Council on Stadium Discussions

[leginten]

It occurred to me that I had heard this comment about addressing the wages issue somewhere before. In the 2008 accounts, the Directors Report announced, "The club reported positive progress in its aim of returning to profitability... aided by a 10% reduction in employment costs to ?11.3m (2007: ?12.49m)." In the 2010 accounts, wages were down to ?9.12m, so there undoubtedly has been some progress in this area. More still needs to be done.

 

The same accounts also restated the Directors' intention to re-develop Tynecastle, "providing a new main stand to be constructed and fully operational in season 2011/12". Life was so much simpler then.

 

My view on the whole thing is fairly simple. I think - if everyone really desired this outcome and would stop all the bullshitting - that an excellent new stand could be erected at Tynecastle. I also think there is no real need to increase the stadium capacity considerably. For once in a quarter century events like the Barcelona friendly, Murrayfield is available, and if UEFA really do refuse to let us use Tynecastle for the one or two Europa League ties every couple of years, Murrayfield again is the option.

 

Not fit for purpose was a lie back in the day. It's still a lie.

 

I hear all the stuff about "lack of ambition", but it's pretty patronising. I can only assume the people coming out with this stuff don't really have a handle on the reality of Edinburgh's relationship with football. There is no huge untapped army of Hearts fans (or any other set of fans in Scotland) waiting to come out of the woodwork for home games against Dunfy. People will bring their granny and her poodle to see Messi, but it's not going to happen every week.

[Das Root]

My view on the whole thing is fairly simple. I think - if everyone really desired this outcome and would stop all the bullshitting - that an excellent new stand could be erected at Tynecastle. I also think there is no real need to increase the stadium capacity considerably. For once in a quarter century events like the Barcelona friendly, Murrayfield is available, and if UEFA really do refuse to let us use Tynecastle for the one or two Europa League ties every couple of years, Murrayfield again is the option.

 

Not fit for purpose was a lie back in the day. It's still a lie.

 

I hear all the stuff about "lack of ambition", but it's pretty patronising. I can only assume the people coming out with this stuff don't really have a handle on the reality of Edinburgh's relationship with football. There is no huge untapped army of Hearts fans (or any other set of fans in Scotland) waiting to come out of the woodwork for home games against Dunfy. People will bring their granny and her poodle to see Messi, but it's not going to happen every week.

 

 

 

Wasn't there a study a while back stating Hearts had a 400k fanbase? Yet we couldn't squeeze more than 5% of them into a stadium? The state of the league aside, I can guarantee 30k fans in a purpose built stadium if there wasn't a mentalist at the head of the club ******* things up whenever we look to be doing something on the park.

 

The old filth are supported heavily because they win things, we showed we had a support waiting to step up during 05/06. We also showed an appetite for the media to get behind a club with an actual season long challenge to the OF.

 

If (and it's a big IF) the SFA is actually moving beyond it's insipid need to keep Glasgow on top of Scottish Football, now is the time for Hearts to put some long term thinking in place and get out of Tynecastle.

 

Sure it's got history, but what the hell is history worth when the only real success we had was 60 odd years ago?? Build for now and the future, build for some success we don't have to read about in hardback books.

[leginten]

Wasn't there a study a while back stating Hearts had a 400k fanbase? Yet we couldn't squeeze more than 5% of them into a stadium? The state of the league aside, I can guarantee 30k fans in a purpose built stadium if there wasn't a mentalist at the head of the club ******* things up whenever we look to be doing something on the park.

 

The old filth are supported heavily because they win things, we showed we had a support waiting to step up during 05/06. We also showed an appetite for the media to get behind a club with an actual season long challenge to the OF.

 

If (and it's a big IF) the SFA is actually moving beyond it's insipid need to keep Glasgow on top of Scottish Football, now is the time for Hearts to put some long term thinking in place and get out of Tynecastle.

 

Sure it's got history, but what the hell is history worth when the only real success we had was 60 odd years ago?? Build for now and the future, build for some success we don't have to read about in hardback books.

 

If we were guaranteed something of real quality - something actually worth building - I would agree. But I think the chances of getting a stadium of quality - in the current climate and with any potential investors likely to look very closely at who they're getting into bed with - are zero. I don't want to move from Tynecastle to something like the current Easter Road or worse.

 

30000 I think is a very optimistic figure. I'm pretty sure if you go back to the days even when we were winning the league and football was the working man's Saturday pursuit, we weren't achieving anything like that on a consistent basis - only for very big games. And times have changed a lot.

 

I'm not disputing it might be possible to attract maybe 17-20000 season ticket holders on the back of sustained success. But any kind of success at all seems light years away.

[ToadKiller Dog]

So, has anyone actually read the report linked earlier on this thread?

 

I skimmed through it as a lot of reading in it , seems well put together .

I see where it is coming from and agree with the findings that staying at Tynie and doing the relevant renovations is limiting and not cost effective . For securing the future of the club we reluctantly have to move IMO .

 

We just need to find the right partnership option with the council and others .

[leginten]

I skimmed through it as a lot of reading in it , seems well put together .

I see where it is coming from and agree with the findings that staying at Tynie and doing the relevant renovations is limiting and not cost effective . For securing the future of the club we reluctantly have to move IMO .

 

We just need to find the right partnership option with the council and others .

 

No disrespect intended, but given the kind of council we have, its current commitments and level of competence - as well as the unnamed "others" in the equation (the Edinburgh business community, I suppose) - this statement has no more or less value than saying "we just need to find the right new owner for the club" . And we all know the ridicule to which that sentiment is routinely subjected.

[Das Root]

If we were guaranteed something of real quality - something actually worth building - I would agree. But I think the chances of getting a stadium of quality - in the current climate and with any potential investors likely to look very closely at who they're getting into bed with - are zero. I don't want to move from Tynecastle to something like the current Easter Road or worse.

