The Groves Training Ground: How will you be voting?

[dagg]

Originally Posted by tokyored

I know you say it's only something that 'could' happen but it seems very far out there to me. We'll spend hundreds of thousands on a new facility just to give it up in a few years. And the council will rely on some kind of gentleman's agreement with a board who will very likely have completely changed in 10 years time?
Just don't see it myself.

I don't think it would happen either, but things change.

[Inside Left]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

Yes we did. There were a number of fans willing to take a minority stake to fund the acquisition. It was ignored.

History can't be blamed for everything forever. the excuses only last for so long. There was a way of getting that deal done and it was ignored, the cost turns out to be anywhere between 300 and 400% and years of sub standard work environment.

Anyway it can't be re-written but more detail can be added to the Groves proposal such as a financial plan on funding the investment, better cost estimates because they are on the low to very low side, timings, consequence comparison etc.

I mention Colliers because I cannot see how this plan ever comes to proper fruition with significant capital raising and there does not seem to be an adequate plan - you can't just say "from the fans". If we couldn't raise £250k for Colliers then, how do we raise £1m now?

Your first line.
Indeed you are correct and remember the stadium was included but someone somewhere put a block on it and the club found itself out with a begging bowl.

[Bagger Vance]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

We'd spent years raising the money to save the club - to then ask people to raise another £250k is a leap. And if we could have raised it the priority would have been keeping the club afloat rather than buying back Colliers from that pair of thieves. Instead we negotiated a short term lease to use it.

When we bought the club we were losing £750k a year and had £500k of debt. We were lucky that we had some significant football fortune during the first couple of years under fan ownership - cup runs, selling players etc. If that hadn't of happened every penny raised would have been needed to stop us going under.

It was done, raised, subject to cat b shareholding being agreed and a non exec.
1 fan alone was willing to put in £150,000k.

It was ignored as it didn't follow the purity set out. Wimbledon did it, succesfully.

[dixienormous]

Originally Posted by Todd Sweeney

We'd spent years raising the money to save the club - to then ask people to raise another £250k is a leap. And if we could have raised it the priority would have been keeping the club afloat rather than buying back Colliers from that pair of thieves. Instead we negotiated a short term lease to use it.

When we bought the club we were losing £750k a year and had £500k of debt. We were lucky that we had some significant football fortune during the first couple of years under fan ownership - cup runs, selling players etc. If that hadn't of happened every penny raised would have been needed to stop us going under.

The fans saved the club thank you. No funds were released by the WST.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by Bagger Vance

It was done, raised, subject to cat b shareholding being agreed and a non exec.
1 fan alone was willing to put in £150,000k.

It was ignored as it didn't follow the purity set out. Wimbledon did it, succesfully.

If we drill back to the root cause of why we are where we are, I think the ideological desire to not involve outsiders is the main reason for our lack of success, and possible downfall.

I prefer pragmatism every day of the week, but am seemingly in the minority. Sadly, with the constitution as it stands, and a lack of financial influence to boot, there is very little we can seemingly do to convince the WST to change tack. They will either do so of their own accord, or we will continue to implode. I hope folk see sense before it does run away from us.

[Rob]

I think it was Phill Wynn who told me years ago we could have had Colliers for something like £120k. No idea if true so take with a big bag of Saxa.

I wonder what Mr Wynn is up to nowadays, and what his views on the use of the 9 Acre and the Groves would be

[mitchelltown]

Originally Posted by Rob

I think it was Phill Wynn who told me years ago we could have had Colliers for something like £120k. No idea if true so take with a big bag of Saxa.

I wonder what Mr Wynn is up to nowadays, and what his views on the use of the 9 Acre and the Groves would be

I think it was the then leader of the council who told me years ago they could have got the lot for far less than the price being asked at that time.

[LlayDragon]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Dragon

If we drill back to the root cause of why we are where we are, I think the ideological desire to not involve outsiders is the main reason for our lack of success, and possible downfall.

I prefer pragmatism every day of the week, but am seemingly in the minority. Sadly, with the constitution as it stands, and a lack of financial influence to boot, there is very little we can seemingly do to convince the WST to change tack. They will either do so of their own accord, or we will continue to implode. I hope folk see sense before it does run away from us.

Starve them out.

This will hurt the club and by extension the fans, but frankly there is nothing else.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by LlayDragon

Starve them out.

This will hurt the club and by extension the fans, but frankly there is nothing else.

It’s a fine balancing act unless there is a definite buyer ready to step in.

Today’s announcement by the PM must jeopardise the proposed October start, and possibly the whole season.

If the season is abandoned, and we consequently do not sign any more players, then this nuclear option is possible.

But we would still need someone to pick up the pieces.