Supporters group applies to have Hillsborough classed as an asset of community value

[SWFC Trust]

13 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

What is it intended as?

Theres plenty in the Q&A about this, but perhaps the point to make is that ACV status would mean that the stadium cannot be sold without the prior knowledge off the community/fanbase. 

[briggowl]

Could p*** off DC!!

[pahowl]

Is this irrelevent?

 

As we all know the property is held in a Company , what is there to stop the Company being sold , and therefore no actual sale of the property.

[hopevalleyowl]

As a Town Planner I was thinking this could be the way to go as soon as DC effectively separated the ground from the club.

 

A very positive step for the long term sustainability of the club

[@owlstalk]

11 minutes ago, briggowl said:

Could p*** off DC!!

 

Doesn’t everything?

 

 

[Tamworthowl]

9 minutes ago, SWFC Trust said:

Theres plenty in the Q&A about this, but perhaps the point to make is that ACV status would mean that the stadium cannot be sold without the prior knowledge off the community/fanbase. 

Apologies. I posted before reading your long explanation to members.

 

It seems that the intent is covered by this bit...

 

”What is the Trust’s motivation for applying for ACV status for Hillsborough?

• Practical: A meeting with the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme on the 1st December 2020 brought to light that Hillsborough is under-utilised during the week with lots of space going un-used. ACV status is a prompt to the club to make this space available for the betterment of the local community and its people and to support the excellent work of the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme.
• Vision: What type of football club do we want Sheffield Wednesday to be? ACV status is a reminder that Sheffield Wednesday is the beating heart of its local community and prompts the club to go above and beyond successful one-off events, such as Owls in the Park, no matter how successful or cherished those activities are to fans. Community work involves rolling up sleeves and hard-work of which SWFC (the football club) needs to do more in support of its excellent charitable arm, the Sheffield Wednesday community programme.
• Transparency: ACV status delivers much needed transparency over the ownership of our ground – and an important mechanism in providing accountability to decision-making at the club.”

 

Using the stadium facilities more, and generating a community vision do not need the ground to be brought under a ACV. If the club doesn’t want to play ball, the ACV won’t make them. A better approach would be to build a respectful, constructive relationship from which these aims can be pursued.

 

On transparency; we already know who owns the ground. The ACV only adds transparency by flagging up any potential sale. It only really impacts on a sale if the current, or potential new, owner wants to move the club to a new ground as it limits future development. Thus, the AVC might hinder the take over of the club by someone with ambitious plans to expand and develop elsewhere. Indeed, it could prevent Chansiri pursuing a move. Whilst a move might not be what most fans want, it hasn’t harmed any club other than Coventry, and might well be what we need to move forward. Most others have benefited from a ground move. If preventing a move is what the trust wants, then it should say so, but transparency in itself adds nothing.

[jp1981]

2 hours ago, DSandersonOWL said:

I thought their engineers were on (justified) strike ?

Be nice if we actually had one that could go on strike. 

[SWFC Trust]

37 minutes ago, Harrysgame said:

So if DC finds a buyer who wants to pay the asking price and invest 100s of millions of pounds. Could the community object and stall the deal just because of any reason they want? PS quite like the block to stop anything dodgy, however how would a local interest group get the money.

Ill find out the specifics on this and come back to you. I think the question is who operates/decides on any moratorium and under what circumstances.

[SWFC Trust]

10 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

Apologies. I posted before reading your long explanation to members.

 

It seems that the intent is covered by this bit...

 

”What is the Trust’s motivation for applying for ACV status for Hillsborough?

• Practical: A meeting with the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme on the 1st December 2020 brought to light that Hillsborough is under-utilised during the week with lots of space going un-used. ACV status is a prompt to the club to make this space available for the betterment of the local community and its people and to support the excellent work of the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme.
• Vision: What type of football club do we want Sheffield Wednesday to be? ACV status is a reminder that Sheffield Wednesday is the beating heart of its local community and prompts the club to go above and beyond successful one-off events, such as Owls in the Park, no matter how successful or cherished those activities are to fans. Community work involves rolling up sleeves and hard-work of which SWFC (the football club) needs to do more in support of its excellent charitable arm, the Sheffield Wednesday community programme.
• Transparency: ACV status delivers much needed transparency over the ownership of our ground – and an important mechanism in providing accountability to decision-making at the club.”