 

30000 I think is a very optimistic figure. I'm pretty sure if you go back to the days even when we were winning the league and football was the working man's Saturday pursuit, we weren't achieving anything like that on a consistent basis - only for very big games. And times have changed a lot.

 

I'm not disputing it might be possible to attract maybe 17-20000 season ticket holders on the back of sustained success. But any kind of success at all seems light years away.

 

 

Not so. I'm working on a number of projects at present and one is inclusive of construction. I have a high quality team willing to work on 5% margins to secure the work essentially to ensure ongoing funds to keep things moving until the market improves. Other construction outfits are willing to take on losses as it is easier than laying off the workforce.

 

Now is the time to build. Best chance to maximise any available budget and still get a top notch job done.

[jamboinglasgow]

So, has anyone actually read the report linked earlier on this thread?

 

I had a read through it. Answers a lot of questions people have said. Did you read it? (Not meaning that in a sarcy way, would love to discus it with someone who has read it.)

 

One of the appendex has the views of families towards Tynecastle, some interesting points made in it. People may moan about families, women and children at the game, but if you want to build the average attendences you need to attract these people. One of the common points was the level of swearing in the family section.

 

The costing of the stadium is an interesting one, ?41m for the stadium and they recomend two ways to pay for the stadium, either prudential borrowing (which would require the council to own the stadium) or Enabling development (where some land is given over to others to build on site.) There is also a number of other routes to pay including naming rights etc.

[The Doctor]

The Main Stand is not falling apart. We are in a city with tens of thousands of homes much older than the Main Stand. They are maintained and not knocked down each time the roof needs work.

 

 

I was told on Saturday that there is a real chance that the main stand will not get a safety certificate next year.

 

Not scaremongering, this came from a very good source.

[leginten]

Not so. I'm working on a number of projects at present and one is inclusive of construction. I have a high quality team willing to work on 5% margins to secure the work essentially to ensure ongoing funds to keep things moving until the market improves. Other construction outfits are willing to take on losses as it is easier than laying off the workforce.

 

Now is the time to build. Best chance to maximise any available budget and still get a top notch job done.

 

I can well believe construction companies are currently desperate to keep working even at low margins. But my point was more that I don't think whoever gets the contract to build this new stadium, if it ever happens, is going to be asked to work to very high specs. I think the cheapest of everything is what will be required.

[Jamboelite]

I was told on Saturday that there is a real chance that the main stand will not get a safety certificate next year.

 

Not scaremongering, this came from a very good source.

 

That wouldnt surprise me we have been patching that thing up for years eventually someone has to say enough.

[Flux]

COMAH not a danger to kids 5 days a week

COMAH a danger to football for 2 hours every two weeks

[Jamboelite]

COMAH not a danger to kids 5 days a week

COMAH a danger to football for 2 hours every two weeks

 

Is the new school not outwith the zone now.

[Drylaw Hearts]

COMAH not a danger to kids 5 days a week

COMAH a danger to football for 2 hours every two weeks

 

Yep.

 

It's scary that some have fallen for that old chestnut.

 

Just like the 'Not fit for purpose' garbage and CPR claiming the pitch size could never be UEFA compliant.

[jamboinglasgow]

Yeah I did. It was annoying me that folk were asking questions when the majority of answers were 2 clicks a bit of scrolling away.

 

That survey is very interesting, but the funding models - particularly the enabling development model - and the ownership models were fascinating.

 

If folk can't be hooped reading it, I wish they'd at least pay attention to posts referencing it.

 

Exactly, it is very detailed and goes through everything that has been asked on here. From costings on what can be done at Tynecastle to what can be done somewhere else, the health and safety restrictions of Tynecastle, ideas on how a new stadium can bring in new revenue each has an example of a club down in England who has done it.

 

I did find it funny that one of the ideas they had for Tynecastle was a 5,000 seater Roseburn stand, we would be the new Motherwell.

[Coco]

I was told on Saturday that there is a real chance that the main stand will not get a safety certificate next year.

 

Not scaremongering, this came from a very good source.

 

Then they do the work to ensure it gets a safety certificate. Just like a car MOT.

[jamboinglasgow]

Yep.

 

It's scary that some have fallen for that old chestnut.

 

Just like the 'Not fit for purpose' garbage and CPR claiming the pitch size could never be UEFA compliant.

 

reading the report, what it seems to point out is that Tynecastle school is on the edge of the risk zone. The section it is in they would not advise against development and the only risk would be outside. The problem for Hearts is that nearly all of the stadium is in the inner zone.

 

Here is the conclusion from the report done for the main council report on HSE

 

Planning approval for any development within the Tynecastle Stadium is subject to consultation with the Health and Safety Executive due to the location of the Stadium within NBDC's consultation zone.

 

However the final decision to approve planning permission is made by the LPA. It is possible for the LPA to contravene HSE advice if provided with an independent risk assessment whose assumptions are justifiable and utilises a recognised methodology. Such an approach has been accepted by City of Edinburgh Council previously when granting permission for Tynecastle High School.

 

The methodology in this report is widely recognised and all assumptions within the assessment have been fully justified.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Borthers, a credible report is one thing. Edinburgh council's development reputation is another.

[leginten]

reading the report, what it seems to point out is that Tynecastle school is on the edge of the risk zone. The section it is in they would not advise against development and the only risk would be outside. The problem for Hearts is that nearly all of the stadium is in the inner zone.

 

Here is the conclusion from the report done for the main council report on HSE

 

Planning approval for any development within the Tynecastle Stadium is subject to consultation with the Health and Safety Executive due to the location of the Stadium within NBDC's consultation zone.

 

However the final decision to approve planning permission is made by the LPA. It is possible for the LPA to contravene HSE advice if provided with an independent risk assessment whose assumptions are justifiable and utilises a recognised methodology. Such an approach has been accepted by City of Edinburgh Council previously when granting permission for Tynecastle High School.

