| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nightbird |
Posted - 28/06/2007 : 16:43:23
So here we go again, does this mean theres going to be another delay while Mrs Blear gets up to speed?
http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1505497.0.0.php |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Daveb |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 19:28:46
Do not accuse Prescott of having a mind! |
| long time no see |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 19:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Except that it need never have gone to Prescott's office if it hadn't been for the inquiries.
Sure
but once it got there
Stinking Corrupt Prescott
had more important (to him) things on his mind. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 19:22:52
No brain LDC and FPC are to blame for the delays. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 18:37:07
Except that it need never have gone to Prescott's office if it hadn't been for the inquiries. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 09/09/2007 : 17:18:00
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Whichever way you look at it.
There was far too much time, effort and money spent on this.
If you go back in time,
when 2 Shags/ 2 Jags Prescott
was in charge,
from Corrupt New Labour,
with his leg over his female office staff!
what in the blue hell would you expect. |
| Control Panel |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 16:47:37
Past form suggests there will be another hitch or more. |
| sparkie |
Posted - 07/09/2007 : 13:24:40
So there it is...
The arguments have been heard, and the decision made - and no further objections received.
So now there's only 70 odd chances to sit again at Withdean in the rain 
Fantastic 
|
| Daveb |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 18:25:08
Whichever way you look at it.
There was far too much time, effort and money spent on this. |
| septicman |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 14:33:44
And I said legal fees where? Plus, in order to get the full context of the article it needs to be read. One of your biggest supporters claims costs over at Lewes must be £200k all in. If you include the costs outside of the legal fees declared by B&HCC, including the £250k extra declared, plus all the associated costs of lawyers outside of the enquiries, plus the time of the officers, I would say twice the costs of LDC is conservative.
As for taking 5 minutes, it was easy. I simply e-mailed the council and they gave me the costs by return, though clearly not all of them, although I suspect what you get depends on what and how you ask. |
| sully |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 13:35:19
I hope you don't write history books, septic!
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Good to see that you're still peddling your usual inaccuracies. The figures for legal costs were sent to me by the council over a year and a half ago. Much water has gone under the bridge since then, which of course hasn't been costed in any reply given by the council.
None of which has any relevance to the figures we're talking about, which relate to the two inquiries.
quote:
It is your invention that I have only been talking about legal costs. If you look at the article in the Argus that prompted this, you will see that only £60k are described as LDC legal costs, the others are not described as legal costs.
They are actually ALL described as legal costs. Try reading the first sentence again! It reads "Lewes District Council has spent £140,000 on lawyers to fight plans for Albion's Falmer stadium, The Argus can reveal." How plain can it be?
OK, I'll quote directly from the article.
"In February 2003, a four-month inquiry kicked off the Albion's bid to build in the area of outstanding natural beauty.
Lewes council spent just under £60,000 that year on consulting external lawyers - over and above work carried out in-house."
"The second inquiry was launched in February 2005, concluding with a "yes" decision by Mr Prescott."
"Lewes spent almost £50,000 in the year ending April 2006"
So, whilst I concede that the full £140k is not specifically for the inquiries, it would appear that at least £110k of it is. That still makes it MORE than BHCC spent on the same thing.
quote:
Nor have you taken into account the money that can be reclaimed by LDC.
Which is not included in the sums quoted, as I said previously. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
quote:
To only take into account the legal costs on both sides would be seriously inaccurate.
However, we don't have any other figures for LDCs expenditure, so how do you suggest we compare them?
quote:
Unfortunately, your little chum numpty boy on NSC asked the wrong question and you are now furiously backtracking. He almost certainly only asked for the legal costs incurred during the course of the two public enquiries without thinking the thing through.
It's not like you to start name calling. Got you rattled, have we?
As has been pointed out to you several times, what he tried to obtain was comparative information to what was in the Argus article about LDCs expenditure. Nobody is back-tracking. You have just got your figures all messed up.
quote:
There are even quotes on NSC stating there is content in the Argus comments attributable to me, when even a cursory glance would reveal that this is not true.
