We are inviting questions regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Nigel Eady County Ground via stadium@truststfc.com.
This news article will act as an ongoing repository of questions we receive.
Q1: What happens if there’s less than 50% turnout for the trust vote? Does it default to either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’, or is it something else, for example, does it become up to the trust board?
A: The vote doesn’t default to an affirmative. If either 50% of the membership do not vote or 75% of those TrustSTFC members who do vote do not support it, then consent will not be granted.
Q2: How does the JV board operate? Do the Eady reps get a vote?
A: The Joint Venture Agreement and Articles of Association govern the relationship between the parties. For day-to-day matters, a board resolution with the backing of at least one STFC director and one Trust director is required. For Restricted Actions (e.g. development of the stadium) unanimous consent is required by both shareholders (STFC and TrustSTFC). Eady Trust directors have a vote on all board resolutions.
Q3: What is TrustSTFC’s stance on the redevelopment proposal?
A: Redevelopment of the County Ground’s newest stand, combined with the displacement of a large number of supporters will no doubt lead to passionate debate about its pros and cons.
It is right that members and supporters provide their own uninfluenced opinion through the consultation process.
With that in mind, the Trust Board will not publicly comment on the merits of the proposals until the end of the consultation period.
Q4: Can the club force through redevelopment of the stadium if it fails to gain consent through the JV? The way the chairman is speaking recently, he is making it out as if it is already a done deal and is going to happen regardless.
A: No. The Club requires Landlord consent under the Lease to undertake such works. Unanimous consent of both the Club and the Trust (as shareholders of the joint venture company) is required.
Q5: When you ask us to vote Yes/No to the proposal can you also survey members on (a) whether they are in the impacted seats and (b) if they are likely to relocate to another area of the stadium.
A: During the consultation period we will be capturing fans sentiment towards the proposed redevelopment and whether they are affected in terms of losing their preferred seat. In terms of the vote it will be a simple for/against
Q6: When will there be a vote and how will this be organised?
A: The date of the vote is not set in stone as of yet. The consultation is due to start today (14th April) and will run for 3 weeks. Once the consultation is completed we will need to compile the feedback into a something useful and accessible for the Club, the club assess the feedback and sentiment gathered. The Vote will be hosted by TrustSTFC and will be emailed to members only.
Q7: As and when you have the time to answer I would just like to check for your answer to Q3; does this mean the Trust will not be making a recommendation on on whether to vote for or against to the membership prior to the vote? Or does it mean they will wait until the end of the consultation period & then provide a recommendation with the voting forms?
A: The Trust Board will share its view of the proposals at the end of the consultation period and ahead of any vote.
Q8: The plans show rows up to L being removed so why are rows up to P being removed?
A: The removal of the first five rows are to facilitate the addition of executive boxes. The remaining rows will be converted from “general admission” to “hospitality” for those using the new facilities but not sat in the corporate boxes.
Q9: If the trust and supporters agree to this proposal will the trust have to contribute to the costs as it owns 50% of the ground.
A: This is a Club (tenant) led development and therefore neither the JV, nor the Trust, will contribute to the costs.
Q10: We all know concepts look nothing like reality, just look at statue park. In the unlikely event this gets voted yes by members what is the mechanism to ensure the plans submitted by the club for planning permission match the concepts. If they vary from what members voted on can a revote be done to veto?
A: The consent for the Club to make a planning application will be linked to the final development plans submitted for approval. If they were to submit something different to what had been approved, we would challenge the validity of the application.
Q11: How will the trust ensure the club has the finance in place to carry out the works prior to the redevelopment starting? There would be nothing worst than ending up in a situation like Northampton and Port Vale with a half finished stand for a decade. How will the Trust minimise the chances of this happening?
A: We (along with a number of supporters) have asked for details of what the development will cost, where the funding is coming from and what the Club’s intent is with regards to construction partners. The contract for the works will need to be shared with the JV in order for it to satisfy the SBC buy-back provisions.
Q12: What are the reasons and caveats given from Swindon Borough Council in terms of the £1m value of investment required? Is there a reason why projects like the Legends Lounge, Statue Park, Club Shop and any repair or maintenance of current facilities do not count towards this? Given the manner in which the Abbey Stadium and Oasis matters have dragged out, it is difficult to imagine SBC as a strict, authoritarian custodian. Could the club and JV request the Council to publish any documentation pertaining to this to enable sound decision making during this consultation process?
