Martin_T Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Is this even the most sensible option? I know that we all love Tynecastle, it's our home, has a great atmosphere etc... but trying to take an objective view, would it not make far more sense to realise the value of prime land in west central Edinburgh and build from scratch on a new brown or green belt site? This would allow the club to probably repay a chunk of it's debt above the development costs of a new stadium and be on a far more sound financial footing than plunging us ?80 odd million into debt to build one new stand in a cramped urban area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Apart from the fact the old stand will, very soon, really struggle to get a safety permit yes as it will increase revenue streams and make it nigh on impossible to turn to flats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 1974 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Let's be honest here, even if we were to go down the route you suggest, there would be very little if any extra cash to throw at the debt after a stadium was built. Like ****ing in the wind on that score mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Rebuilding Tynecastle is probably the wrong option. The combination of Robinson's arrogance and stupidity and the unwavering determination of most fans to stay at Tynecastle may be the ruin of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c41rns Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Who would stay at a hotel miles from town though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Rebuilding Tynecastle is probably the wrong option. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 1974 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Rebuilding Tynecastle is probably the wrong option. The combination of Robinson's arrogance and stupidity and the unwavering determination of most fans to stay at Tynecastle may be the ruin of the club. Tell that to fans of wimbledon and other clubs that have moved from their spiritual home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 Let's be honest here, even if we were to go down the route you suggest, there would be very little if any extra cash to throw at the debt after a stadium was built. Like ****ing in the wind on that score mate. Maybe so, but as things currently stand, the club will be forced ?80 million into the red with the development of a new stand. Take the often quoted worst figure of ?40 million for our current debt, if we realised say ?25 million for the sale of the stadium to reduce debt to ?15 million and built a new stadium for ?30 million, we'd only be ?45million in debt, circa ?25 million less debt than if we pressed ahead with the new main stand development. In my opinion, the development of the new main stand at Tynecastle is financial madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The fans spent well over a year protesting at leaving Tynecastle. Romanov is trying to provide a better, long-term way of sustaining that because he assumes it's what the fans want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 In my opinion, the development of the new main stand at Tynecastle is financial madness. Save our Hearts got it wrong and we should have moved to Murrayfield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave 1974 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Maybe so, but as things currently stand, the club will be forced ?80 million into the red with the development of a new stand. Take the often quoted worst figure of ?40 million for our current debt, if we realised say ?25 million for the sale of the stadium to reduce debt to ?15 million and built a new stadium for ?30 million, we'd only be ?45million in debt, circa ?25 million less debt than if we pressed ahead with the new main stand development. In my opinion, the development of the new main stand at Tynecastle is financial madness. Out of our hands i'm afraid. VR has 'assured' supporters and media alike that these figures are completely managable. Could be worse. We could be Arsenal supporters. Now that IS debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 The fans spent well over a year protesting at leaving Tynecastle. Romanov is trying to provide a better, long-term way of sustaining that because he assumes it's what the fans want. Oh really? Since when has VR ever given the slightest consideration to what the fans want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Tell that to fans of wimbledon and other clubs that have moved from their spiritual home. are these the others? Middlesborough Sunderland Reading Arsenal Man City Derby Bolton Southamptom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Tynecastle is not the be all and end all for me like it is for some fans. Bigger and better clubs than Hearts have left their 'spiritual home'. I protested under Robinson not because we were going to be leaving Tynecastle but because of the situation we were facing. I would have been quite happy if we were going to be at Murrayfield for 2/3 seasons whilst a new stadium was being built, We all know that wasn't the case. We were heading into oblivion with no plan on how to get us back from it, That was my concern at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Oh really? Since when has VR ever given the slightest consideration to what the fans want? Probably by keeping Hearts at Tynecastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Probably by keeping Hearts at Tynecastle. I wouldn't be surprised if thats as much to do with getting his hotel etc as it is with what the fans want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I wouldn't be surprised if thats as much to do with getting his hotel etc as it is with what the fans want. why? when he is capable of buying a ?20m pound city centre property in St Andrews Sq for that purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the general Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Who would stay at a hotel miles from town though? its a brisk ten minute walk from Haymarket station ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornhillHearts Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 why? when he is capable of buying a ?20m pound city centre property in St Andrews Sq for that purpose. A fine point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Who would stay at a hotel miles from town though? me. I've done it before. Depends what people are in town for really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 