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

[Sham67]

I can only see DC regarding this as a hostile act.  The trust may have just scuppered any chance of having a meaningful dialogue with the club.

[@owlstalk]

20 minutes ago, Sham67 said:

I can only see DC regarding this as a hostile act.  The trust may have just scuppered any chance of having a meaningful dialogue with the club.

 

This is nothing but a ‘careful what you wish for’ style fearmongering post really 

Chansiri should see this as a positive move by the SWFC community 

He's also offered to sell the stadium to the fans previously so he can't have any issues at all

If he does that's his problem and he will need to suck it up

[Leaping Lannys Perm]

14 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

I have a question

Could Chansiri tell the community he wants 50 million for it, but when they can't raise it sell it for 5 million to someone else a few weeks/months after?

I'm not going to suggest I am an expert on this in any way because I haven't a clue.

 

But wouldn't they have the right to match any bid, at least within the initial 6 months?

[SWFC Trust]

1 hour ago, pahowl said:

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

CPO

 

 

The Chelsea scheme is a very different one to an ACV and came about in very different circumstances. Stamford Bridge was at risk of being sold for property development. The club lent the CPO money to buy out the lease. The CPO then sold 21,000 shares in the pitch. The CPO still owe Chelsea a very large sum.

 

It does protect the pitch though.

 

The ACV method does not a change of ownership to protect the ground. The CPO does. 

 

The ACV is free. The CPO method relies on buying out a lease (it the club were willing), and having 1000s of fans prepared to financially support that. 

 

In these difficult times, I do not think the CPO method is a better option 

 

[SWFC Trust]

45 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

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. 

We'll add the ground move thing into our Q&A - it's a good point, and you are the first to ask it. 

 

I'm not going to fully argue the second point other than to say that if your scenario came to pass, then in a worse case scenario the sale could be delayed by six months. The ACV cannot stop outright any move to a new ground. 

[SWFC Trust]

23 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Chansiri should see this as a positive move by the SWFC community 

 

We see it as that. We will be looking for the support of the club, the fanbase, politicians and the community before we make the application. Hopefully many or all of those will be on board. 

[vulva]

It’s just causing trouble. At a time when it’s not needed. 

[SWFC Trust]

 

There is no hostile intent in the applying for ACV status, its a positive move for any forward-thinking football club, and gives a visible signal that the club aspires to situate itself at the heart of the community. We hope it is as seen as such.

 

Furthermore, we haven't made any application yet and fully intend on consulting with the club beforehand. If they give us a really excellent reason not to do it we will take that to members as a reason no to proceed.

[akbuk]

15 hours ago, Tamworthowl said:

It means that if the owner wishes to sell, he has to give the community (not sure exactly who that means) time (6 months?) to put a bid together.

The trust can have a bucket collection whilst Scarborough Holdings raid their reserves.

It’s symbolic. In practice, virtually pointless.

A gesture and nothing else and maybe an obstacle in the future

[DSandersonOWL]

13 hours ago, jp1981 said:

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

Even more important we need a striker !  

[The Wall]

Well done the Trust. Seems like another positive move to me.

As far as I can see, this would only be a problem for Chansiri if he wanted to sell the land to Tesco etc. one day. No reason to believe he does, but who knows if things turn sour

[Animis]

At face value i can imagine DC seeing this as hostile.

 

I would suggest outlining the stakeholder consultation process; in particularly how the other club's reacted in the other examples across the country. If they were warm to the proposals then that might be the starting point of the process and the requirement to sell this idea to the wider fan base. Not sure DC would be that bothered about how Liverpool, Charlton and Leicester reacted, but maybe he's not your intended audience here?

 

I understand why we (you) would look to do this - as you say, it's not the intention to ever look at a fan/community buy out option, but ensuring transparency in the whole process of selling the ground in future - a form of communication insurance if you like.

 

 

[@owlstalk]

1 hour ago, akbuk said:

A gesture and nothing else and maybe an obstacle in the future

 

 

Not an obstacle at all

[@owlstalk]

1 hour ago, vulva said:

It’s just causing trouble. At a time when it’s not needed. 

Yeah you're right

Chansiri's got everything flowing smoothly - we dont' wanna stop the success train

[Tamworthowl]

31 minutes ago, The Wall said:

Well done the Trust. Seems like another positive move to me.

As far as I can see, this would only be a problem for Chansiri if he wanted to sell the land to Tesco etc. one day. No reason to believe he does, but who knows if things turn sour

But what if Tesco offer a lot of money that could fund a shiny new stadium with all mod cons?

 

With an ACV in place, Tesco would find it much harder to get permission to build a shop. So the value of the ground/land is reduced and consequently Chansiri (or whoever) can’t raise sufficient funds for the shiny stadium. And we’re left with a stadium that isn’t fit for purpose.

[Guest Hornsby]

2 hours ago, SWFC Trust said:

 

There is no hostile intent in the applying for ACV status, its a positive move for any forward-thinking football club, and gives a visible signal that the club aspires to situate itself at the heart of the community. We hope it is as seen as such.

 

Furthermore, we haven't made any application yet and fully intend on consulting with the club beforehand. If they give us a really excellent reason not to do it we will take that to members as a reason no to proceed.

Lets get ground listed. Only stadium memtioned in Architects bible, Pevesners guide to British Buildings.

[jonnyowl]

17 hours ago, Geedee said:

100% and why fans groups should stick to dealing with pies and getting some free tickets for local kids. 

 

Football is big business at least in the tens of millions not for a few well meaning blokes with too much time on their hands.

Old Trafford

Anfield

 

Both stadiums that are assets of the community.

 

There are about 30 in the UK I think.

 

 

 

[Animis]

42 minutes ago, Tamworthowl said:

But what if Tesco offer a lot of money that could fund a shiny new stadium with all mod cons?

 

With an ACV in place, Tesco would find it much harder to get permission to build a shop. So the value of the ground/land is reduced and consequently Chansiri (or whoever) can’t raise sufficient funds for the shiny stadium. And we’re left with a stadium that isn’t fit for purpose.

 

Not really - any sale of the ground for alternative development would need a planning consent. As with other stakeholders in the planning process, the trust and others who benefit from an ACV, would have already been consultant as part of the pre--application. It's not until consent is gained the buyer exchanges the sale agreement.

 

These things take months and years not a few weeks. Unless any supermarket/housing proposal gets wide-spread support, it's unlikely to move forward. The key to this is that the ACV ensures pre-apps consultant is fixed, which is a good thing, particularly when dealing with someone like DC, who doesn't have a good record of consultation/communication or transparency.

 

Of course selling the ground to move is only one reason for DC to sell the ground. As has been mentioned, it's debatable whether the ACV would hold jurisdiction over DC selling the lease (if there is one) or owning company (S3), and the club continuing it's use - i.e. football games. I assume this would be just seen as a business transaction?

 

 

[jonnyowl]

5 hours ago, folger said:

Hillsborough is only worth the land it's on. The stadium will always be insolvent due to age, condition and running costs. Some of my best memories at Hillsborough but it's a huge hindrance to the club now. 

The land can't be worth that much, its on a flood plain!

[Harrysgame]

5 hours ago, SWFC Trust said:

 

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.

Appreciate the reply. I guess my only concern would be if I understand correctly? Is that at some point local councillors with God's knows what agenda could have a say in our club and the ownership. 

From experience of some councillor's not sure would want them anywhere a decision about our club. Politics and football etc, also if it makes us less attractive to a potential new buyer how is this a good thing?

I get the sentiment, but just seems unnecessary and overtly underhanded and political.