Jackie Broon

Not explicitly, but it probably should have been because any transaction should have been at fair market value.

No, but we did under Ashley if they do backdate (which I doubt).

No, but the point is that they should have been paying interest on the loans at fair market rate and that would count as expenditure.

Maybe lessend a bit but it would still be a factor in how close the stadium can be to them.

The residential properties to the north West are also a constraint, there will need to be sufficient distance from them not to unacceptably impact on light. But there probably would be layout that would work, with the stadium turned 90 degrees and closer to Barack Road.

My point is there is absolutely no rbenefit to building it partially on the footprint of the current stadium. There is room to move the new stadium a bit further back (without any additional impact on Leazes Park) so we can stay at St James' while it is built, or move it even further onto Castle Leazes and have much less of an impact on Leazes Park. I think the only reason it is shown in that way, as a phased construction, is because it makes a more interesting video.

But pointless, there's absolutely no reason to do it that way other than it making an interesting render.

Why bother when that would not really be on the current site, be more impact ful on Leazes Park and would be incredibly disruptive having to find somewhere else to play, when we could just build a couple of hundered meters away and avoid all of that. I can't see us chosing that option.

That ties in with my 'educated guesswork' and other stuff.

I agree with that, it was that it would be a weighty amount that I was questioning, it would be likely to be pennies in relation to the overall cost of the development.

It's unlikely that such a S106 contribution would be weighty in relation to the overall cost of any development. They can't be used to 'buy' a permission, they can only be directly relevant and commensurate to the scale of impacts of a development. Replacing an area of and/or restoring the rest of Leazes Park isn't going to be a weighty cost in the context of a new stadium.

Not necessarily, it could potentially be in Man City's interest to keep it confidential in terms of using it as leverage.

It depends on what is proposed but yes, probably. Who is going to bring a challenge? Do you think the Friends of Leazes Park have a spare £20k+ lying around? I doubt Historic England would either for Grade II park, unless it's complete destruction of the park. And there would also need to actually be a point of law to bring a challenge on, a decision can't just be challenged because someone doesn't agree with it.

That isn't true at all.

It's Historic England, not English Heritage. Love it when Stiffy get's all Dunning-Kruger about planning.

From the listing that doesn't seem to be the case, and it seems that only the base of bandstand is original, the rest is a modern replacement. The pavilion seems to be of more significance.

We're in the fortunate position of there being huge swaiths of undeveloped land next to the city centre owned by the freemen or council, that are both likely to be inclined to help the club. We won't be moving out of central Newcastle.

Most of the main moor we probably couldn't due to restrictive planning designations, but there are parts of it we possibly could. Castle Leazes, Hunters Moor, Nuns Moor and the moorland next to Exhibition Park all have a planning designation that allows for sports buildings.

With the added benefit of taking that revenue stream away from the mackems.

Hunters Moor is a potential alternative option, walkable from he city centre, the same planning designation as Castle Leazes (which allows for sports development) with more space and without the issue of the listed Leazes Park.

We can't a) they have to signed off by the PL first b) the PL could just not take that income into account in the PSR calculation.

Awful news, wishing him and his family all the best

Don't mind at all, you probably should.

Nope, I won't risk identifying anyone. There's nothing explicit by the way, so I could well have just jumped to wrong conclusions.