So I take it you're suggesting that the person posting on there as septicman is not you? So how come that person says all the same things as you have on here and you have been trying to support those claims?
You seem to forget it's all still there!
Which of these was not posted by you?
quote:
Posted by: Septicman, Brighton on 1:29pm Thu 26 Jul 07
If the Argus were to make some enquiries of the council in Brighton & Hove, they would find they have spent at least double that of LDC.
quote:
Posted by: Septicman, Brighton on 2:13pm Thu 26 Jul 07
quote:
Easy 10 wrote: Well being as its YOU, Septicman, making these wild claims about Brighton & Hove City Council spending double that of LDC, how about you back up YOUR assertions with some E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ? Hmmm ?
I don't need to. Even if I did, you wouldn't believe me. So use your noddle and go and have a look for yourself.
quote:
Posted by: Septicman, Brighton on 7:30pm Thu 26 Jul 07
quote:
Buzzer wrote: Peter yes, a human right to express an opinion. It's also a human right to ask for proof if someone is blatantly lying through their front teeth about something. Septicman has peddled lie after lie after lie on this subject. We ask repeatedly for evidence and he goes coy. If you were being repeatedly lied about by someone who has openly stated that he wants something you love finished, you'd lose your rag too. We have held protest after protest after peaceful protest. No-one has EVER been arrested or questioned by police for physical or verbal intimidation of the NIMBYS so kindly keep your prejudices about football fans in check. And for the record Septicman is actually a CACKBASGER. The proof is out there if you just spent 5 minutes looking.
If you stopped ranting and started thinking, you would realise that the place to find the information as an ordinary member of the public is the most obvious place to look. In terms of lies, as an ordinary member of the public I have looked at both sides of the argument and interpreted what I believe I see, just like anyone else. I will not be browbeaten into believing something that appears completely illogical.
quote:
Posted by: Septicman, Brighton on 9:18pm Thu 26 Jul 07
quote:
buzzer wrote: moving the goalposts again then I see. You specifically said it would easy to find in 5 minutes. Well, I spent an hour and found that Brighton and hove Council do not have the figures compiled. i.e. NO-ONE has ever made an FOI request for this. You said you had the facts to hand so PUT UP OR SHUT UP. What's the matter, septic. Getting cornered by your own deceit?
Not at all. Subject closed.
quote:
So far from being wrong time after time, I have yet to be proved wrong. Again.
You keep believing what you like, septic.
I have better things to do with my time now than waste it on trying to make sense of your nonsense. After all, I can now look forward to taking my children to see their local football team in a stadium we can all be proud of. Three years is a long time to wait, but I'm sure we'll manage.
I suggest you find another outlet for your hatred, as I'll be trying to ignore you from now on, and hope that the others who have been trying to correct your rubbish over the last few years will do the same. |
| septicman |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 21:13:24
quote:
Originally posted by sully
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
I have never sought to compare legal costs with legal costs - that is someone's invention.
Glad to see you're still on form, Septic!
You may not have sought to compare legal costs with legal costs, because when you do you find that it's £140k to LDC and £62k B&HCC. What you tried to do was compare LDCs legal costs with the total expenditure by B&HCC, which is an unfair comparison.
Do you ever hold your hands up and admit you're wrong? Actually, I know the answer to that, as you've been proved wrong time and time again.
And by the way, none of the £140k is refundable to LDC. The costs they will receive back are those relating to the appeal, not the two inquiries, the cost of which is not included in either the LDC or B&HCC figures above.
Good to see that you're still peddling your usual inaccuracies. The figures for legal costs were sent to me by the council over a year and a half ago. Much water has gone under the bridge since then, which of course hasn't been costed in any reply given by the council. It is your invention that I have only been talking about legal costs. If you look at the article in the Argus that prompted this, you will see that only £60k are described as LDC legal costs, the others are not described as legal costs. Nor have you taken into account the money that can be reclaimed by LDC. To only take into account the legal costs on both sides would be seriously inaccurate. Unfortunately, your little chum numpty boy on NSC asked the wrong question and you are now furiously backtracking. He almost certainly only asked for the legal costs incurred during the course of the two public enquiries without thinking the thing through. There are even quotes on NSC stating there is content in the Argus comments attributable to me, when even a cursory glance would reveal that this is not true.
