If we drop down the leagues we'd probably be alright using Greyfields for a few years.

That would be the end

Was taking to a Falkirk fan earlier, this is their newest stand, they built it in 2009, it has 2,000 seats and nothing underneath, it was in an empty side of the existing ground, so was no need for any additional infrastructure. It cost them £2m. It seems to be around £1M per 1,000 seats for a basic stand, plus additional for the infrastructure of a new ground, offices, changing rooms etc..

Rotherham has additional facilities below the stands, which increases the costs up front, but would allow for additional income streams for the club.

The big risk in my eyes is that Singh is coming into the club for its property worth not for wanting to own a football club. He has a history of closing a club down. But he seems to be the only option and he does have business acumen and funds. So how can the Trust/Jeff protect the football interests? If Singh is getting 80% of the shares for 66% of the investment (and presumably the 'profit' from selling the ground and the property development) then the Trust/Jeff should get the 'football share'. That would protect the status of the football club and enable a phoenix club in the future. Singh shouldn't be concerned by that ownership. Secondly the Asset of Community Value tag that applies to the Vic should give us some comfort that if the final property scheme is not what fans want then we will have the option to purchase the site.

Just as an aside, would the ACV protect the Vic from the stands being demolished etc if Sage put the club into administration/liquidation?

The ACV just gives the community the opportunity to bid it doesn't offer 'protection' as such just a timeframe in which to make a suitable offer. At least that's my understanding.

My question was more to do with whether the stands/permanent buildings form part of the ACV and whether an administrator could remove the stands etc without going through the offer process or does the ACV apply only to the playing field.

The main function of an ACV is to act as an early warning system. After notification of a proposal, no sale can take place for six months.

Just thinking about this, it would make more sense if the deal was
- new owner is offered the Marina land, and the Mill House area
- ground stays under Council ownership
- the new owner can develop the site of the Mill House baths and car-park (hopefully keeping the pub) for property development that he can sell for his own profit.
- the new owner also builds a new community-use Leisure Centre on the Marina land, operational profits go to Pools to make the club more sustainable.

So the new owner gets the profits from the house sales, minus the cost of the leisure centre and minus the cost of saving the club.
Pools get saved, and have more non-match day income, and use of a new leisure centre for training
The council get more housing (more council tax), get The Leisure Centre replaced and get the Mill House area revamped.

Everyone is a winner

The problem with all this development talk is that these developers rarely go it alone. George Houghton got planning permission to do all sorts around the arena but could find any other backers, other than Singh, to help fund it. The permissions were still in place when Singh had the club but refused to pay Scott & Sizer (who Houghton mortgaged the stadium with) the money they wanted to transfer it back to the club, £1.8m I believe.
Now I know Singh isn't short of a bob or two but what if he is wanting other developers to join him in this project and they say no because it isn't financially advantageous to them? He spent two years trying to get other investors involved at Darlo with no luck. What happens if he doesnt have the backers and funds again this time and he sees more and more money flying out of his bank account like he did at Darlo?

If you have a 2-year project, you’d want to know that there are funds in place to complete it before you agree to take it on, rather than hope that they will be found within the first 18-months. If you got 18-months in and didn’t have the rest secured, then you’ve run out of cash and you’re screwed.

Plus, the fan’s response to being asked to contribute to a fund just now to save the club (with the other option being extinction), would be much different to the response to being asked to contribute once a takeover is completed, with the threat of liquidation removed. People will contribute more to an emergency.

Singh took over at Darlo on the hope that the fans would chip in to help, when it didn’t happen to the level that he wanted, it all ended acrimoniously, as he was expected to fund the gap. I see this position as him saying that he wants to have the investment secured in advance, to avoid the same situation happening again.

On Saturdays I go to the Vic to watch my TEAM. Who pays their wages or who owns the club is of secondary interest.

Over the years everything changes: the owners, the players, the background staff etc with the one exception - the Vic.
Whichever team plays at the Vic hopefully wearing blue and white strip is Hartlepool(s) United so the idea that multiple pheonix clubs could survive playing at Grayfields Enclosure or the Rec is highly unlikely.

I’m in too but would like to hear from Raj and if not him at least from Jeff.

Your cut

‘Community use leisure centres’ don’t make profits.

Except he didn’t. This is just something he’s been recently peddling to make himself look better. He took over because he saw the value of the land associated with the stadium and when he realised he wasn’t going to get his hands on it and the restrictive covenants wouldn’t be lifted he made his excuses and legged it.

The bloke has a different story for every day of the week. Stelling reckons Darlo fans have only one side of the story, To be fair to Stelling,he only has Singhs current version of events. Wonder what the likes of Nick Loughlin think of this since he works next to Craig Stoddart who had first hand on the events at Darlo.

Nick Loughlin thinks what he's told to think.