 

Using the stadium facilities more, and generating a community vision do not need the ground to be brought under a ACV. If the club doesn’t want to play ball, the ACV won’t make them. A better approach would be to build a respectful, constructive relationship from which these aims can be pursued.

 

On transparency; we already know who owns the ground. The ACV only adds transparency by flagging up any potential sale. It only really impacts on a sale if the current, or potential new, owner wants to move the club to a new ground as it limits future development. Thus, the AVC might hinder the take over of the club by someone with ambitious plans to expand and develop elsewhere. Indeed, it could prevent Chansiri pursuing a move. Whilst a move might not be what most fans want, it hasn’t harmed any club other than Coventry, and might well be what we need to move forward. Most others have benefited from a ground move. If preventing a move is what the trust wants, then it should say so, but transparency in itself adds nothing.

Ill find out on the new ground point and come back. Probably tomorrow now. 

[SWFC Trust]

34 minutes ago, pahowl said:

Is this irrelevent?

 

As we all know the property is held in a Company , what is there to stop the Company being sold , and therefore no actual sale of the property.

We'll seek clarification of this. Our belief though is that yes, the company could be sold. If any new company tried to change the use of the stadium - then the ACV would kick in. 

[pahowl]

11 minutes ago, SWFC Trust said:

We'll seek clarification of this. Our belief though is that yes, the company could be sold. If any new company tried to change the use of the stadium - then the ACV would kick in. 

Sheffield Wednesday football club LTD have a 30 year lease from Sheffield 3 LTD so does this protect the club more than your ACV does ?

Edited February 15, 2021 by pahowl

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

 In the absence of a fairy godmother turning up I don't see any clandestine plans of any sort of acquisition.

 

What I do foresee is a situation where our owner will have to be open at least about this single issue.

 

A conflict of sorts but this may lead to an exchange of Olive branches. On his arrival DC stated he wanted this to be a journey of cooperation. We were kept in check for a period by the king bearing gifts. Most of the Wednesday family sympathise with his plight. It was never about an expectation of the golden egg being delivered but a general road map of where we are heading and how we get there.

 

DC was expecting more of us but I think he was misinformed about the general financial position of the area and we were never in a position to meet those expectations. At the moment all we can offer is that our commercial perspectives could and should be so much better than we are currently seeing. However that Olive branch has to cast and gathered. Makes little or no odds who casts and who gathers, but the current situation can not be allowed to drag on.  

[Plonk]

I think this is an excellent move by the trust. Maybe once this is done they should start looking at how the funds could be raised in the event of it happening. Or even at buying it back if it didn’t? Start that process now as six months isn’t long. Just a thought but would fans buy into share issue to buy it back. Start up a register of people who would commit to buying such shares?

[pahowl]

Would a scheme like the CPO be a better way forward to secure the ground for the purpose it is intended , 

CPO

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by pahowl

[SWFC Trust]

9 hours ago, Harrysgame said:

So if DC finds a buyer who wants to pay the asking price and invest 100s of millions of pounds. Could the community object and stall the deal just because of any reason they want? PS quite like the block to stop anything dodgy, however how would a local interest group get the money.

 

Here's the answer to this one from James, the Trust's Interim Chair. 

 

My best current  understanding is its a question of law and would rest with the council in the first place. In other words, Sheffield 3 would have to inform the council of the sale, who the buyer is, and their intentions etc. If the council are convinced it's a well-intentioned sale (ie. Its a buyer who intends to continue to operate the ground as a football stadium) they can waive the initial moratorium period and allow the sale to go ahead. If they have any concerns, however, they can invoke the initial moratorium period and then they have to inform the 'community', which I'm assuming in the first place would mean the Trust as the applicant, and we would obviously work with the council to make everything known publicly. I am going to speak to the council about this though as it's the only point that's not 100% clear in the documentation I've read and you can say is one reason why we aren't rushing to make an application until we've confirmed the specific point.

[Guest Hornsby]

If approved, this would reduce stadium value by about £37 million, back to experts LSH figure of £23 million.

