Council on Stadium Discussions

[Cut The Crap]

Cheers JiG. I should really read the report.

 

 

I wouldn't bother. It is as impartial and independent as the survey posted on the official website.

[RudiMustScore]

We could always do a Petrie and force the club into relegation thereby instantly reducing the wage levels, having sell-out crowds because we, like Hibs did previously, would be winning most of our games...then we move back into the SPL totally reformed and on a manageable financial platform, rising again to take on the OF???????

[leginten]

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.

 

Yes, the smooth, quiet efficiency with which we have gone about our financial affairs will certainly be a major plus when it comes to attracting possible investment partners for a new stadium. And I keep reading about the council on this thread. Last I heard, the council had ruled out a joint venture with Hearts. Its level of fiscal competence would also suggest a disaster in the making even if agreement could be found.

 

I am, though, loving the latest outbreak of Kickback Doublethink the stadium discussion has occasioned.

 

White Knight scenario 1: I'd really like to get rid of Romanov but I haven't a clue who would buy the club.

 

Be careful. This kind of thinking will quickly have you labelled a fantasist.

 

White Knight scenario 2: We need to move to a new stadium urgently but I haven't a clue who will pay for it.

Excellent work. You are well on the way to achieving the cherished status of realist with ambition for the club.

 

 

[Coco]

Yes, the smooth, quiet efficiency with which we have gone about our financial affairs will certainly be a major plus when it comes to attracting possible investment partners for a new stadium. And I keep reading about the council on this thread. Last I heard, the council had ruled out a joint venture with Hearts. Its level of fiscal competence would also suggest a disaster in the making even if agreement could be found.

 

I am, though, loving the latest outbreak of Kickback Doublethink the stadium discussion has occasioned.

 

White Knight scenario 1: I'd really like to get rid of Romanov but I haven't a clue who would buy the club.

 

Be careful. This kind of thinking will quickly have you labelled a fantasist.

 

White Knight scenario 2: We need to move to a new stadium urgently but I haven't a clue who will pay for it.

Excellent work. You are well on the way to achieving the cherished status of realist with ambition for the club.

 

 

 

You, I am afraid, are a lily-livered defeatist.

[trotter]

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.

 

Essentially BB, because the tanks were there first before we applied for PP. I don't agree with it, but that's what HSE recommends. As I mentioned previously, the Land Use Planning Regs are there to prevent 'new' development encroaching on CoMAH-class sites. If something was there originally (i.e. the main stand) then it gets to stay otherwise you would have to potetnially knock down everything near to a site all over the country. However, if something 'new' is built (and a replacement main stand will fall under this category) then the new regs apply and its game over.

 

HTH

 

graeme

[PTBCAL]

Essentially BB, because the tanks were there first before we applied for PP. I don't agree with it, but that's what HSE recommends. As I mentioned previously, the Land Use Planning Regs are there to prevent 'new' development encroaching on CoMAH-class sites. If something was there originally (i.e. the main stand) then it gets to stay otherwise you would have to potetnially knock down everything near to a site all over the country. However, if something 'new' is built (and a replacement main stand will fall under this category) then the new regs apply and its game over.

 

HTH

 

graeme

 

Graeme.,

 

If a replacement stand was built similar to the existing one (size and capacity) would it be possible to apply for an exemption based on the fact that there is a existing stand already there?

 

Or is it a complete no-no?

[McJambo]

Where can I find a link to the report?

[PTBCAL]

Who would have thought this 5 years ago.....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15636043.stm

 

 

[JamboAl]

Graeme.,

 

If a replacement stand was built similar to the existing one (size and capacity) would it be possible to apply for an exemption based on the fact that there is a existing stand already there?

 

Or is it a complete no-no?

 

It used to be the case that we can build a new stand but only in the existing footprint. I don't know if that has changed but if we rebuild and took up more space for say hospitality something would have to give - less spectator space, cramped dressing room facilities etc.

[cliffdanum]

There is ways round HSE regulations with regards to the distillery, if the distillery was prepared to move the area can be cleared and decontaminated, it does not take as long as people seemed to believe, cost is another issue...there are many sights throughout the UK as a whole where this has happened. A ground running parallel to gorgie rd with all facilities is then possible...just need someone with a vision to stay at tynecastle, cooperation with the distillery and council and some rich Shiek to make it happen

[DalryJambo]

"The work...is being funded by a new ?56m retail development on the site."

 

:interesting:

 

Who'd have thought it?

[trotter]

Graeme.,

 

If a replacement stand was built similar to the existing one (size and capacity) would it be possible to apply for an exemption based on the fact that there is a existing stand already there?

