have been anything to do with us...like these things, they would have paid "their bit" so I dont see how we would have benefitted much.....apart from being closer to the motorway...:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Just out of interest, why did this not happen? Just a little before my time I think and not heard about it before so really interested to know more details. Get "Full Time At The Dell", another one of those Hagiology publications that Sundance hates so much and you'll get all the details. Basically, just after we won the Cup there was a vision that somewhere down between West Quay and Western Esplanade there would be a 15 to 20 million pound development, including a hotel and a sport and leisure complex as well as a new ground. The project was to be produced by Lord Lucas of Chilworth and at the time the council were all for it (although they would not pur any money into the project). Basically it dragged on for about three years until Saints revealed that the cost involved to the Club would have crippled us (no SKY money back then!!!). West Quay/West Bay was considered as far back as 1948 when plans for a ground holding up to 70,000 were even being mooted!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 to be fair..I doubt odeon cinema would have been anything to do with us...like these things, they would have paid "their bit" so I dont see how we would have benefitted much.....apart from being closer to the motorway...:confused: Maybe not, but it's all a step towards making the club self sufficient, which IMO should be the ultimate target of every football chairman in the land. Unfortunately for clubs like Man United and Chelsea, they pay out too much money for that to be possible, but it's not unthinkable that we could make enough money (without having to sell anyone) to completely cover playing staff wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 13 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2009 The other day you were whining on and on about the 6-3 Man United game like it represented some high water mark in the entire history of the club that we have never ever matched since and quite rightly you got laughed out of town. And now this drivel. Who gives a **** any more. It's old news and most of that stuff you've dredged up from some other dinlow on the tinternet is half arsed garbage anyway. And as for "have a look at Derby" - what the f u c k are you talking about? Pride Parkway/The Wyvern is a load of reclaimed brownfield with a Sainsbury's, Toys R Us, Homebase and about twenty other stores, Pizza outlets, burger joins, Car Showrooms and god knows what else. Ie a fu ck of a lot more than you could fit at Stoneham. And lets say, well, absolutely none of it, none of it, NONE OF IT has the slightest thing to do with Derby frigging County football club. Let's hope you never do the old "purity of football/football shouldn't be a business" routine if you're going to slate Lowe for..... not securing planning permission for a frigging supermarket and a burger bar next to our ground. Is that what "football people" would have worked on, then? Turn it in you dopey twonk. No one wants Lowe here anyway, so you going on about stuff that happened over ten years ago really is pis sing in the wind. Ahhh, I guess I've made it on this forum, abuse from CB...!! A) I didn't post the 'Derby' reference you blew a blood vessel over - it was cut and pasted from 606. B) If you read a post higher up you would have seen my explanation as to why I was asking the question - I asked a factual question and got several, honest, factual answers without bile.. C) The other thread denegrated into farce because individuals on here play 'thought police' if you dare to imply that actually something positive happened pre-97. I'm sorry but the last time I looked this forum was all about OPINION. If I think we've deteriorated since 1997, that's my lookout. Posts by others quoting 2003 as if its some sort of milestone (as we still lost) make me laugh. It's all history. I was at the Semi's in 84, 86, ZDS in 92 and Cardiff. Christ, my parents even took me to the Civic Centre in 76 when I was 18mths old. I'm sick to my back teeth of people on here jumping on comments posted before they actually READ them. Some people need to remember we're all Red and White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Maybe not, but it's all a step towards making the club self sufficient, which IMO should be the ultimate target of every football chairman in the land. Unfortunately for clubs like Man United and Chelsea, they pay out too much money for that to be possible, but it's not unthinkable that we could make enough money (without having to sell anyone) to completely cover playing staff wages. Actually, I think it is pretty unthinkable. How much profit does one cinema make? If its half a million quid I'd be surprised. And that would be the profit your Odeon PLC would make, not our cut. I can't imagine any retail development that would be able to bankroll the wage bill of a football club. Actually, I've just had a quick look. Cineworld group made a profit of £52m in 2007. Fag packet maths across an estate of 75 cinemas gives you £700,000 profit per cinema. So Saints cut of that would be what - 5%? So it might get Woggy Taylor back on that. Ahhh, I guess I've made it on this forum, abuse from CB...!! A) I didn't post the 'Derby' reference you blew a blood vessel over - it was cut and pasted from 606. B) If you read a post higher up you would have seen my explanation as to why I was asking the question - I asked a factual question and got several, honest, factual answers without bile.. C) The other thread denegrated into farce because individuals on here play 'thought police' if you dare to imply that actually something positive happened pre-97. I'm sorry but the last time I looked this forum was all about OPINION. If I think we've deteriorated since 1997, that's my lookout. Posts by others quoting 2003 as if its some sort of milestone (as we still lost) make me laugh. It's all history. I was at the Semi's in 84, 86, ZDS in 92 and Cardiff. Christ, my parents even took me to the Civic Centre in 76 when I was 18mths old. I'm sick to my back teeth of people on here jumping on comments posted before they actually READ them. Some people need to remember we're all Red and White. Funny how the stuff that was good post 97 is brushed aside as "all history" (you remind me we lost your despised 2003 FA cup final) , but stuff that was good pre 97 is sacrosanct (your fantastic ZDS cup final...which we, errr...lost.). I notice it was you getting all upset with lines like "when did we ever beat big clubs after Lowe turned up?". When sensible people like Steve Grant answers with facts that amount to "actually, loads of times" but you're complaining about the thought police. It's pant wettingly hilarious, it really is. Why on earth do you care about Stoneham? It's over. We have a brilliant stadium in the heart of the city and a stones throw away from where the bloody club was formed in the first