 

The methodology in this report is widely recognised and all assumptions within the assessment have been fully justified.

 

So the LPA can veto the HSE advice either way. It seems from reading the above that all Hearts need to do is make a compelling case stating their confidence in the safety of the redevelopment. I wonder if anyone at the club is minded to do so. Have there been any serious incidents compromising public safety on the site in the last century or so?

[portobellojambo1]

I'm in agreement with you. In common with many posters, I'd like to know a few of the following things:

 

1) Where the money's coming from for the new stadium. (There seems to be a huge degree of overlap - coincidental I'm sure - in the posters who blithely assume money will be no object for a new stadium and posters who deride others for wishing Romanov away with the question "Where's the new owner coming from?")

 

2) What the assumption that our crowds will increase in a new stadium is based on.

 

3) What the assumption that Edinburgh currently needs more conference facilities, gyms etc - in a presumably not terribly attractive location miles from the city centre and not necessarily of first-class standard - is based on.

 

4) Why so many people who ripped into Robinson for "not fit for purpose" are now trotting out this particular party line like there's no tomorrow.

 

5) Why so many people are willing to jettison an inner-city jewel for an out-of-town flatpack.

 

The writing is on the wall, as should have become clear from the statements on the official website in the last week or so. We're downsizing in terms of wages, playing staff and presumably short to medium-term prospects of much success. We don't nearly fill our current stadium most weeks.

 

I am one of those who will go and watch HMFC wherever they are playing so if we move I move to.

 

I've now read through the thread, and my conclusions are that those who are presenting information based on fact (and you can only do that based on the past and present) are accused of lacking imagination. I have to say to counter that that those who are saying that by simply moving into a new purpose built stadium all our woes could disappear and we will become a major competitor to the OF are probably letting their imaginations run wild.

 

It is all well and good to say that if we were to move to a new stadium we could then build a hotel, cinema, gym, make shops available for rental (and it would, no doubt, be great if these generated a lot of money for the club). But the most important word is if. People have less free cash to spend these days, we read that hotel bookings are down in the city, pubs are struggling, you can walk past restaurants where there are only a handful of people sitting eating, every other week you seem to read of a gym closing down. There is absolutely nothing which suggests that such facilities would be used to the extent that they would generate the sort of cash which would enable us to produce a team to compete with the OF (given that seems to be the thinking behind why some want to move). And the good times financially for people could be 10, 15 , 20 years in returning, is it a risk worth taking.

 

I'm also not as convinced as some that by simply moving to a new stadium those that choose not to go to Tynecastle and watch HMFC would suddenly roll up again. There are one or two comments on the thread that people won't go to Tynecastle just now because the toilets are terrible and the food is awful. My seat is in The Wheatfield so the nearest toilet facilities and food outlets are on the Wheatfield concourse. The toilets are no different to the toilets I have been in at any other SPL ground in Scotland and are better than some of the facilities I've been in on our European travels. The food on offer is comparable to what is generally on offer at other Scottish stadiums, although I'll admit i have eaten better when travelling abroad with HMFC (but there again the continentals have always seemed to be better with food than the Scots). In England, based on fairly recent trips to games down South, I can only compare it with the likes of White Hart Lane, St James Park, Preston, Hull, Millwall, Southampton, Bolton. Toilets in all of them were similar to those available at Tynecastle, as was the food available. I would imagine one or two of the more recently completed stadia might offer a better selection of food, but wouldn't imagine it will come cheap.

 

Because I'm not convinced the fans would roll up you then have to work on the assumption that in a stadium built to hold say 25,000, but only attracting 15-18,000, depending on the opposition, chances are ticket prices would have to go up rather than down, which ain't going to work if people have less and less disposable income. I can understand why some people have a vision of how things could be, but how things could be doesn't always translate into how things would be. If the vision fails to materialise what then.

 

As for the funding I'm not sure where that would come from, and how it would affect any potential subsequent sale of the club, I would imagine it might make it more difficult to sell if the actual selling price were to increase fairly substantially. I'm also not convinced it could be done on a cost neutral basis, but assume this is something which will form part of any consultations which may take place. There are probably cases to be built which make moving attractive and cases to be built for staying where we are and reducing expectations somewhat. Truth is there are a number of ifs, buts and maybes in both cases, and it is really a case of which seems most realistic, and which is most likely to offer the chance to go watch HMFC for the foreseeable future and which is most likely to spell financial ruin, and with it the end.

 

Fortunately others have to make those decisions, and when they decide I'll continue to pop along and watch, with the club safe in the knowledge that I don't go to football games looking for 5 star nosh or a luxurious bog to piss in.

[RudiMustScore]

Can I just add to those glorifying this new report by pointing out that Doig+Smith were the same consultants employed by Hearts in 2008 to convince the Council that Tynecastle was worth expanding and their reporte acted as support to our planning application, yet now they are being employed to convince us the complete opposite?

 

I would hate for historical facts to get in the way of the populist commendations received in the wake of this latest basket of half-thruths

[leginten]

I am one of those who will go and watch HMFC wherever they are playing so if we move I move to.

 

I've now read through the thread, and my conclusions are that those who are presenting information based on fact (and you can only do that based on the past and present) are accused of lacking imagination. I have to say to counter that that those who are saying that by simply moving into a new purpose built stadium all our woes could disappear and we will become a major competitor to the OF are probably letting their imaginations run wild.

 

It is all well and good to say that if we were to move to a new stadium we could then build a hotel, cinema, gym, make shops available for rental (and it would, no doubt, be great if these generated a lot of money for the club). But the most important word is if. People have less free cash to spend these days, we read that hotel bookings are down in the city, pubs are struggling, you can walk past restaurants where there are only a handful of people sitting eating, every other week you seem to read of a gym closing down. There is absolutely nothing which suggests that such facilities would be used to the extent that they would generate the sort of cash which would enable us to produce a team to compete with the OF (given that seems to be the thinking behind why some want to move). And the good times for people could be 10, 15 , 20 years away, is it a risk worth taking.