 

Or is it a complete no-no?

 

Whilst at face value it would seem logical we could do this, in reality I think you'd find that HSE would strongly recommend against it on grounds that NOT having it there would reduce the risks already present. And anyway, as mentioned above, rebuilding in the same footprint would limit us in terms of what we could do with it, i.e. at best we can replicate the existing stand in new materials, which seems kind of pointless IMO.

 

There is ways round HSE regulations with regards to the distillery, if the distillery was prepared to move the area can be cleared and decontaminated, it does not take as long as people seemed to believe, cost is another issue...there are many sights throughout the UK as a whole where this has happened. A ground running parallel to gorgie rd with all facilities is then possible...just need someone with a vision to stay at tynecastle, cooperation with the distillery and council and some rich Shiek to make it happen

 

As I said on the other thread, the final decision is with the local authority planning people (in this case CEC), HSE can be ignored. However, they would whine, scream and bitch until they were listened to, or they would remind the people in charge that IF something was to happen and it is proven in court that decisions were made against HSE recommendations then that person/people can be brought up on relevant charges (negligence, manslaughter, etc).

 

As for the distillery moving, i'm sorry but it won't happen. The hoops that have to be jumped through to be granted a new CoMAH licence for a new site are a nightmare. Add in the issues of public objection to new chemical plants (thats essentially what it is) and it would be more hassle than it's worth for them. I admit, that given appropriate 'incentives' they could be persuaded to change their minds, but these would have to be extreme and funded by someone, be it in the guise of free land, tax incentives, a grant of some kind, and so on. And based upon contaminated ground studies for other plants i've seen, it's a red herring anyway. You will quickly eat up several million pounds remediating the site which will also need funding - you can't ask NBD as they didn't want to move in the first place!!!!

 

Apologies for getting on the soapbox, but I deal with HSE/CoMAH/LUP/safety risk assessments fairly frequently at work so i'd like to think i know what im talking about!!!

 

graeme

[IMac]

Whilst at face value it would seem logical we could do this, in reality I think you'd find that HSE would strongly recommend against it on grounds that NOT having it there would reduce the risks already present. And anyway, as mentioned above, rebuilding in the same footprint would limit us in terms of what we could do with it, i.e. at best we can replicate the existing stand in new materials, which seems kind of pointless IMO.

 

 

 

As I said on the other thread, the final decision is with the local authority planning people (in this case CEC), HSE can be ignored. However, they would whine, scream and bitch until they were listened to, or they would remind the people in charge that IF something was to happen and it is proven in court that decisions were made against HSE recommendations then that person/people can be brought up on relevant charges (negligence, manslaughter, etc).

 

As for the distillery moving, i'm sorry but it won't happen. The hoops that have to be jumped through to be granted a new CoMAH licence for a new site are a nightmare. Add in the issues of public objection to new chemical plants (thats essentially what it is) and it would be more hassle than it's worth for them. I admit, that given appropriate 'incentives' they could be persuaded to change their minds, but these would have to be extreme and funded by someone, be it in the guise of free land, tax incentives, a grant of some kind, and so on. And based upon contaminated ground studies for other plants i've seen, it's a red herring anyway. You will quickly eat up several million pounds remediating the site which will also need funding - you can't ask NBD as they didn't want to move in the first place!!!!

 

Apologies for getting on the soapbox, but I deal with HSE/CoMAH/LUP/safety risk assessments fairly frequently at work so i'd like to think i know what im talking about!!!

 

graeme

Dig a hole and bury them?

Sorted. You're welcome.

[SpikeDudley]

Who would have thought this 5 years ago.....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15636043.stm

 

 

 

a horrible team with a needlessly huge, generic stadium...

[DalryJambo]

a horrible team with a needlessly huge, generic stadium...

 

What is more important to you;

 

How a stadium looks?

 

or

 

How financially viable the clubs future is?

 

All this 'generic stadium' talk is just nonsense. Give me any one of these 25,000 (expandable) modern developments, without a running track, and as long as it is part of a financially viable business plan for the future of the club then I'm all for it. I don't really care if its not in Gorgie, I don't care if its not near my local boozer, or that I might need to get a bus for 15 mins to get to the games 20-25 times each season.

 

Give me a custom built stadium that will allow us to grow over the next 20-30 years and give us a genuine chance of making something bigger and better of ourselves and I'll be there.

 

History is just the recording of events over time. Moving away from Tynecastle isn't erasing our history its just creating more.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

a horrible team with a needlessly huge, generic stadium...

