Brandon Update

[SteveLyric2]

1 hour ago, SPEEDY69 said:

But no-oe is suggesting they won't get the rental. If the prospective promoters are happy to pay it I still don't see what crowd sizes at other tracks matter to this hearing. Have BE stated what rent they'd expect? 

BE will set the rent at whatever level they wish - maybe just to be bloody-minded if they lose the appeal.  I think Osborne said Poole's rent was currently £2.5k per meeting which is just for one sport at the stadium.

[SPEEDY69]

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

BE will set the rent at whatever level they wish - maybe just to be bloody-minded if they lose the appeal.  I think Osborne said Poole's rent was currently £2.5k per meeting which is just for one sport at the stadium.

And Matt Ford said no problem to that and to whatever the stock car man might want, so all the talk about numbers at Swindon seems totally irrelevant. 

[Triple.H.]

A stadium owner much like the owner if any venue cannot say the sport etc is unviable.

The owner sets a rent as long as they get paid the rent the sport is viable.

If I as a violinist, (which I'm not) wished to hire the Royal Albert Hall out for one day a week between March and October to rehearse, paying whatever the owners deem a reasonable price

 Would they turn me down if a CEO said that was an unviable arrangement 

[Deano]

11 hours ago, Triple.H. said:

A stadium owner much like the owner if any venue cannot say the sport etc is unviable.

The owner sets a rent as long as they get paid the rent the sport is viable.

If I as a violinist, (which I'm not) wished to hire the Royal Albert Hall out for one day a week between March and October to rehearse, paying whatever the owners deem a reasonable price

 Would they turn me down if a CEO said that was an unviable arrangement 

I guess the only way they would, is if they didn’t think they’d get there money. If I owed the Albert Hall and thought it were a risk, I’d ask for a large proportion up front, or some kind of guarantee.  But if speedway has been there x years and has a proven return by a reliable promotion, then there shouldn’t be any issues.
 

[The Dog]

On 10/5/2023 at 6:32 PM, Skidder1 said:

BE will set the rent at whatever level they wish - maybe just to be bloody-minded if they lose the appeal.  I think Osborne said Poole's rent was currently £2.5k per meeting which is just for one sport at the stadium.

I think your right, BE could make the rent so ridiculously high that it does make sport there unviable, but hopefully, that would only happen if they manage to put the stadium back to how they found it on the night motorsports ended, and we all know that they won't do that 

[1 valve]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:41 PM, marko said:

The council can’t make them sell the land, but whether legally possible, could they pass a motion that the land is to be retained for the exclusive use of sport for the next 10, 20, 30 years?
 

Short answer is "no". 
The council can insist that the land is maintained in a safe and secure manner. That's about it. 

[1 valve]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:13 PM, Skidder1 said:

Viability is still relevant to the BE case as they would still own the site and expect a 'healthy' rental from any users.

BE are not be remotely interested in renting the site for speedway or stox. Because,
1, In doing so it disproves their case,
2, It would mean a delay to any new build housing as rental leases would take precedent.
3, They don't need the cash and increases in land values over time guarantees them a secure return on their investment as they are in it for the long haul as per all developers.
The only way BE will give upon Brandon is if this phase of planning is rejected beyond a reasonable compromise being possible and somebody makes them a very decent cash offer for them to move away from their current thinking and trajectory. and developers do not like acquiring land only to have to give it up. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by 1 valve

[Fromafar]

2 hours ago, 1 valve said:

BE are not be remotely interested in renting the site for speedway or stox. Because,
1, In doing so it disproves their case,
2, It would mean a delay to any new build housing as rental leases would take precedent.
3, They don't need the cash and increases in land values over time guarantees them a secure return on their investment as they are in it for the long haul as per all developers.
The only way BE will give upon Brandon is if this phase of planning is rejected beyond a reasonable compromise being possible and somebody makes them a very decent cash offer for them to move away from their current thinking and trajectory. and developers do not like acquiring land only to have to give it up. 

Like you say they will just sit on it. Doing anything else weaken their case.

[old bob at herne bay]

On 10/10/2023 at 5:01 PM, Fromafar said:

Like you say they will just sit on it. Doing anything else weaken their case.