 

I'm also not as convinced as some that by simply moving to a new stadium those that choose not to go to Tynecastle and watch HMFC would suddenly roll up again. There are one or two comments on the thread that people won't go to Tynecastle just now because the toilets are terrible and the food is awful. My seat is in The Wheatfield so the nearest toilet facilities and food outlets are on the Wheatfield concourse. The toilets are no different to the toilets I have been in at any other SPL ground in Scotland and are better than some of the facilities I've been in on our European travels. The food on offer is comparable to what is generally on offer at other Scottish stadiums, although I'll admit i have eaten better when travelling abroad with HMFC (but there again the continentals have always seemed to be better with food than the Scots). In England, based on fairly recent trips to games down South, I can only compare it with the likes of White Hart Lane, St James Park, Preston, Hull, Millwall, Southampton, Bolton. Toilets in all of them were similar to those available at Tynecastle, as was the food available. I would imagine one or two of the more recently completed stadia might offer a better selection of food, but wouldn't imagine it will come cheap.

 

Because I'm not convinced the fans would roll up you then have to work on the assumption that in a stadium built to hold say 25,000, but only attracting 15-18,000, depending on the opposition, chances are ticket prices would have to go up rather than down, which ain't going to work if people have less and less disposable income. I can understand why some people have a vision of how things could be, but how things could be doesn't always translate into how things would be. If the vision fails to materialise what then.

 

As for the funding I'm not sure where that would come from, and how it would affect any potential sale of the club, I would imagine it might make it more difficult to sell if the actual selling price were to increase fairly substantially. I'm also not convinced it could be done on a cost neutral basis, but assume this is something which will form part of any consultations which may take place. There are probably cases to be built which make moving attractive and cases to be built for staying where we are and reducing expectations somewhat. Truth is there are a number of ifs, buts and maybes in both cases, and it is really a case of which seems most realistic, and which is most likely to offer the chance to go watch HMFC for the foreseeable future and which is most likely to spell financial ruin, and with it the end.

 

Fortunately others have to make those decisions, and when they decide I'll continue to pop along and watch, with the club safe in the knowledge that I don't go to football games looking for 5 star nosh or a luxurious bog to piss in.

 

That all seems to make perfect sense to me. I realise I'm being fairly Luddite about the whole thing and that isn't necessarily a good thing, but I think there is every reason to suppose the club has not really done all it could do to explore and press for the Tynecastle redevelopment. I think there is a big danger too that moving somewhere not very good could damage the club a lot more than it helps it.

 

Must admit to a sense of distress when I found out through this thread that Hearts fans' piss smells of piss, though. You'd think we were better than that.

[Dunks]

If you sell some property you either afford to buy one outright or secure enough capital (around 60% of the Porsche cost price) an apply for equity to pay the balance on it.

 

Then produce a plan to make ongoing income from you Porsche. You could hire it to corporate parties, use it to conduct your core business pursuits or even race it for prize pots.

 

As long as your business case is sound, you'll make back the amount you secured from the bank and have transformed your assets into an ongoing financial concern, thus achieving a cost-neutral solution.

 

Perfectly presented Borthers

[Das Root]

I can well believe construction companies are currently desperate to keep working even at low margins. But my point was more that I don't think whoever gets the contract to build this new stadium, if it ever happens, is going to be asked to work to very high specs. I think the cheapest of everything is what will be required.

 

 

And that will be up to the club to not allow to happen. In any development the main tenant (such as say a supermarket in a shopping complex) can dictate aspects of the build. If we are to hand over the Tynecastle ground as our stake in the development then that's a rather large chip to play that would certainly not allow the council to build any old shit with a "take it or leave it" approach.

[jambo2524]

If now is not the right time to develop new stadium and we have a 10/20 year plan not to move for financial reasons then Tynecastle probably needs a new stand.

Why not consider -

Year 1 knock down and erect a temporary Falkirk type stand seating 1500 enclosure type style that can be encapsulated within a full stand built later. Located slightly set back from existing position to make pitch slightly wider to attain compliant width (2m?)

Year 2 or later consider building 'wrap around' main stand. I am sure modern build methods could offer a two phase type system)

Develop temporary dressing rooms underneath existing stands or temporary refurb of office type area behind old main stand.

This would allow reasonable gate sizes (circa 15k?) and hopefully a 20,000 stadium in a two (plus) year period

I have no problem staying at Tynecastle (with a new roof) or a purpose built if financially viable. Will follow Hearts anywhere.

[DalryJambo]

Cannot wait to hear this.

 

 

I'll say from the start that I don't know for certain the exact income many of these things I?m going to suggest will generate, but none-the-less building a new stadium and creating a number of facilities in the surrounding areas can, without question, generate income. Some of the things you'll probably laugh at but the success of these types of facilities comes from being imaginative, creative, flexible and realising that you have 365 days a year which can be used to host an event and that the stadium itself becomes an income stream. So here are some suggested income streams;

 

Stadium naming rights - ?500k-?1m per year

 

Stadium rental ? Football: (in addition to our own games) ? National B/youth/womens/cup semi-finals, Rugby: 15-20 games p/y, Concerts: 2 or 3 p/y, Weddings/other functions: 30-40+ p/y within a corporate function type area, conferencing 20-25+ p/y, unique one off events ? Boxing, American Football, 20/20 cricket etc etc.

 

Car parking for all events: 400-500 spaces @ ?2-?3 per space for 50+ events per year. This parking space could also be utilised on non-match days for car boot sales and the like.

 

Match Day Fans Pubs - Separate child friendly home and away fans bars within the stadium ? Open before and after games, large capacity, selling beer, soft drinks, food, Sky TV, etc etc.