 

 

What is more important to you;

 

How a stadium looks?

 

or

 

How financially viable the clubs future is?

 

All this 'generic stadium' talk is just nonsense. Give me any one of these 25,000 (expandable) modern developments, without a running track, and as long as it is part of a financially viable business plan for the future of the club then I'm all for it. I don't really care if its not in Gorgie, I don't care if its not near my local boozer, or that I might need to get a bus for 15 mins to get to the games 20-25 times each season.

 

Give me a custom built stadium that will allow us to grow over the next 20-30 years and give us a genuine chance of making something bigger and better of ourselves and I'll be there.

 

History is just the recording of events over time. Moving away from Tynecastle isn't erasing our history its just creating more.

 

"... The League One side have attracted an average attendance of 8,111 this season, with their highest crowd of 10,554 - against Scunthorpe in October - over 21,000 seats short of the ground's proposed capacity... "

 

Must be a bit void of atmosphere most of the time though eh?

[DalryJambo]

"... The League One side have attracted an average attendance of 8,111 this season, with their highest crowd of 10,554 - against Scunthorpe in October - over 21,000 seats short of the ground's proposed capacity... "

 

Must be a bit void of atmosphere most of the time though eh?

 

 

We average more than that now and I'm sure with our fan base we would, at the very least, maintain our average. TBH I would expect an immediate increase to the average by a few thousand as the 'floating' fans that might only go to the Cat 1 games might be tempted to become regulars again. If the capacity was 25k and we average 15k for the first few seasons then that would be an ideal start.

 

The fans are out there as a few 'one-off' games have shown, its just a case of enticing them to games on a more regular basis.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

25k capacity with an average of 15k or whatever is more realistic than 32k with an average of 8k. What are they thinking about looking to expand again to 40k plus? Other revenue streams are one thing but their support will simply vanish in a 40k stadium. I would want a bigger percentage of seats taken up than that mob will have in a 40k stadium, the atmosphere would be non-esistent.

[Charlie-Brown]

We average more than that now and I'm sure with our fan base we would, at the very least, maintain our average. TBH I would expect an immediate increase to the average by a few thousand as the 'floating' fans that might only go to the Cat 1 games might be tempted to become regulars again. If the capacity was 25k and we average 15k for the first few seasons then that would be an ideal start.

 

The fans are out there as a few 'one-off' games have shown, its just a case of enticing them to games on a more regular basis.

 

Just some of the things you need to somehow change to get lapsed supporters back into football stadiums on a regular basis.

 

1. Make the ticket price attractive enough for them to want to afford it.

2. Increase the perceived quality of the football on offer.

3. Convince them to change their other habits or commitments ie work, family, golf, pub etc

4. reduce their opportunity to see all the SPL action live or nearly live on TV & internet etc.

[trotter]

Just some of the things you need to somehow change to get lapsed supporters back into football stadiums on a regular basis.

 

1. Make the ticket price attractive enough for them to want to afford it.

2. Increase the perceived quality of the football on offer.

3. Convince them to change their other habits or commitments ie work, family, golf, pub etc

4. reduce their opportunity to see all the SPL action live or nearly live on TV & internet etc.

 

Agree on the first two CB, disagree on the second two as standalone points. If you achieve one and two, by default you will also check boxes three and four. Certainly in my eyes, watching footie in the pub/at home is crap, i'd rather be at the game, but there would be greater incentive to go if the product on offer was worthwhile, the attractive pricing will help with this as well.

 

graeme

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Can't argue with most of that CB. See if you manage to attract these guys back though and you lower the ticket price then you need more seats to put them in and that will be impossible to do at Tynie due to HSE.

 

More seats and lower prices is the most obvious place to start.

[jbee647]

There is ways round HSE regulations with regards to the distillery, if the distillery was prepared to move the area can be cleared and decontaminated, it does not take as long as people seemed to believe, cost is another issue...there are many sights throughout the UK as a whole where this has happened. A ground running parallel to gorgie rd with all facilities is then possible...just need someone with a vision to stay at tynecastle, cooperation with the distillery and council and some rich Shiek to make it happen

Why would a long established ( in Gorgie since 1885) company just up sticks and move, where would they go, what would they do with there large spirit and mature whiskey stocks, as I've said before the NBD could buy and sell Hearts 10x over, and Ive been told Romanovs previous attitude in dealing with the NBD has more or less made any future cooperation unlikely.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Didn't NBT give us use of the field at the back of the Wheatfield? If so they can't have been too huffy.