Sadly that's the most likely outcome IMO . Whatever  happens to BE at this hearing , they cannot be forced to sell THEIR land and why would they want to consider renting THEIR land to anyone ? ?

[SteveLyric2]

Inquiry adjourned further by 3 weeks to 27/28 November.

[steve roberts]

I've just laid my hands on the "Speedway Star" edition where Clarke Osbourne was interviewed. He quotes that speedway is no longer viable which may or may not be the case but Osbourne is/was only interested in selling off assets to make money otherwise why did he sell Cowley Stadium back in the middle seventies when crowds were good at Oxford and speedway was generally thriving? Personally his views don't wash with me knowing his past history and involvement with speedway stadia down the years.

[Toady]

Yeh, but it ain’t you he’s trying to convince is it

[steve roberts]

15 minutes ago, Toady said:

Yeh, but it ain’t you he’s trying to convince is it

Never said it was however it's up to those inolved with the enquiry to arrive at a conclusion based on his comments/observations baring in mind his past record.

[arnieg]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:41 PM, marko said:

If Brandon Estates are happy to sit on the land for years to come hoping that a change of mind might happen that that will be that.

The council can’t make them sell the land, but whether legally possible, could they pass a motion that the land is to be retained for the exclusive use of sport for the next 10, 20, 30 years?

No. The council has a statutory obligation to draw up local plan containing appropriate planning policies for the area and designating land uses. 

However the plan goes through a long process including consultation and potentially public enquiry. Any plan policy saying the land must be used for a particular sport would be regarded as too narrow and never get through. The present policy is about as strong as could realistically be expected. 

[Toady]

21 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Never said it was however it's up to those inolved with the enquiry to arrive at a conclusion based on his comments/observations baring in mind his past record.

No its got nothing at all  to do with his past record unfortunately

[steve roberts]

46 minutes ago, Toady said:

No its got nothing at all  to do with his past record unfortunately

Unfortunately I would have to agree (now there's a first!) but comments he made in "The Star" were somewhat ambiguous and open to question which is what I was commenting upon from a personal point of view and knowing first hand the circumstances at Cowley in the middle seventies. There was also his involvement at Bristol as part of a consortium that didn't get the necessary planning permission despite operating for a couple of years which in my opinion questions his "integrity" but that's for others to question and decide if they wish to go down that particular line of enquiry?

Edited October 13, 2023 by steve roberts

[Toady]

59 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Unfortunately I would have to agree (now there's a first!) but comments he made in "The Star" were somewhat ambiguous and open to question which is what I was commenting upon from a personal point of view and knowing first hand the circumstances at Cowley in the middle seventies. There was also his involvement at Bristol as part of a consortium that didn't get the necessary planning permission despite operating for a couple of years which in my opinion questions his "integrity" but that's for others to question and decide if they wish to go down that particular line of enquiry?

Neither of the two barristers for council or scs  challenged him on his record in business sad to say , he was only questioned around stadium/speedway/Stox  viability to which he had done his homework and used his questionable experience.

[steve roberts]

3 minutes ago, Toady said:

Neither of the two barristers for council or scs  challenged him on his record in business sad to say , he was only questioned around stadium/speedway/Stox  viability to which he had done his homework and used his questionable experience.

As a matter of interest is his role in the enquiry just an advisory one or does he have a vestige interest in proceedings? 

[Toady]

3 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

As a matter of interest is his role in the enquiry just an advisory one or does he have a vestige interest in proceedings? 

He isn’t anything to do with Brandon estates but I think they reached out to him after his success at Swindon and considering the work his team have put in on behalf of BE a large brown envelope will have been presented to him(I expect a nice bonus to be given if planning is granted)

[steve roberts]

55 minutes ago, Toady said:

He isn’t anything to do with Brandon estates but I think they reached out to him after his success at Swindon and considering the work his team have put in on behalf of BE a large brown envelope will have been presented to him(I expect a nice bonus to be given if planning is granted)

I'm sure that there is some truth in that!

By the way it's good that we have managed to have a civil conversation which can only be a good thing!