 

In addition the surrounding area could hold a hotel, offices, shops, restaurants, pubs, a cinemas, bowling alley etc, etc and they would be rented to various third parties. This would become a great long term income and would generate the bulk of the new income to fund loan repayments.

 

So that is a lot of new income streams and I haven't even taken into account increased gate receipts, match day income from pies/programs etc and increased corporate hospitality space which becomes more desirable as it is brand new.

 

All in all if these income streams can generate a profit of ?4-5m per season (the bulk of which would come from naming rights and rental) you would be looking at paying back a ?75-?100m investment in 20-25 years. Once the original investment is cleared these assets will generate the owners a regular profit or be split into parts and sold off.

 

So what do is needed to make this happen?

 

Investment : I think UBIG will fully fund the project (but there could be a number of investors) and at the end of the day Hearts might not benefit directly from the non-football income over the long term of the project. But if this is the method by which the club gets a brand new stadium with sustainable income streams, becomes debit free and allows it to be sold, at a reasonable price, without any silly debt hanging over us then so be it.

 

Land: One of the major stumbling blocks in this type of project is finding suitable, affordable land. But this is where the association to Hearts and the concept of a community Stadium/facility makes sense to UBIG. If they were just trying to buy land as an investment there would be a whole different set of hurdles they would need to overcome and then they would need to find tenants for a football stadium whilst convincing hoteliers and retailers that people would use the new developments. The addition of the sporting venue adds a different dimension to project, guarantees footfall and will ultimately make it stand out from other retail destinations, therefore making it more attractive.

 

The way things are moving I think they might be able to obtain land from the council that otherwise wouldn't have become available to them at a very good price, which the council will be able to justify because of the creation of new jobs, added long term income for the council coffers in rates/taxes and the trickle effect increased visitors to Edinburgh would generate for other business in and around Edinburgh. Might even further help them justify the tram and get a few more bums on tram seats if its on the tram route.

[john brownlee]

I was told on Saturday that there is a real chance that the main stand will not get a safety certificate next year.

 

Not scaremongering, this came from a very good source.

 

 

Two things that make it infringe modern Health and safety

Its riddled with asbestos and made mostly of wood . In today's climate a health and fire hazard. Both of these points cannot be made safe without a lot of time and money. When you consider that a garden shed roof made of asbestos can cost upwards of two grand to remove and disposal legally.

[RudiMustScore]

Two things that make it infringe modern Health and safety

Its riddled with asbestos and made mostly of wood . In today's climate a health and fire hazard. Both of these points cannot be made safe without a lot of time and money. When you consider that a garden shed roof made of asbestos can cost upwards of two grand to remove and disposal legally.

 

I think with regards any asbestos in the building, either the purchaser will cost this when making an offer thereby reducing the purchase price that Hearts will receive or Hearts will have to include the demolition and disposal costs in their budget for a new stand. Either way it is going to cost Hearts so really doesn't come into the costing argument between Moving versus Staying.

 

It is however ironic that the main problem for the area is the distillery and McFarlane Smith, and how Cala were given planning permission and then COHMA bring in these regulations seems like the Doig+Smith report can be designed to suit whatever direction 'the wind is blowing' for whatever purpose is required at the time.

 

I believe a new main stand is the way forward and I also believe that there are plenty Jambo tradesmen and women willing to give a lot of their time and expertise in helping rebuild this a la Feyenoords De Kuip stadium that was buit with by the fans. It maybe sounds daft, but that is an option to reduce costs?

[Cut The Crap]

My view on the whole thing is fairly simple. I think - if everyone really desired this outcome and would stop all the bullshitting - that an excellent new stand could be erected at Tynecastle. I also think there is no real need to increase the stadium capacity considerably. For once in a quarter century events like the Barcelona friendly, Murrayfield is available, and if UEFA really do refuse to let us use Tynecastle for the one or two Europa League ties every couple of years, Murrayfield again is the option.

 

Not fit for purpose was a lie back in the day. It's still a lie.

 

I hear all the stuff about "lack of ambition", but it's pretty patronising. I can only assume the people coming out with this stuff don't really have a handle on the reality of Edinburgh's relationship with football. There is no huge untapped army of Hearts fans (or any other set of fans in Scotland) waiting to come out of the woodwork for home games against Dunfy. People will bring their granny and her poodle to see Messi, but it's not going to happen every week.

 

An inconvenient truth for those who would move us out of Edinburgh, leginten, but truth nonetheless.

 

Even if the main stand has to be closed to spectators for a few years, the old place will still remain fit for purpose.

[jamboinglasgow]

An inconvenient truth for those who would move us out of Edinburgh, leginten, but truth nonetheless.

 

Even if the main stand has to be closed to spectators for a few years, the old place will still remain fit for purpose.

 

And our revenue could be down as much as ?1.2m in ticket sales alone. Woo hoo!

 

And who is trying to move us out of Edinburgh?

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

An inconvenient truth for those who would move us out of Edinburgh, leginten, but truth nonetheless.

 

Even if the main stand has to be closed to spectators for a few years, the old place will still remain fit for purpose.

 

 

That would be madness, why would we want to spend a few years with only three stands? This is the very last resort option that I pray NEVER gets foisted upon us.

[Cut The Crap]

And our revenue could be down as much as ?1.2m in ticket sales alone. Woo hoo!

 

And who is trying to move us out of Edinburgh?