[Cut The Crap]

Why would a long established ( in Gorgie since 1885) company just up sticks and move, where would they go, what would they do with there large spirit and mature whiskey stocks, as I've said before the NBD could buy and sell Hearts 10x over, and Ive been told Romanovs previous attitude in dealing with the NBD has more or less made any future cooperation unlikely.

 

Excellent question.

[topcat]

Why would a long established ( in Gorgie since 1885) company just up sticks and move, where would they go, what would they do with there large spirit and mature whiskey stocks, as I've said before the NBD could buy and sell Hearts 10x over, and Ive been told Romanovs previous attitude in dealing with the NBD has more or less made any future cooperation unlikely.

 

If you were well informed about NBD then you'd know that NBD's large stocks of spirit and mature whisky were been moved out years ago to their huge warehouse complex they built in Addiewell a long time ago.

 

There's a Sainsbury's where they used to be.

[hawaii]

Would it not be possible to make Tynie UEFA compliant by building a new stand the same size as the old one but just digging down another 10 foot and hey presto there would be loads of space for media, or supporters bars, or offices or new changing rooms? Would HSE object to that?

[jamboboy1954]

It seems it was all in place a few years back to move the distillery and Dave Anderson was involved in the discussions, don't know why it never happened. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...CZHie1446MpmXg

[heartsfc_fan]

Would it not be possible to make Tynie UEFA compliant by building a new stand the same size as the old one but just digging down another 10 foot and hey presto there would be loads of space for media, or supporters bars, or offices or new changing rooms? Would HSE object to that?

 

I think it's the fact that it doesn't seem financially viable to spend millions on a stand that might essentially be the same size as the current.

[Charlie-Brown]

I think it's the fact that it doesn't seem financially viable to spend millions on a stand that might essentially be the same size as the current.

 

well you could say about the new stadium ideas that it doesn't seem financially vaible to spend millions that we don't have or somebody elses millions on a stadium that might essentially only attract as many punters as the current one?

[wavydavy]

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.

 

 

Spot on. If Romanov really had the desire he would make the redevelopment of Tynecastle work.

 

His trouble is that he does not really want to put his money into it and wants ECC and other partners to fund the majority of the costs.

 

Where there's a will there's a way.

[Dunks]

well you could say about the new stadium ideas that it doesn't seem financially vaible to spend millions that we don't have or somebody elses millions on a stadium that might essentially only attract as many punters as the current one?

 

As has been said by many on the thread already, it's not about the number of seats, but the additional facilities that a new stadium could provide.

 

As an example, most will remember when the Huns built the "club deck" at Ibrox - a third tier and a new roof for the main stand. It cost around ?20 million and all for around 7,000 additional seats. But, it also contained hospitality suites designed as personal areas for the businesses that would fill them. I was in one for the Hearts v Falkirk semi back in '98 and was told by the commercial guys that the revenue generated from those suites would pay off the ?20 million in the short term and that the income from the seats themselves was "insignificant" by comparison.

 

So it's not about the number of seats, it's about the facilities under them

[DalryJambo]

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

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15636043.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/15668207.stm

 

Two articles showing how funding can be generated from and around a stadium.

 

In terms of the funding of the development you need to realise it won't be hearts funding the project, it will be UBIG with money from various investors. UBIG are the investment group for ukio bankas and have been specifically set up to invest funds of money.

 

At the end of the day hearts won't end up with all the development debt on their books and VRs aim will ultimately be to write down the clubs debt (as he had been doing with debt for equity swaps), build a new stadium and then sell the club (with no debt) to new owners, who will most probably end up paying a yearly rent for use of the stadium, facilities and its non-football earning capacity.

 

I actually think the more and more the press portray him as the bad guy, the more determined he'll be to prove them all wrong.

[Barney Rubble]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15636043.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/mobile/football/15668207.stm

 

Two articles showing how funding can be generated from and around a stadium.

 

In terms of the funding of the development you need to realise it won't be hearts funding the project, it will be UBIG with money from various investors. UBIG are the investment group for ukio bankas and have been specifically set up to invest funds of money.

 

At the end of the day hearts won't end up with all the development debt on their books and VRs aim will ultimately be to write down the clubs debt (as he had been doing with debt for equity swaps), build a new stadium and then sell the club (with no debt) to new owners, who will most probably end up paying a yearly rent for use of the stadium, facilities and its non-football earning capacity.

 

I actually think the more and more the press portray him as the bad guy, the more determined he'll be to prove them all wrong.

 

Sounds the opposite to me to be honest , he cant wait to gtf out of Scotland and Edinburgh and i have to say as loopy as he is i dont blame him !