So far from being wrong time after time, I have yet to be proved wrong. Again. |
| sully |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 17:01:12
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
I have never sought to compare legal costs with legal costs - that is someone's invention.
Glad to see you're still on form, Septic!
You may not have sought to compare legal costs with legal costs, because when you do you find that it's £140k to LDC and £62k B&HCC. What you tried to do was compare LDCs legal costs with the total expenditure by B&HCC, which is an unfair comparison.
Do you ever hold your hands up and admit you're wrong? Actually, I know the answer to that, as you've been proved wrong time and time again.
And by the way, none of the £140k is refundable to LDC. The costs they will receive back are those relating to the appeal, not the two inquiries, the cost of which is not included in either the LDC or B&HCC figures above.
|
| Control Panel |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 12:52:35
It's all very well for septicman to claim that his arse is "nice" but he is prejudiced in its favour and does not supply any independent evidence for this assertion. |
| septicman |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 12:41:23
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert
Your arse.
Nice. |
| No Expert |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 12:27:39
Your arse. |
| septicman |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 20:58:22
quote:
Originally posted by The Martlet
quote:
Originally posted by Dingo
quote:
Originally posted by The Martlet
Unless I am very much mistaken, Dingo, that is on the record.
You obviously know very little of these men, have not met them nor followed the saga for the last ten years.
You presented it as your opinion. Where is it recorded.
Just because I haven't been posting here that often you shouldn't assume I haven't been reading or following it.
I took it as a jibe at the men and that they are only in it for themselves, hence the part about knowing nothing of these men.
There is obviously no hard evidence that they are not out to screw people over, but you only have to look at what they have done for the Albion in the Community scheme to see that they are not that type of board.
Septic - you are comparing legals costs of LDC to legal costs of B&HCC plus other costs! What a marvellous bit of twisting there.
The total LD costs (consultants and officers as well as legal costs) is over £350k. This is more than B&HCC who have 75% of the land in their jurisdiction and 98% of the construction site by area.
Source of the £350k? Please tell me where it is on the record.
I have never sought to compare legal costs with legal costs - that is someone's invention. And to do so would not give a fair reflection on what it has cost both councils to get where we are today. In addition, my note was received May 2006. There has been plenty of activity since then that incurs costs. Even if I am wrong about the total costs on either side - and I would only concede that when we see full costs - taxpayers in both areas have paid enormous sums for what appeared to be a foregone conclusion. I suspect understanding the full costs on either side is a matter of asking the right question. Just asking the council what they spent on the costs of the enquiry will not answer the whole question.
As for the 98% implying that LDC should have no say, if your neighbour grew trees next door that blocked your light at home, you would have a legitimate case for having them pruned or cut down, despite their being 100% on someone elses's property. So it is with the stadium, and LDC protecting both the AONB and their residents. LDC were perfectly entitled to act the way they did. You can bet your last penny that if the decision went against them, then the club would have appealed if they had no other choice of location. The reason the decision took so long was because a location was chosen that was at the very least contentious. Then of course Prescott showed his biased hand by cocking up the first decision letter. When the idea of a stadium was first mooted, there were plenty of other locations that could have been considered that no-one could have cared less about, e.g. the station site.
I'm unsure as to why the taxpayer is paying for all this. Will B&HCC seek to get the club to pay for the costs incurred by the taxpayer?
BTW, and as you know but haven't said, much of the LDC £140k can be reclaimed.
Interestingly, there was a small article in the Argus recently that mentioned a new store had been opened in Shoreham providing 100 NEW jobs. There was no fanfare apart from the small article. Is it possible do you think that the council spent £250k++ attracting those jobs here? |
| The Martlet |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 19:40:20
quote:
Originally posted by Dingo
quote:
Originally posted by The Martlet
Unless I am very much mistaken, Dingo, that is on the record.
You obviously know very little of these men, have not met them nor followed the saga for the last ten years.