 

I don't think it would be as financially ruinous as that, jig. The main stand could be made safe enough for the few higher-paying corporate guests we have left and the rest of the supporters could be accommodated elsewhere in the stadium for the vast majority of our games. For those games likely to attract over 14,000 (only Hibs, Rangers and Celtic) we could reduce the away allocation in the same way as we did in 06/07 to make sure all the Hearts fans who wanted to see the games could get in. It might even end up "cost-neutral" as far as revenue from ticket sales is concerned

 

But my main point is that Tynecastle patently IS fit for purpose, as proven every fortnight where fans come, watch a game of football in relative safety and comfort and then go home again without getting blown up, crushed or injured by falling asbestos (oops, well mostly). The 4000 or so empty seats I see inside the stadium at most games, and the complete absence of 5000 more fans locked outside the stadium make me question the validity of the theory that thousands more would come if only we played in a council facility at Edinburgh Park, Hermiston, Sighthill or wherever it is we might end up?

[heartsfc_fan]

An inconvenient truth for those who would move us out of Edinburgh, leginten, but truth nonetheless.

 

Even if the main stand has to be closed to spectators for a few years, the old place will still remain fit for purpose.

 

It would be fit for purpose, but then there would only be 13,000 seats. Apart from the game against Killie recently (I think there was 12,900 at the match) we have rarely dropped below that figure in the last few years. A few peeved off people won't be able to get tickets and the club will be out of pocket.

[Cut The Crap]

It would be fit for purpose, but then there would only be 13,000 seats. Apart from the game against Killie recently (I think there was 12,900 at the match) we have rarely dropped below that figure in the last few years. A few peeved off people won't be able to get tickets and the club will be out of pocket.

 

I suspect the figure is slightly higher than 13,000 and I would also expect our crowds to drop significantly over time, given the owner's statement the other day.

 

But if your scenario is correct (and I hope it is), then all of a sudden we DO have unsatisfied demand which we can look to do something about.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

 

Stadium rental ? Football: (in addition to our own games) ? National B/youth/womens/cup semi-finals, Rugby: 15-20 games p/y, Concerts: 2 or 3 p/y, Weddings/other functions: 30-40+ p/y within a corporate function type area, conferencing 20-25+ p/y, unique one off events ? Boxing, American Football, 20/20 cricket etc etc.

 

 

See this bit ... can somebody show me examples from other similar sized stadiums (like the one we plan to build) to back up this extra revenue myth?

 

I look at Hibs stadium with all its nice corporate facilities and I see an Elton John gig years ago and about 2 under 21 internationals.

[Frodo Jambo]

Smiths and the NBD, were there before Hearts, in fact Gorgie was created to house the workers of these companies and also the Caley Distillery at Haymarket, This was on the outside of the city at this point and Hearts moved out to which was basicallyna green field site

Cheers, bud.

[Cut The Crap]

See this bit ... can somebody show me examples from other similar sized stadiums (like the one we plan to build) to back up this extra revenue myth?

 

I look at Hibs stadium with all its nice corporate facilities and I see an Elton John gig years ago and about 2 under 21 internationals.

 

I don't think these examples exist.

[Buffalo Bill]

Just a couple of observations re the 167-page Doig+Smith/GVA report; probably been mentioned before on this thread:

 

 

1. There is no mention of specific council owned sites (i.e. Sighthill, Carrick Knowe Golf Course etc). It would've been much more interesting had the report recommended a specific site, explaining how and why that site could be used. Perhaps that will come if the next stage is reached.

 

 

2. The stated desire to get the stands close to the action in a new stadium is compromised by a later assertion that Uefa compliant stadia require 3m and 4.5m run offs down the sides and behind the goals respectively.

 

 

3. I find it absolutely incredible that the consensus must be that the potentially explosive tanks get to stay but we have to move. Even if the 'elf and safety' recommendations had been implemented retrospectively, then surely the onus is one the brewery to relocate their tanks and NOT Hearts! For me, the tanks are a smokescreen to make what is very much a financial decision.

[Charlie-Brown]

A new stadium could happen but it currently isn't justifiable on a commercial basis ie no lender would put up 100% or even 75% of the money based on the current circumstances & facts

 

1. HMFC haven't proven able to run a balanced budget and been able to live within their own generated funds for almost all of the last 15+ years.

 

2. HMFC haven't been paying loan-interest (rent on capital) for most of the last 6 years and been able to stay within budget so any lender or funder of a new stadium is going to be sceptical of HMFC's ability as credit worthy tenants or partners UNTIL HMFC have proven they have the necessary financial discipline to live within a fixed budget and prove they can pay rent/interest as would be required in a new stadium.

 

3. Any new stadium lender or funder would see that HMFC rarely sell out their current stadium, currently doesn't appear to be significant untapped demand based on HMFC's historical attendance levels and also that HMFC & SPL trends in attendance levels are static or falling. They would also see that HMFC's high attendance levels in 2005-2007 period were accompanied by significant financial losses in each of those years ie the crowd levels generated didn't finance the cost of the team required to generate those crowd levels.

 

4. A new stadium costing ?45M would cost ?1.5M x 30 years just to return the capital cost of the development nevermind any interest or profit on the project. HMFC would have to demonstrate an ability to pay rental at this level or above over several years to re-assure any potential lenders or funders of a new stadium.

 

Therefore on a stricly commercial basis I think the chances of getting any significant funding towards a new stadium are remote at this present time and that exludes other major factors like economic circumstances & growth projections, reduced lending & stricter lending criteria, more productive, profitable and/or substantially less risky lending or investing opportunities.

 

So to my mind the only realistic ways of getting a new stadium funded and built are those who have softer commercial criteria for wanting to finance & build a new stadium. This might be either;

 

1. David Murray's property company offering to build & rent a community stadium for football & rugby - their reasoning being IF they can break the green-belt zoning & planning restrictions then they can profit from other developments on adjacent land they own - downside is they've been attempting various schemes & housing developments for 20+ years without any planning success thus far.

 

2. The Council somehow manage to overcome negative financing & political opposition to fund a speculative development on the basis of perceived wider economic benefits and cost neutrality .... seems unlikely at present but perhaps possible to get the council on board in whole or in part at some future point.