why? when he is capable of buying a ?20m pound city centre property in St Andrews Sq for that purpose. I gave up trying to work out "why" with Vlad a long time ago. Logic does not apply to his decisions as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe.gausden Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 surely anybody flying into edinburgh airport or anybody that doesn't fancy being stuck at feckin' roadworks every fifty yards. if pieman had a plan B after selling tynecastle maybe he wouldn't have had as much **** as he got and deserved imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 surely anybody flying into edinburgh airport or anybody that doesn't fancy being stuck at feckin' roadworks every fifty yards. if pieman had a plan B after selling tynecastle maybe he wouldn't have had as much **** as he got and deserved imo. Won't be a problem, as there'll be a tram stop a few hundred yards away to whisk people to the airport, and into town! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pivotno1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ima maroon should read ima bawbag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pivotno1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 apolgies ima maroon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 We should be moving elsewere Murrayfield is too big but a 30k stadium on the outskirts would be brillant, cheaper, more convenient, completely new and it wouldnt be as if we moved city It would simply be a move in the city Braehead, Straiton, Even Granton have big areas of suitable land and Im sure a sweetner to the council would have the restrictions lifted However romanov is too big on his "status" gestures and propoganda to do that as it would take a mutiny quiter off the table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunxjambo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 did vlad produce the planning application all on his OWN? may have had final say but very much doubt he looked at every piece of paper, read every report. but maybe he did, coz the teams been crap, so the auto pilot or football manager 2000 has been picking it rather his normal "studied" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 did vlad produce the planning application all on his OWN?may have had final say but very much doubt he looked at every piece of paper, read every report. but maybe he did, coz the teams been crap, so the auto pilot or football manager 2000 has been picking it rather his normal "studied" approach. Your quite right but the architects etc will have been told to devise a plan for tynecastle Not anything else The decision to stay at tynecastle ultimatly lay with one man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adso7 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 It's not a financial disaster because what they are building will be assets and will be revenue generators. Thus the debt is represented by assets on the balance sheet - unlike borrowing to pay transfers and wages which is money down the drain ala Leeds Utd. The whole debt thing is complicated because of the struture of the club and the club's finances. I would have thought though that if this thing gets built it gives Hearts a hell of a lot more long term security than if Tynie had been flogged in '05 with no plan for a new home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamborich Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 We should be moving elsewere Murrayfield is too big but a 30k stadium on the outskirts would be brillant, cheaper, more convenient, completely new and it wouldnt be as if we moved city It would simply be a move in the city Braehead, Straiton, Even Granton have big areas of suitable land and Im sure a sweetner to the council would have the restrictions lifted However romanov is too big on his "status" gestures and propoganda to do that as it would take a mutiny quiter off the table Have i missed something here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunxjambo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 It would simply be a move in the city Braehead, Straiton, Even Granton have big areas of suitable land and Im sure a sweetner to the council would have the restrictions lifted check out the planning application, check out the council's planning site & see how easy it is to build this type of development on green field or contaminated sites. areas are designated for housing only, housing/small commercial unit only etc etc adding a football stadium is mighty complex in the world of planning given transport requirements covering access and egress on foot, public transport, private transport, health & safety issues, availabilty of buying other land indirectly affecting the original area to name but a few. is braehead not near paisley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 check out the planning application, check out the council's planning site & see how easy it is to build this type of development on green field or contaminated sites. areas are designated for housing only, housing/small commercial unit only etc etc adding a football stadium is mighty complex in the world of planning given transport requirements covering access and egress on foot, public transport, private transport, health & safety issues, availabilty of buying other land indirectly affecting the original area to name but a few. is braehead not near paisley. I may have mistyped the name- I mean the place at east craigs/airport And whilst its not easy, neither is our new plans It was definitly worth considering in far more depth than we did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigieboy Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Did someone mention Granton? The day Hearts play there is the day I throw **** at masel. Granton? Aye, ok then. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McJambo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I honestly cant believe some people. Complain when we move, complain when we don't. You cant win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Is this even the most sensible option? I know that we all love Tynecastle, it's our home, has a great atmosphere etc... but trying to take an objective view, would it not make far more sense to realise the value of prime land in west central Edinburgh and build from scratch on a new brown or green belt site? This would allow the club to probably repay a chunk of it's debt above the development costs of a new stadium and be on a far more sound financial footing than plunging us ?80 odd million into debt to build one new stand in a cramped urban area. Would we not just end up back at square one Martin. I don't know the ins and outs of the figures which will be presented to the AGM, but if we work conservatively and assume that the debt could be around ?32 million (pure guess), say we then get what, ?23 million for the land in Gorgie, and that all goes to reduce the debt. We are effectively ?9 million in debt. I haven't got a clue what it costs to build a stadium from scratch, presumably it would be the large capacity stadium, again just for arguments sake we use a figure of ?35 million to build. He could quite simply top up Hearts debt to ?40 million, and other parts of the group would have to become liable for the excess. Similarly if we stay at Tynecastle and rebuild, and the debt is presently the guess figure of ?32 million. The rebuild is costed at ?51 million I believe, the maximum he could add to Hearts debt would be ?8 million, the other parts of the group would have to be liable for the remainder. It doesn't matter if we stay put or move, at the moment the maximum we can go into debt is ?40 million, the ceiling set by the shareholders. I think Romanov has done some things at Hearts which could, and can, make many think he is a bit of a fruit loop, but I doubt very much he will go into the coming AGM and ask the shareholders permission to raise the debt ceiling to ?60-80 million. So the real question is, do we want to be ?40 million in debt at Tynecastle, or ?40 million in debt playing out in the middle of nowhere. Personally I think most people would go for the former option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grainger Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Buying land in Edinburgh and building a 20-30k seater stadium for ?30m? How's that going to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Tynecastle is not the be all and end all for me like it is for some fans. Bigger and better clubs than Hearts have left their 'spiritual home'. I protested under Robinson not because we were going to be leaving Tynecastle but because of the situation we were facing. I would have been quite happy if we were going to be at Murrayfield for 2/3 seasons whilst a new stadium was being built, We all know that wasn't the case. We were heading into oblivion with no plan on how to get us back from it, That was my concern at the time. i think the above post expresses the opinions of most jambos.well said TBTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Buying land in Edinburgh and building a 20-30k seater stadium for ?30m? How's that going to work? Not sure if your question was aimed at me FH, but in all honesty in all the guess work figures, which they are because we do not know the financial facts, I had forgotten to even take into account the cost of purchasing this land on which this new stadium would be built. I am just throwing about figures, which I am pulling off the top of my head at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunxjambo Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 if, given the option to stay at tynecastle and rebuild, i would like to think that the majority of our support would welcome this. maybe i'm wrong. didn't we stand up to CPR becaus inter alia he wan't to sell up and move. vlad has lots of faults but on this issue he seems to be doin the right thing. as with anything only time will tell but we'll be dead by then. as for "considering it in more depth", BFE your making a assumption in your opinio, that this application is n't in depth. from what i've read of it, it seems pretty much a run of the mill normal application, with the requisite amount of depth. its not something thats just been thrown together haphazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grainger Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Not sure if your question was aimed at me It wasn't! It was Martin T who raised the point of building a new stadium for ?30m, seems a bit cheap if you ask me! I'm not having a go at anybody, just think the figures being bandied about are ever so slightly () below the actual amounts required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Would we not just end up back at square one Martin. I don't know the ins and outs of the figures which will be presented to the AGM, but if we work conservatively and assume that the debt could be around ?32 million (pure guess), say we then get what, ?23 million for the land in Gorgie, and that all goes to reduce the debt. We are effectively ?9 million in debt. I haven't got a clue what it costs to build a stadium from scratch, presumably it would be the large capacity stadium, again just for arguments sake we use a figure of ?35 million to build. He could quite simply top up Hearts debt to ?40 million, and other parts of the group would have to become liable for the excess. Similarly if we stay at Tynecastle and rebuild, and the debt is presently the guess figure of ?32 million. The rebuild is costed at ?51 million I believe, the maximum he could add to Hearts debt would be ?8 million, the other parts of the group would have to be liable for the remainder. It doesn't matter if we stay put or move, at the moment the maximum we can go into debt is ?40 million, the ceiling set by the shareholders. I think Romanov has done some things at Hearts which could, and can, make many think he is a bit of a fruit loop, but I doubt very much he will go into the coming AGM and ask the shareholders permission to raise the debt ceiling to ?60-80 million. So the real question is, do we want to be ?40 million in debt at Tynecastle, or ?40 million in debt playing out in the middle of nowhere. Personally I think most people would go for the former option. That's how I see it. Also, the ?51m figure being banded around just now is the build cost as far as I can tell. Now, I've not studied the plans in detail but some of you have - how many flats (or appartments I suppose they'll be marketed as) are there? What's the going rate for a luxury newbuild one or two bedroom flat with parking near the city centre? I would imagine that whatever money was made from the sale of these flats would be pumped pretty much straight back into the cost/debt, or am I being naive? I think that would be a healthy start at tackling the debt. I am pretty relaxed and dare I say happy with whats going on off the pitch. It's on the pitch that I am not happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.