You presented it as your opinion. Where is it recorded.
Just because I haven't been posting here that often you shouldn't assume I haven't been reading or following it.
I took it as a jibe at the men and that they are only in it for themselves, hence the part about knowing nothing of these men.
There is obviously no hard evidence that they are not out to screw people over, but you only have to look at what they have done for the Albion in the Community scheme to see that they are not that type of board.
Septic - you are comparing legals costs of LDC to legal costs of B&HCC plus other costs! What a marvellous bit of twisting there.
The total LD costs (consultants and officers as well as legal costs) is over £350k. This is more than B&HCC who have 75% of the land in their jurisdiction and 98% of the construction site by area.
|
| Dingo |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 12:40:03
quote:
Originally posted by The Martlet
Unless I am very much mistaken, Dingo, that is on the record.
You obviously know very little of these men, have not met them nor followed the saga for the last ten years.
You presented it as your opinion. Where is it recorded.
Just because I haven't been posting here that often you shouldn't assume I haven't been reading or following it. |
| septicman |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 11:34:25
What I received:
"Subject to a final legal agreement, the Council has agreed to provide the
land for the stadium development but will not otherwise be responsible for
the financing or implementation of the project. The Council agreed to
allocate the land for the stadium and supported the scheme through two
public inquiries because it believes the project to be beneficial to the
city as a whole and, in particular, to disadvantaged areas in the vicinity
of the proposed stadium.
So far as the money spent to date in support of the project is concerned,
the Council's recorded costs on the two public inquiries (a statutory part
of the planning process) were £41,200 in 2004/05 and £20,600 in 2005/06.
Additionally, £250,000 was spent in the period 2002/03 and 2003/04 from the
council's Strategic Investment Fund on the council's costs relating to the
project". |
| The Martlet |
Posted - 31/08/2007 : 19:44:08
Unless I am very much mistaken, Dingo, that is on the record.
You obviously know very little of these men, have not met them nor followed the saga for the last ten years. |
| Dingo |
Posted - 31/08/2007 : 19:41:24
From The Martlet
"Dick Knight and the board are not unscrupulous men who intend to screw innocent people out of money."
Let's have that on record |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 31/08/2007 : 19:07:33
And no where near as much as they have spent on the KA and other spurious development bids. |
| The Martlet |
Posted - 31/08/2007 : 16:06:30
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Hi Martlet, your comments throw up as many questions as they answer. If the club is £12-13m in debt, it will be interesting to see how they will cope with it in addition to the costs of putting the stadium in place. Any chance they'll be doing a Ken Bates?
Dick Knight and the board are not unscrupulous men who intend to screw innocent people out of money. There is simply no comparison to Ken Bates in the slightest!! The vast majority of the debt seems to be private debt to the directors, as opposed to the bank and HMRC. I don't have all the answers as the stadium finance package has not been released to the common man.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
What does "transferred" mean? The council apparently will have neither financial or administrative involvement. But who will ultimately own and control the use of the land? Presumably, there will be covenants established to restrict control so that the land can't be sold to avoid another Goldstone fiasco?
From my understanding, the land will be owned by the stadium company which in turn will have stakeholders. I am sure I read that the Council will be offered a stake in the company.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Why will people want to lend £25m to a club with no assets BTW? The business plan calls for a level of attendance way above that enjoyed now. For anyone, the loan appears a punt, unless secured against other assets, which one might expect to be put up personally by the directors......
The same reason why banks are willing to lend money to common folk. It is a profit driven industry. Again, I don't know the full details, but it was motted that the finances were in place and various grants and private funding have been pulled in.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Virtually all the income is dependant on fans putting their hands in their pockets, and watching in numbers way above what the club have achieved either at Withdean OR at the Goldstone.
Difficult to compare the new stadium to Withdean and The Goldstone. There was a slump in viewing figures for all clubs in the 80s/90s, coupled with the fact that the team was creaking and groaing under the pressure of mismanagement (Goldstone days) and now we have inadequate facilities open to the elements of Mother Nature. With a high quality stadium and the chance to offer a range of competitive prices, then the future is much brighter.