 

3. Romanov / UBIG / or some other Property Developer or Football Investor see's a great opportunity despite it's highly speculative nature and decides to finance, fund and build the majority of any new stadium development? Anyone know any Millionaire's or Billionaire's willing to take a punt like this?

 

It is possible that other stadium activities, uses plus retail, entertainment & hotel accommodation could provide additional revenue streams to help finance a stadium project and earn additional revenues however this is highly speculative and it's not as if other retailers, pubs, gyms, sporting, hoteliers etc aren't already experiencing a downturn in business and generally existing surplus capacity & fierce competition without adding yet more competition for consumer spending.

 

What I see as probably more realistic and likely in the current economic enviroment.

 

1. HMFC by necessity cut costs and have prove they can live within their means.

 

2. In the probable absence of any significant new investors or buyers with tens of millions to invest on a stadium or buying out UBIG then I foresee it as likely UBIG will take ownership of the stadium and sell some players in lieu of debt and at some future point will probably have to write off any debt over & above HMFC's asset values.

 

3. HMFC will have to prove their financial discipline and prove they can afford to rent or finance a stadium by paying rent to UBIG for the use of Tynecastle. In my opinion it makes more sense given currently depressed property prices for UBIG to give HMFC a 5 or 10 year lease until economic circusmtances & property values improve and also afford HMFC time to seriously decide if moving to a new stadium is viable & possible or else find another stadium to rent or buy.

 

4. It might be that HMFC decide building a new main stand at Tynecastle is the most practical & affordable option and seek a fans contribution scheme to achieve this. The existing main stand would then be repaired & made or replaced with a Wheatfield Stand mirror. Unless property prices and the economic environment has improved dramatically it might suit UBIG to enter into a lease-buy-back option for HMFC to repurchase the stadium with a 25 year mortgage and commercial terms.

 

5. Alternatively UBIG might find at some future point Tynecastle has more commercial value than rental value and serve HMFC with a notice period for eviction & relocation. In which case we would either have to go to Murrayfield which is the cheapest and most practical option or else we can have this whole new stadium debate again but perhaps by that point HMFC will be in a far better financial position without massive debt or big annual losses and will have a track record to show any stadium financiers that HMFC do have financial discipline and can prove they afford to pay rent or financing cost in a stadium without running financial losses every season.

[jamboinglasgow]

See this bit ... can somebody show me examples from other similar sized stadiums (like the one we plan to build) to back up this extra revenue myth?

 

I look at Hibs stadium with all its nice corporate facilities and I see an Elton John gig years ago and about 2 under 21 internationals.

 

The report gives different revenue raising options and next to each has examples of clubs:

 

Rugby - Swansea City (20,500)

- Cardiff City (26,800)

- Hull City (25,500)

 

Hotel - Coventry City

- Bolton

- Cardiff

 

Offices - Port Vale

- Sheffield United

- Blackpool

- Bolton

 

Conference space - Coventry

 

even Parking could be rented out as a park and ride for use with the tram stop, that has been done Crewe Alexander.

 

The report makes clear that if Hearts are to build a new stadium it needs to be in discussion with companies to find out who would be interested to taking opportunities at Tynecastle. I would imagine that would be the same with sporting events. I think the problem with Hibs is that they just built the a fourth stand and expected the offers to come flooding in, what any new stadium needs is dedicated staff who actively market the stadium to organisers.

[casper]

If Hearts are to move from Tynecastle there are only two options IMO. One is the Murrays Edinburgh Village, or whatever it's called, if it ever happens and the other is Murrayfield.

Any other option, with or without EDC, will simply be too expensive. Where will the money come from?

I'm sure Murray would contribute a big share to a stadium if it being built were to help him get PP. But that's years off at best.

I thinks Murrayfield will be back on the agenda pretty soon.

[The Merse]

I'll say from the start that I don't know for certain the exact income many of these things I?m going to suggest will generate, but none-the-less building a new stadium and creating a number of facilities in the surrounding areas can, without question, generate income. Some of the things you'll probably laugh at but the success of these types of facilities comes from being imaginative, creative, flexible and realising that you have 365 days a year which can be used to host an event and that the stadium itself becomes an income stream. So here are some suggested income streams;

 

Stadium naming rights - ?500k-?1m per year

 

Stadium rental ? Football: (in addition to our own games) ? National B/youth/womens/cup semi-finals, Rugby: 15-20 games p/y, Concerts: 2 or 3 p/y, Weddings/other functions: 30-40+ p/y within a corporate function type area, conferencing 20-25+ p/y, unique one off events ? Boxing, American Football, 20/20 cricket etc etc.

 

Car parking for all events: 400-500 spaces @ ?2-?3 per space for 50+ events per year. This parking space could also be utilised on non-match days for car boot sales and the like.

 

Match Day Fans Pubs - Separate child friendly home and away fans bars within the stadium ? Open before and after games, large capacity, selling beer, soft drinks, food, Sky TV, etc etc.

 

In addition the surrounding area could hold a hotel, offices, shops, restaurants, pubs, a cinemas, bowling alley etc, etc and they would be rented to various third parties. This would become a great long term income and would generate the bulk of the new income to fund loan repayments.

 

So that is a lot of new income streams and I haven't even taken into account increased gate receipts, match day income from pies/programs etc and increased corporate hospitality space which becomes more desirable as it is brand new.

 

All in all if these income streams can generate a profit of ?4-5m per season (the bulk of which would come from naming rights and rental) you would be looking at paying back a ?75-?100m investment in 20-25 years. Once the original investment is cleared these assets will generate the owners a regular profit or be split into parts and sold off.

 

So what do is needed to make this happen?

 

Investment : I think UBIG will fully fund the project (but there could be a number of investors) and at the end of the day Hearts might not benefit directly from the non-football income over the long term of the project. But if this is the method by which the club gets a brand new stadium with sustainable income streams, becomes debit free and allows it to be sold, at a reasonable price, without any silly debt hanging over us then so be it.

