General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think she has just read the discussion on here, and misunderstood it. This part of the proposal isn't really within her remit as a 'friend' of the site, but it's something that we will certainly be keeping an eye on. This part in particular...

1684912783349.png

...just goes to show how she isn't grasping the mechanics of it. Ignoring the 'agree to sell the Triangle', which isn't happening as it's a lease agreement (unless that has changed?), of course the OCC could break the lease if something went wrong with the financing.
 
SteMerritt said:
I think she has just read the discussion on here, and misunderstood it. This part of the proposal isn't really within her remit as a 'friend' of the site, but it's something that we will certainly be keeping an eye on. This part in particular...

View attachment 13630

...just goes to show how she isn't grasping the mechanics of it. Ignoring the 'agree to sell the Triangle', which isn't happening as it's a lease agreement (unless that has changed?), of course the OCC could break the lease if something went wrong with the financing.
Click to expand...

Proof of funds would likely be ascertained at the planning stage.

This is a significant overseas investment much a needed not only in Oxfordshire but the country as a whole at this time.
 
The wording from the club to only release plans once the land use (lease or sale) had been agreed did appear a little provocative, but I assume that this was done to push timeframes along rather than for any underhand reasons.

The reality is that it is very easy to include legal protection of the site to only be used as proposed in any agreement, and a sale or lease can be withdrawn if the club didn't get planning approval.

As for the funding, we are all maybe overthinking this. I'm not sure that it was every said that the owners would fund the entire project from their personal finances. The reality appears to be that part of the stadium funding will be "mortgaged" but secured against the owners rather than the club. So little changes as far as debt liability and I'm sure that this is no different from thousands of commercial developments all over the country.

It wouldn't hurt for a little more clarity and protection for the club, but that shouldn't change the process with OCC or planning at this stage.
 
Does anybody know how much Kassam wanted for the whole lot including hotel,the bowl,Cinema and any other building in the complex . Thanks.
 
The funding comments did come a little out of the blue, but on reflection despite the wealth of the owners it doesn't seem that unusual that they may choose to go to the financial markets for some of the funding. Though naturally if they go to the markets then there will be questions about the increased pressure / increased need to get a financial return on their outlay.

Also we have to remember that there is no option of staying at the Kassam, so regardless we need to move to a new home and we need support in making that happen. As football fans I think at times we can become a little bit 'over entitled', and it's not always possible to have answers to all the questions we want. But!!

What I'd be interested in knowing is a 'current & future' comparison, it would be great if there was more info about the following:-

(1) OUFC currently pays 'X' anount in annual rent and service charges, what will the annual figures be in the new stadium?

(2) OUFC currently misses out on 'x' y, z' revenue streams? At the new ground the adiditonal revenue streams OUFC will benefit from are...'
For example I assume that we don't benefit financially from Farrs etc, do we get 100% of the pitchside advertising etc?

(3) OUFC currently does not benefit from any stadium revenue streams on non-match days. Will the club have additional stadium revenue streams on non match days? What additional revenue streams at the complex will be directed back into the club.

We have to be realistic and the owners have to get a return on their investment, they are the ones making this happen and they deserve a return. But having been burnt so badly by Kassam, there will always be nervousness from the fans so any additional financial information will always be welcomed. I hope we can return to a succesful player trading model, because that seems the safest and most logical way to stay financially viable.
 
Manorlounger said:
Sadly, the MG name of today has nothing in common with Oxford. That marque disappeared many years ago. MG nowadays is the brand of SAIC Motor UK, a Shanghai based Chinese firm.
Click to expand...

Yes, sadly, maybe a tenuous link, but MG car sales are growing fast and they will be looking to get more exposure to the brand.
What better way than sponsoring the new stadium of their historical home.
Get them on board early and you could even incorporate a few subtle octagons into the design (for a bit more money of course!)
 
Oslernorth said:
Is anyone aware on how our owners have funded the stadiums they have built in the past?
I would imagine they have developed a formula for building stadiums which would include funding, so would likely be a good indicator to how they plan to fund the Triangle.
It would also be useful to know who now owns these stadiums now they’re finished, and how those clubs have faired since completion.
Click to expand...
Good points and questions ^^ @Oslernorth
 
Steve Gilbert said:
If you lost every argument you’ve had up until now then I guess this is them clutching to straws one last time.
Click to expand...
theres no straws available to clutch in a certain area of Oxfordhire.... not after a certain green parish, district and county councillor publically mocked, goaded and belittled on social media platforms thus, basically pissing off local farmers ,following the county council introducing only plant based food at county hall last year

Id think that no bales, not even single straws would be attainable by any one associated with said green councillor, not from any oxon farmer. A prominent FoSB(aT) member was the aforementioned green councillor's seconder when he was standing for election in local elections.
 