Reading are a good example. They managed to pull in crowds of 15,000+ , when they had survived on less than Brighton for so long.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
As for the parking, I would expect the club to maximise its revenue by working as close to the limits of the planning permission as possible. Cars still remain the transport of choice for those that have them.
Speculation.
Plus, cars do not remain the transport of choice for those that have them. There are plenty of fans that use the train/foot/bus to access Withdean. You would realise this if you have seen the queues for the buses and the supporters making their way to Preston Park Station.....and the aprking is FREE round there.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
TV money is paid to clubs come what may, as they all take a share of money being put into a division.
Indeed it is. Which is why we need a stadium so that we can maximise our potential and reap the benefits of being in a higher division. We have spent 3 seasons in the Championship, despite being heavily handicapped compared to all of the other clubs that have done so.
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
If the club is outsourcing, how will it measure and monitor the effectiveness of local, i.e. East Brighton recruitment, and how will it monitor and present the results to the rest of the communit? Will it even bother?
Are they outsourcing?
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
The events are limited because, like the stadium, they intrude on nature and quality of the AONB. Remember, even the decision letter stated the stadium will cause significant harm to the AONB. The enquiry and both decision letters accepted very few arguments in favour of the stadium EXCEPT for the jobs and the "socio-economic" benefits - which were very vague indeed.
That is because you are a sceptic, Septic.
Ps
Easy 10 has come up with the figures for B&HCC
Dear Dave,
I apologise for the delay in replying to your original question. This was partly due to key people being on leave.
The answer to your question is that a total of £62,583 was incurred by this council over the course of the two public inquiries in 2003 and 2005.
I hope this is helpful.
Chris Mortimer
Project Manager
Major Projects Team
Not quite double, eh Septic? |
| septicman |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 13:22:47
Hi Martlet, your comments throw up as many questions as they answer. If the club is £12-13m in debt, it will be interesting to see how they will cope with it in addition to the costs of putting the stadium in place. Any chance they'll be doing a Ken Bates?
What does "transferred" mean? The council apparently will have neither financial or administrative involvement. But who will ultimately own and control the use of the land? Presumably, there will be covenants established to restrict control so that the land can't be sold to avoid another Goldstone fiasco?
Why will people want to lend £25m to a club with no assets BTW? The business plan calls for a level of attendance way above that enjoyed now. For anyone, the loan appears a punt, unless secured against other assets, which one might expect to be put up personally by the directors......
Virtually all the income is dependant on fans putting their hands in their pockets, and watching in numbers way above what the club have achieved either at Withdean OR at the Goldstone.
As for the parking, I would expect the club to maximise its revenue by working as close to the limits of the planning permission as possible. Cars still remain the transport of choice for those that have them.
TV money is paid to clubs come what may, as they all take a share of money being put into a division.
If the club is outsourcing, how will it measure and monitor the effectiveness of local, i.e. East Brighton recruitment, and how will it monitor and present the results to the rest of the communit? Will it even bother?
The events are limited because, like the stadium, they intrude on nature and quality of the AONB. Remember, even the decision letter stated the stadium will cause significant harm to the AONB. The enquiry and both decision letters accepted very few arguments in favour of the stadium EXCEPT for the jobs and the "socio-economic" benefits - which were very vague indeed. |
| The Martlet |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 12:30:47
Septic, I am lead to believe that the land will be transferred to the stadium company. The current debt owed to the directors will be transferred into a stadium stake. I don't think a huge amount of details have been released thus far, as it is still work in progress. I.e. The i's need dotting and the t's need crossing.
According to released plan, funding will come principally from grants, sponsorship, catering rights, loans secured against season-ticket sales, and contributions from the football club.
I think there is something along the lines of a £25m mortgage in the offing to be payable over a long period of time.
I don't see why they should not apply for permission to host more than two concerts etc. if the events run smoothly and cause minimal disruption to the local residents. I think you are wrong about supporting commercial developments. Where would they go? In the proposed national park?
IP - Only Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal have more than two/three appearances on TV per season. Simply because they have an army of armchair fans and SKY leech off them.