 

Land: One of the major stumbling blocks in this type of project is finding suitable, affordable land. But this is where the association to Hearts and the concept of a community Stadium/facility makes sense to UBIG. If they were just trying to buy land as an investment there would be a whole different set of hurdles they would need to overcome and then they would need to find tenants for a football stadium whilst convincing hoteliers and retailers that people would use the new developments. The addition of the sporting venue adds a different dimension to project, guarantees footfall and will ultimately make it stand out from other retail destinations, therefore making it more attractive.

 

The way things are moving I think they might be able to obtain land from the council that otherwise wouldn't have become available to them at a very good price, which the council will be able to justify because of the creation of new jobs, added long term income for the council coffers in rates/taxes and the trickle effect increased visitors to Edinburgh would generate for other business in and around Edinburgh. Might even further help them justify the tram and get a few more bums on tram seats if its on the tram route.

 

After the post you made having a dig at me, this is one of the most hilariously deluded posts I have ever seen.

 

[PTBCAL]

Just a couple of observations re the 167-page Doig+Smith/GVA report; probably been mentioned before on this thread:

 

 

1. There is no mention of specific council owned sites (i.e. Sighthill, Carrick Knowe Golf Course etc). It would've been much more interesting had the report recommended a specific site, explaining how and why that site could be used. Perhaps that will come if the next stage is reached.

 

 

2. The stated desire to get the stands close to the action in a new stadium is compromised by a later assertion that Uefa compliant stadia require 3m and 4.5m run offs down the sides and behind the goals respectively.

 

 

3. I find it absolutely incredible that the consensus must be that the potentially explosive tanks get to stay but we have to move. Even if the 'elf and safety' recommendations had been implemented retrospectively, then surely the onus is one the brewery to relocate their tanks and NOT Hearts! For me, the tanks are a smokescreen to make what is very much a financial decision.

 

BB - I saw that too.

 

How come san Giro is UEFA compliant? Is it because these rules are put in place for new stadiums and not existing stadiums. Also I am sure New St Mirren Park is UEFA compliant and it does not have this requirement.

 

It would be a killer if this requirement was enforced. However I thuink this is a long way off tbh.

[Das Root]

...

[Das Root]

BB - I saw that too.

 

How come san Giro is UEFA compliant? Is it because these rules are put in place for new stadiums and not existing stadiums. Also I am sure New St Mirren Park is UEFA compliant and it does not have this requirement.

 

It would be a killer if this requirement was enforced. However I thuink this is a long way off tbh.

 

 

Is it not to do with Tynecastle lacking press and official facilities, dressing rooms too small etc etc?

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

The report gives different revenue raising options and next to each has examples of clubs:

 

Rugby - Swansea City (20,500)

- Cardiff City (26,800)

- Hull City (25,500)

 

Hotel - Coventry City

- Bolton

- Cardiff

 

Offices - Port Vale

- Sheffield United

- Blackpool

- Bolton

 

Conference space - Coventry

 

even Parking could be rented out as a park and ride for use with the tram stop, that has been done Crewe Alexander.

 

The report makes clear that if Hearts are to build a new stadium it needs to be in discussion with companies to find out who would be interested to taking opportunities at Tynecastle. I would imagine that would be the same with sporting events. I think the problem with Hibs is that they just built the a fourth stand and expected the offers to come flooding in, what any new stadium needs is dedicated staff who actively market the stadium to organisers.

 

Cheers JiG. I should really read the report.

 

[jamboinglasgow]

Cheers JiG. I should really read the report.

 

 

 

Dont worry your not alone.

[DalryJambo]

After the post you made having a dig at me, this is one of the most hilariously deluded posts I have ever seen.

 

 

How do you think any development is funded then?

 

Borrow money > Build Assets > Sell or Rent Assets > Pay off debit > Pocket difference

 

I'll not turn this in to a slagging match, and won't resort to stupid smilies, so believe what you will.

[The Merse]

How do you think any development is funded then?

 

Borrow money > Build Assets > Sell or Rent Assets > Pay off debit > Pocket difference

 

I'll not turn this in to a slagging match, and won't resort to stupid smilies, so believe what you will.

 

We are already ?30m + in debt.

 

Folk are hardly going to be lining up to get involved with us given the way we go about our business and our current position of insolvency.

 

I can't see anyone being happy to set up a finance agreement with us whilst we are in our position.

 

If someone else funds the whole project then we won't benefit from the additional income outwith matchdays as we will merely be tenants whilst also having to pay rent.

 

What are we left with then? UBIG to build the stadium and have HMFC owe them ?70m +??

 

Add into that that UBIG hardly has a good track record of following through on property development and I don't see this happening.

[Coco]

We are already ?30m + in debt.

 

Folk are hardly going to be lining up to get involved with us given the way we go about our business and our current position of insolvency.

 

I can't see anyone being happy to set up a finance agreement with us whilst we are in our position.

 

If someone else funds the whole project then we won't benefit from the additional income outwith matchdays as we will merely be tenants whilst also having to pay rent.

 

What are we left with then? UBIG to build the stadium and have HMFC owe them ?70m +??

 

Add into that that UBIG hardly has a good track record of following through on property development and I don't see this happening.

 

Borrow money - Sign Pinilla, Besijla, Kingston - showcase and pay players - sell players and receive European success money - pocket difference.

 

Has been a -?50m strategy so far.

[Buffalo Bill]

Is it not to do with Tynecastle lacking press and official facilities, dressing rooms too small etc etc?

 

 

Possibly this too, but the report specifically highlighted Tynecastle's lack of 'run-off' space around the pitch.

 

 

However, I'm sure this 'problem' arises within other grounds, but the compromise is putting the first few rows of seats off limits.