Orkney Islands Yellow said:
I don't see the relevance of some of these groups are being considered stakeholders. Harbord Road is 1.1 miles away from the triangle, is a residential area that already has residents permit parking scheme enforced on them. Traffic going past the end of their street may well be busier for a couple hours every fortnight or so.

The Dew Drop, central Summertown, is 2 miles from the triangle.

Wolvercote Primary School, pretty central in Wolvercote, is 1.7 miles from the triangle.

I'm a Cowley man, 1.8 miles from The Kassam Stadium. I wasn't consulted when The Kassam Stadium was proposed.

Its because they're predominantly middle class areas isn't it?

View attachment 13623
Click to expand...
Professional protester and Co Spokesperson for FoSB (a T) , Suzanne McIvor manipulated her way into having (at least) two bites of having input, simply by wearing different hats I see
 
Headley said:
Calling FoSB an Environmental Group is a bit misleading
Click to expand...
they, FoSB, have serious form in misleading, and when challenged to clarify or prove their claims, the fail to do so.

It seems to me FoSB blatantly tell absolutely whopping porkies whenever it suits them, and then they get all defensive when called out over doing so, the little tinkers
 
Sarge said:
Suzanne McIvor manipulated her way into having (at least) two bites of having input, simply by wearing different hats I see
Click to expand...

As long as she is still wearing a hat of some sort - otherwise it ruins the fact FoSB members literally all look like characters from Guess Who.

"Am I wearing a hat?"
"No"
(puts down 'Suzanne').

"Do I wear glasses?"
"No"
(puts down 'Victoria').

"Do I have a goatee?"
"Yes"
(hones in on 'Ian').
 
Is it possible for a slip road off of the A34 NB to drive directly into the Triangle ?
 
I'm still struggling to fully understand the ownership structure of the new stadium. Comments in this thread say that OUFC won't own the stadium, but then the Oxford Mail article with Tim Davies quotes him saying "It’s always the intention that Oxford United itself owns the stadium, which is great news for our long-term future."

www.oxfordmail.co.uk

Finance director on new stadium, club owners and agents’ fees

OXFORD United’s finance director has shed light on how a new stadium will boost the club’s coffers.
www.oxfordmail.co.uk www.oxfordmail.co.uk

I think what I essentially want to know (and what I thought I knew after responses from Colin B a few months ago) is that:

  1. OUFC will lease the land from OCC for a peppercorn rent, and that this cannot be changed in future
  2. OUFC will build a new stadium on that land that OUFC will own
  3. Therefore OUFC will pay no rent whatsoever for this stadium, as OUFC will own it
  4. The financing of that build is up for debate, but any debt associated with it will be repayable by OUFC in a structured way that does not risk the financial viability of the club long term - transparency on this aspect is key
  5. There are laws/covenants put in place, ideally backed up by clauses in the land lease, that OUFC and the stadium can never be separated under any circumstances
  6. There are laws/covenants put in place, ideally back up by clauses in the land lease, that proceeds from the stadium (e.g. matchday revenue etc) cannot be separated from the club and redirected towards a third party, or current 'owner'
If OUFC end up buying the land, rather than leasing it, then some of the above changes slightly of course, and it would then be critical that the land ownership itself is also protected in the same way as the stadium.

If what we are saying now is that OUFC itself will not own the stadium, but that the 'owners' of OUFC will own the stadium, then I suppose it's a moot point as long as we have strong covenants in place ensuring that any owners cannot sell one without the other, but also cannot decide they want to start charging rent later down the line, or that they'd like all advertising revenue for example to go into their pockets and not the club's etc. i.e. any future new ownership structure, when buying the club, would retain the stadium, all associated revenues, the land etc and that they too would also be bound by the same clauses preventing them from separating any of it.
 
Last edited:
SteMerritt said:
I think she has just read the discussion on here, and misunderstood it. This part of the proposal isn't really within her remit as a 'friend' of the site, but it's something that we will certainly be keeping an eye on. This part in particular...

View attachment 13630

...just goes to show how she isn't grasping the mechanics of it. Ignoring the 'agree to sell the Triangle', which isn't happening as it's a lease agreement (unless that has changed?), of course the OCC could break the lease if something went wrong with the financing.
Click to expand...
OCC also have zero intention of selling anyone the land, a lease is not a sale.

They don't even bother trying to get their facts straight :ROFLMAO:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Northstandboy
  • Sticky
New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning
783 784 785
Replies
16K
Views
804K
Concretebob
C
brightonyellow
  • Locked
General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake
304 305 306
Replies
6K
Views
416K
ljs
L
MarkG
What will happen to the Kassam stadium?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Concretebob
C
OUSP
Call to Action Stadium Planning
Replies
4
Views
748
OUSP
OUSP
OUFCwaffle
Study: New stadium location of safe standing model.
Replies
14
Views
1K
ljs
L
Back
Top Bottom