place. Bleating on and on about how fantastic it would have been to have an out of town stadium surrounded by branches of Pets at Home, Homebase, Pizza Huts and Halfords really is utterly ridiculous, and about as far from the true meaning of football as you can possibly get. Here's your factual answer - Stoneham was sh ite, and we're well out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Am I the only one who is delighted that Lowe ****ed it up (allegedly) and we have a stadium in the city centre? Without getting caught up in the history of Stoneham (which is probably worth a book of it's own given the shennanigans involving three or four different councils, and three political parties and changes at our own SFC), I have to say I agree entirely with you. I much prefer a stadium close to the City Centre, loads of pubs, good public transport links and for nostalgia where the Club originated from (of course, the fact I can walk there in 10 mins sort of helps!!!). Stoneham would have been our version of Reading, which IMHO is soooo depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 (edited) Actually, I think it is pretty unthinkable. How much profit does one cinema make? If its half a million quid I'd be surprised. And that would be the profit your Odeon PLC would make, not our cut. I can't imagine any retail development that would be able to bankroll the wage bill of a football club. Actually, I've just had a quick look. Cineworld group made a profit of £52m in 2007. Fag packet maths across an estate of 75 cinemas gives you £700,000 profit per cinema. So Saints cut of that would be what - 5%? So it might get Woggy Taylor back on that. But the usual way of doing it isnt to take a cut of profits - its to build the shops, cinema, bars, carparking etc and then rent them out to tenants - which makes much much more money if you've been given the site or just had to pay agricultural land prices for it. The profit of one cinema might only be £700,000 pa but the rent on their building might be £1.4m pa or so. Anyway its all water under the bridge. I'm pretty sure attendances would hacve been lower at an out of town ground. Edited 13 January, 2009 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 There's a book to be written someday about the politics at SFC and Stoneham would fill a large part of it. EBC spent a lot of time, effort and money looking at the project - ask Roberto Tambini - but basically the fear was that the project would fill the 'strategic gap' between Eastleigh & Southampton. Once one of the corners at the M27 junction had been filled in then the other 3 would soon follow. Added to that studies had shown that after the final whistle it would take 2 and a half hours before the last car had left the car park so the planned size was reduced (from 6000 cars to 3000?). The Pirelli site in Eastleigh would have been a good choice but football fans have a reputation that would scare anybody away. I seem to remember seeing 14 options for a site but the Gas Works suited everybody. I would have preferred the TOYS 'R US option but I read somewhere that it couldn't be used because it was reclaimed land, presumably meaning much deeper foundations. I personally believe now that St Marys is a good outcome but the whole waterfront area really needs some major investment. Paul Allen anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Interesting debate - but whether we had or hadnt gone there we'd STILL be heading for League 2 under Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 But the usual way of doing it isnt to take a cut of profits - its to build the shops, cinema, bars, carparking etc and then rent them out to tenants - which makes much much more money if you've been given the site or just had to pay agricultural land prices for it. The profit of one cinema might only be £700,000 pa but the rent on their building might be £1.4m pa or so. Absolutely no doubt you're right about that. I just had a quick look on the web to see the kind of potential earnings a cinema would make. Even if the rent worked out as double Saints wouldn't ever have bought all the land and then rented it back to retail outlets anyway. We would have been saddled with even more debt. The point is I can't see a business model where the playing side of the club could be financed by adjacent businesses. Last time I looked, Lowe was getting slated for trying to fund the club off the back of other interests (finance, catering, radio) and now he gets slated (not by you) for not doing more additional business activity. My problem with threads like this is the mindset is "whatever Lowe is for I'm against, whatever he's against I'm for" with utterly no thought beyond that. I doubt very much if we had a stadium in the middle of nowhere surrounded by souless Toys R Us and Odeons the likes of Channon's Sideburns would be thanking Lowe. They'd be slating him for concentrating too much on evil business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 There's a book to be written someday about the politics at SFC and Stoneham would fill a large part of it. EBC spent a lot of time, effort and money looking at the project - ask Roberto Tambini - but basically the fear was that the project would fill the 'strategic gap' between Eastleigh & Southampton. Once one of the corners at the M27 junction had been filled in then the other 3 would soon follow. Added to that studies had shown that after the final whistle it would take 2 and a half hours before the last car had left the car park so the planned size was reduced (from 6000 cars to 3000?). The Pirelli site in Eastleigh would have been a good choice but football fans have a reputation that would scare anybody away. I seem to remember seeing 14 options for a site but the Gas Works suited everybody. I would have preferred the TOYS 'R US option but I read somewhere that it couldn't be used because it was reclaimed land, presumably meaning much deeper foundations. I personally believe now that St Marys is a good outcome but the whole waterfront area really needs some major investment. Paul Allen anybody? Interesting post but Allen was a failure at Brentford why would we want him back to replace JP? Oh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 13 January, 2009 Share Posted 13 January, 2009 Poor Rupert. He is being slated for now is having the temerity to demand more shops etc. which would have - **** me - earned the club more money? The bastard. So the Stoneham project, sorry the non-viable Stoneham project, fell through. Shouldn't we be celebrating that? SMS is our home, Rupert helped deliver that at a fairly decent price (when you look at how much Wembley cost / Pompey's fairytale will cost) - deal with it. It is not easy to deliver a stadium, regardless of what some on here think (just ask Everton, Liverpool or Athens 2004). For all its faults, the reverse takeover enabled the rights issue that helped get the ball rolling on the stadium. It might not be right for us now, but SMS wouldn't exist without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now