Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm think 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Quite right James. As I said earlier a MASTERSTROKE form fat five freddy. blueyes.gif Plus the spinoffs and brand development oppurtunities will be boundless. I mean I'm surprised the coucil or the E.U. haven't been roped in (maybe they have)...But you mention job creation and money falls from the trees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 What I'd be expecting is a deal along the lines of what Slugsy and Apisith have mentioned, i'm just kin invisible, i don't know the extra revenue will be rents or actual profit from the ventures. No doubt you won't even be able to get a sausage roll in a conference without lining Fred's pcket somehow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm think 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Quite right James. As I said earlier a MASTERSTROKE form fat five freddy. blueyes.gif Plus the spinoffs and brand development oppurtunities will be boundless. I mean I'm surprised the coucil or the E.U. haven't been roped in (maybe they have)...But you mention job creation and money falls from the trees. so you concede you never would have thought of it if you had bought NUFC witrh your euromillions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm think 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Quite right James. As I said earlier a MASTERSTROKE form fat five freddy. blueyes.gif Plus the spinoffs and brand development oppurtunities will be boundless. I mean I'm surprised the coucil or the E.U. haven't been roped in (maybe they have)...But you mention job creation and money falls from the trees. so you concede you never would have thought of it if you had bought NUFC witrh your euromillions? It's the first thing I would have done tbh. Sorry 2nd thing after sacking Rodent and hiring a top class manager. Tbh if the area is condusive this kind of thing is par for the course...I will admit I didn't think fat five had it in him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Is this proposed hotel stuff going behind the Leazes area? Can imagine a few daft tree-hugging conservationalists (sp?) kicking up a fuss if it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Is this proposed hotel stuff going behind the Leazes area? Can imagine a few daft tree-hugging conservationalists (sp?) kicking up a fuss if it is. think one or two blocks (hotel and "superior apartments") will be in the leazes carpark and the other hotel on the opposite side of Barrack Road. then the conference centre and 2nd block of flats would be in the St James carpark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm thinking 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Don't get sarky with me Jimbo. > How is what you've posted here relevant to what I posted? I'll answer for you: It isn't. I don't think you've read what I wrote properly, read it again and you'll see I never said anything about this investment bankrupting the club. I'm aware that they've said that the funding will be separate from the club, that was my whole point!! There's no such thing as a free lunch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jai Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 This is all pie in the sky propaganda because it is PENDING Planning Permission. I for one would love it to happen but I'm not going to get my hopes up just yet.. Is it a coincidence that this announcement was made straight after another miserable defeat. Fatty knew this would distract us and it has. He probably wasn't going to announce it unless it got approval first but he has to save his own fat arse! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 This is all pie in the sky propaganda because it is PENDING Planning Permission. I for one would love it to happen but I'm not going to get my hopes up just yet.. Is it a coincidence that this announcement was made straight after another miserable defeat. Fatty knew this would distract us and it has. He probably wasn't going to announce it unless it got approval first but he has to save his own fat arse! nothing to with it being a monday, or stock exchange rules, or anything else of course it has to be propoganda I can see it now, 6 months ago when the plans were first being drafted, Fred thinks hmmm, this is a great release to use in 6 months time when we get beat off Man City at home Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 What I'd be expecting is a deal along the lines of what Slugsy and Apisith have mentioned, i'm just kin invisible, i don't know the extra revenue will be rents or actual profit from the ventures. No doubt you won't even be able to get a sausage roll in a conference without lining Fred's pcket somehow I was hoping you'd notice that, sorry, but after reading your posts earlier in the thread I couldn't resist. I know you mentioned it first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^Shepherd also appointed Steve Walton as new Chief exec to oversee developments in and around the stadium a few weeks ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. I do. You've got to be more careful Parks, there's innocent, unquestioning minds about, you wouldn't want to corrupt them, would you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^Shepherd also appointed Steve Walton as new Chief exec to oversee developments in and around the stadium a few weeks ago. Walton is from Barclays and I thought he was more football development related...But I guess this broadly falls into that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. I do. You've got to be more careful Parks, there's innocent, unquestioning minds about, you wouldn't want to corrupt them, would you? The way it seems to be reading is that Fat five freddy and his entourage will be the short term beneficiaries and long term it will be the club in the sense that there must be revenue stream tie ins. I still think it is a good venture for us. I wasn't mocking your post btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^Shepherd also appointed Steve Walton as new Chief exec to oversee developments in and around the stadium a few weeks ago. Walton is from Barclays and I thought he was more football development related...But I guess this broadly falls into that. he's more, 'how do we screw more money out of people on the back of their blind support for a jersey' tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^Shepherd also appointed Steve Walton as new Chief exec to oversee developments in and around the stadium a few weeks ago. Walton is from Barclays and I thought he was more football development related...But I guess this broadly falls into that. he's more, 'how do we screw more money out of people on the back of their blind support for a jersey' tbh isn't that the one thing the fat man's supposed to be good at? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^Shepherd also appointed Steve Walton as new Chief exec to oversee developments in and around the stadium a few weeks ago. Walton is from Barclays and I thought he was more football development related...But I guess this broadly falls into that. he's more, 'how do we screw more money out of people on the back of their blind support for a jersey' tbh isn't that the one thing the fat man's supposed to be good at? aye but he's being a good chief executive and now employing professionals to do it even better, seeing as he's just an amateur at these business type thingys Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. I do. You've got to be more careful Parks, there's innocent, unquestioning minds about, you wouldn't want to corrupt them, would you? The way it seems to be reading is that Fat five freddy and his entourage will be the short term beneficiaries and long term it will be the club in the sense that there must be revenue stream tie ins. I still think it is a good venture for us. I wasn't mocking your post btw. You don't need to tell me that Parks, I'd have hoped you'da known that. I'm sure there will be revenue streams, even I don't think Fred's that incompetent!! I'm just surprised at how everyone seems to be assuming that this is the deal of the millennium based upon zero actual information. I'm also a bit worried about how low many people have set their expectations for it, a "free" extension of the ground is a shitty deal if that's all we get, yet people are raving about it like Fred's bought Manhattan from the Lenape for $24!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm thinking 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Don't get sarky with me Jimbo. > How is what you've posted here relevant to what I posted? I'll answer for you: It isn't. I don't think you've read what I wrote properly, read it again and you'll see I never said anything about this investment bankrupting the club. I'm aware that they've said that the funding will be separate from the club, that was my whole point!! There's no such thing as a free lunch. Sorry, my post sounded a bit harsh, the bankruptcy comment was not aimed at you, more voicing my opinions that I cant see anything that the club do spend as being something to worry about, as I believe it will be merely involve some restructuring if we do spend. The comments regarding the strings was slightly aimed at you, but Parky too - I see the land as our main asset on the table, but don't think we'll get either rent or the opportunity to renogotiate the lease in the short term as others are suggesting. I am sure that that is where we are paying for the lunch, so to speak, we are now sacrificing our land for what will probably be a long time, possibly 50+ years. However, that isn't a bad price to pay considering that the current owners aren't really in a position to develop the area by themselves. We just have to hope that we are dealing with the right investors, and that someone better wouldn't have come along in 5 years time with better offer. I'd hate to see the surrounding area get spoilt without there being anything we could do about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. I do. You've got to be more careful Parks, there's innocent, unquestioning minds about, you wouldn't want to corrupt them, would you? The way it seems to be reading is that Fat five freddy and his entourage will be the short term beneficiaries and long term it will be the club in the sense that there must be revenue stream tie ins. I still think it is a good venture for us. I wasn't mocking your post btw. You don't need to tell me that Parks, I'd have hoped you'da known that. I'm sure there will be revenue streams, even I don't think Fred's that incompetent!! I'm just surprised at how everyone seems to be assuming that this is the deal of the millennium based upon zero actual information. I'm also a bit worried about how low many people have set their expectations for it, a "free" extension of the ground is a shitty deal if that's all we get, yet people are raving about it like Fred's bought Manhattan from the Lenape for $24!! I thought Manhattan island was still owned by the Queen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Lets have another look at those key words: Funding for the Number 1 St. James' Park project will be completely independent of the football club's revenues. Can't find any loopholes with that statement. Our board are a load of spin-doctors, not a load of liars. Essentially, we have secured (pending planning permission) a stadium expansion that will not cost us, at least not on a level that would bankrupt the club. There needn't be strings attached with this investment. A long enough lease, and I'm thinking 50+ years here, and permission to use the clubs brand is probably all many investors would require. Don't get sarky with me Jimbo. > How is what you've posted here relevant to what I posted? I'll answer for you: It isn't. I don't think you've read what I wrote properly, read it again and you'll see I never said anything about this investment bankrupting the club. I'm aware that they've said that the funding will be separate from the club, that was my whole point!! There's no such thing as a free lunch. Sorry, my post sounded a bit harsh, the bankruptcy comment was not aimed at you, more voicing my opinions that I cant see anything that the club do spend as being something to worry about, as I believe it will be merely involve some restructuring if we do spend. The comments regarding the strings was slightly aimed at you, but Parky too - I see the land as our main asset on the table, but don't think we'll get either rent or the opportunity to renogotiate the lease in the short term as others are suggesting. I am sure that that is where we are paying for the lunch, so to speak, we are now sacrificing our land for what will probably be a long time, possibly 50+ years. However, that isn't a bad price to pay considering that the current owners aren't really in a position to develop the area by themselves. We just have to hope that we are dealing with the right investors, and that someone better wouldn't have come along in 5 years time with better offer. I'd hate to see the surrounding area get spoilt without there being anything we could do about it. No bother, I was just feigning annoyance. You're setting your sights way, way, way, too low, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Where does it say that?? Wot? This: All well and good Indi...But what actually are we putting in other than offerring the lease for which there will be rent (don't forget). As if you didn't know. You know full well I haven't bothered to read anything about it. I do. You've got to be more careful Parks, there's innocent, unquestioning minds about, you wouldn't want to corrupt them, would you? The way it seems to be reading is that Fat five freddy and his entourage will be the short term beneficiaries and long term it will be the club in the sense that there must be revenue stream tie ins. I still think it is a good venture for us. I wasn't mocking your post btw. You don't need to tell me that Parks, I'd have hoped you'da known that. I'm sure there will be revenue streams, even I don't think Fred's that incompetent!! I'm just surprised at how everyone seems to be assuming that this is the deal of the millennium based upon zero actual information. I'm also a bit worried about how low many people have set their expectations for it, a "free" extension of the ground is a shitty deal if that's all we get, yet people are raving about it like Fred's bought Manhattan from the Lenape for $24!! I thought Manhattan island was still owned by the Queen. Don't think it is anymore, not sure like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Anyone got the photo where it shows how the ground would look with both smaller stands rebuilt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now