As for Parking, the SoS recognises that parking will be shared with University of Sussex and Falmer High School and will not be solely for the use of the stadium traffic. There were no objections to the proposed conditions at the inquiry! This should be fairly easy to limit. I think there is a plan to pre-sell parking spaces in order to make a smooth transition. There is going to be an assured drive to 'force' people to use sustainable transport methods. When compared with the other sites previewed, it certainly offers the best chance of discouraging people from using cars. |
| Infinite Poppadum |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 09:39:14
And if it's on telly, people will watch that rather than trek to Falmer... |
| septicman |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 09:27:47
I am simply giving the opportunity to the fans to discuss their £12-13m debt, and how it is going to be paid. The club will have no assets even once the stadium is built, as they will not own the land. Unlike other sites, such as the Madjeski, there is no planning permission (yet) for supporting commercial development such as a hotel, or lots of use of the stadium outside soccer games, e.g. concerts etc. Therefore, their income will be reliant on gate money, merchandise sales, catering/food and beverage income, and whatever they can make of conferencing etc., and the other peripheral activities. The club need TV money, but need to climb the leagues to maximise income. Given the current gates, this will be a struggle for them. Once the novelty is over, it will be interesting to see the "crowds", and whether they will come back. They need to be more than double what they are now, which will be a heck of a lot more than the current norm in the division they finde themselves in. It will be interesting to see who will lend money to the club with no securities. It apparently costs £50m to build Falmer; does this include the current debts, or do they need to be added to the £50m?
I am convinced that the club will eventually get whatever planning permission is needed to do whatever they want to do, especially if they get into financial trouble again.
The car parking spaces, wherever they are found, fall way outside of govt, guidelines. Much was made of the green aspects of the stadium, i.e. the rail travel. This has already been proven to be a nonsense by allowing their use.
As for the £25 tickets at Chelsea, have a look at their website. There are plenty of Prem clubs that have lower ticket prices than Brighton, in return for the best standard of soccer in the country. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 28/08/2007 : 06:30:46
I think that they may be referring to the parking places that already exist at the university |
| Drizzlecake |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 23:56:09
2000 to 3000 parking places??? In that field along with the stadium??
Blimey.... |
| The Martlet |
Posted - 27/08/2007 : 20:49:06
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
I can imagine facts are tiresome - they get in the way of pretending its something other than a small, vocal minority that give a real toss about the Albion.
It will be interesting to see how Falmer is funded. If the council continue to own the land then effectively the club have no assets. So who will lend money with no security? Will the directors provide securities? The business plan anticipates crowds the club haven't had for many, many years. The council have stated they will have neither financial nor administrative interest in the club. The question is, will they/have they handed over the land? The club really needs a sugar daddy as the fans "contribution" is insufficient for the club to pay its way.
As for picking on the club for when attendances drop, they have been going down for many years. It was the lack of interest from the people of Sussex and Brighton that caused the figures to drop at the Goldstone. On the other hand 40,000 voted for Falmer. Few have put their hands in their pocket though, which constitutes the real vote for a commercial enterprise. The reality is, £25 for the quality of football on display is a joke. You can get into Stamford Bridge and watch Chelsea for that.
Does the club owe the tax payer in any way? You know, the community? Is it paying its way?
I am not denying that the figures are correct. I was merely voicing my opinion as to why this was the case!
Small vocal minority as opposed to the 'silent majority' that you cling to. When will they make some sounds? You would have thought we would have heard some noises by now?!
The fans contribution is not sufficient, we rent, we have had to fund a expensive planning case and we are lacking a core asset due to the actions of the previous owners. Of course we are going to need some investment to steady the ship!!
You are right. You can get into Chelsea for £25, but I believe you would have to be considered a child.
You are obsessed with this saga. The correct decision has been reached by the SoS and the club can finally look forward to a bright future.
I don't know the ins and outs of the financial side of the stadium, as I don't believe these plans and figures have been released. The board have proven themselves to be astute owners. I daresay many club would have folded by now.
Build it and they will come. |
|
|