 

That will bankrupt Chansiris new holding company, Sheffield 3 so may be a fire sale soon. 

 

Might also breach vulture lending companies covenant, again forcong a forced sale.

 

Great work by trust in trying to preserve our hustoric  home. Tangible. Joining.

 

Should also consider listing ground on basis of North Stand interest, now oldest cantelivered stand in existence.

[SWFC Trust]

9 hours ago, Tamworthowl said:

Apologies. I posted before reading your long explanation to members.

 

It seems that the intent is covered by this bit...

 

”What is the Trust’s motivation for applying for ACV status for Hillsborough?

• Practical: A meeting with the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme on the 1st December 2020 brought to light that Hillsborough is under-utilised during the week with lots of space going un-used. ACV status is a prompt to the club to make this space available for the betterment of the local community and its people and to support the excellent work of the Sheffield Wednesday Community Programme.
• Vision: What type of football club do we want Sheffield Wednesday to be? ACV status is a reminder that Sheffield Wednesday is the beating heart of its local community and prompts the club to go above and beyond successful one-off events, such as Owls in the Park, no matter how successful or cherished those activities are to fans. Community work involves rolling up sleeves and hard-work of which SWFC (the football club) needs to do more in support of its excellent charitable arm, the Sheffield Wednesday community programme.
• Transparency: ACV status delivers much needed transparency over the ownership of our ground – and an important mechanism in providing accountability to decision-making at the club.”

 

Using the stadium facilities more, and generating a community vision do not need the ground to be brought under a ACV. If the club doesn’t want to play ball, the ACV won’t make them. A better approach would be to build a respectful, constructive relationship from which these aims can be pursued.

 

On transparency; we already know who owns the ground. The ACV only adds transparency by flagging up any potential sale. It only really impacts on a sale if the current, or potential new, owner wants to move the club to a new ground as it limits future development. Thus, the AVC might hinder the take over of the club by someone with ambitious plans to expand and develop elsewhere. Indeed, it could prevent Chansiri pursuing a move. Whilst a move might not be what most fans want, it hasn’t harmed any club other than Coventry, and might well be what we need to move forward. Most others have benefited from a ground move. If preventing a move is what the trust wants, then it should say so, but transparency in itself adds nothing.

On the second point about a potential new ground.

 

The Trust are not trying to prevent any move to a new ground. If a buyer continued to play at Hillsborough while a new stadium was built then the moratorium period would not kick in. 

 

We'd then move to the shiny new ground, and aim to secure ACV status there also. 

[vulva]

The club, this frenzied up forum and the emergence of the latest opportunist Trust are going in exactly the same direction as when DA was in charge. 

[@owlstalk]

12 minutes ago, vulva said:

The club, this frenzied up forum and the emergence of the latest opportunist Trust are going in exactly the same direction as when DA was in charge. 

 

 

Only one bloke to look at for why that's happening

 

(it's not happening - stop being a drama queen)

[Tamworthowl]

40 minutes ago, SWFC Trust said:

On the second point about a potential new ground.

 

The Trust are not trying to prevent any move to a new ground. If a buyer continued to play at Hillsborough while a new stadium was built then the moratorium period would not kick in. 

 

We'd then move to the shiny new ground, and aim to secure ACV status there also. 

The Trust are not trying to prevent any move to a new ground. I’ll take your word for that, but it could have been something that the Trust stated explicitly in its Q&A for the purpose of transparency.

 

But what if the Asset of Community Value does actually become an asset of value to the community. If the Trust and the club start to exploit the ground’s facilities for the benefit of the local community, what then? If/when plans, sound plans, are put forward for a ground move, so good that even the Trust like it, but it requires the sale of Hillsborough for funding then the community can object. The community, at this time, extends well beyond the Trust and the fan base. Hillsborough ladies badminton association might object on the basis that they’ll lose access to the gym: their community asset will be lost. The council will be obliged to seriously consider their objections. Whilst ACV can stop (hinder?) Chansiri selling the ground for housing (and personal profit) whilst moving the team to Braken Moor, it can also stop outright a move to a shiny new ground that can be to the benefit of both club and fans.