A: The Sale and Purchase Agreement between the JV and SBC lists the required redevelopment to satisfy the buy-back clause as the Stratton Bank or such alternate provided that it is of a similar level to the Stratton Bank redevelopment and costs no less than £1m. Multiple, smaller projects will not satisfy this requirement. It was always the intent, and agreed between all parties, that significant redevelopment (of at a least £1m) on a single project should start within three years of signing the agreements.
Q13: Whilst it’s great that since the redevelopment announcement the Trust have seen a surge in people purchasing memberships (and in turn voting shares), is there anything that can be done to ensure the legitimacy of all those purchasing? I.e ensuring nobody at the club or connected to those at the club are purchasing large numbers of voting shares in order to swing the vote.
A: We are monitoring new applications to identify anything untoward.
Q14: Given that the vote is likely to hinge on the belief (or lack thereof) in the ability of the current hierarchy to deliver the redevelopment, will a “no” vote kill these plans completely, or will there be the possibility that the same plans can be put to a vote again if circumstances (ownership) changes?
A: There is no limit to the number of times the Club (as tenant) can apply for consent from the JV (as landlord). However, it is unlikely that multiple votes would take place unless the proposals were materially different.
Q15: Will the Trust make a prerequisite that full and complete accounts for the club are published prior to the vote taking place ?
A: Whilst we continue to lobby for greater detail in accounts & reporting, it is unlikely that this will happen before any vote on stadium redevelopment. It’s right that that the Trust do not create any barriers to a vote taking place, allowing members to make their democratic choice on whether to support the development or not.
We have also received a lot of questions that we cannot answer, we have combined questions to pass on to STFC for an answer:
- There is concern that the proposal may increase the debt owed to the chairman. How will the project be funded? Will it add further to the money owed to the Chairman?
- Is there a figure of how much this project will cost?
- There is a concern that the proposal will not yield a sufficient return, can the club share ROI and their projected income (both game and non game day) in assessing this proposal?
- Can the club explain why the proposal is to do work on the Don Rogers Stand and not the rest of the NECG when other areas of the ground may appear more ripe for attention?
- Will the club share details of the contractors appointed, should this proposal be passed?
- Should the proposal succeed, what will the new maximum attendance be and how will the club look to maintain atmosphere at the ground?
- If Trust agreement isn’t forthcoming, what would the owners plan to do next in regards to the purchase agreement of a project being required (at the specified value) within the timescale remaining?
- Why did the club tell potentially displaced season ticket holders of this prior to the sharing the proposal and the development vote?
- What guarantee do fans have that the proposals will represent the end product?
- What % of current hospitality facilities are used?
- With the plans showing more seating than I expected not being taken over by the corporate boxes would it be an option for those being displaced by the boxes be able to choose their seat to move back to once the work is completed before the work starts?
- I would feel happier to know I would be able to return to a reasonably located seat in the DRS after the construction had taken place where as at the moment I have no idea where I will end up?
- Can we get written legal confirmation of all those involved in this first project please. Written guarantees that work/contracts won’t find their way to associated STFC people etc, and that they won’t be involved in financing the project or creaming money out of the project and will have no involvement at all.
- What is the timescale of the development?
- Will the development be phased?
- Will the club take the opportunity to improve the sound system in the DRS?
- Does the club have plans to accommodate a quicker exit from the stadium as part of this overhaul of the DRS?
- Due to a lack of trust. Can we receive written proof of funds before we vote??
- Will stage 1 be guaranteed to be completed over the close season
- If the club turn this into a phased delivery, would that comply with the requirement? and if so, does the JV have oversight to ensure all works are contracted?
- How do the 450 ‘hospitality’ seats in the DR stand access the new hospitality suite area on level one? Will the area containing the 450 hospitality seats be separated from the normal seats behind them? How much will a season ticket / day ticket cost in one of the 450 hospitality seats ? If you cannot give specific price then what is the intended percentage markup over a normal DR seat ? Does a hospitality seat give only access to the new level one hospitality suite or are they ‘full’ hospitality with food and drink similar to the 1879 suite in Arkells ?
- I notice that the plans for the new reception area at the back of the DRS show the removal of several trees to accommodate this part of the plan. When I was talking to one of the builders when they were building the Statue Park he said that they had applied to remove a couple of trees by the club shop but were refused because there is a TPO (Tree Preservation Order) on the row of trees behind the DRS. Would the club be able to overturn TPO`s ?
- Would it not be a good idea to show which seats are involved. The whole DonRogers showing seats available for those needing to be change. Also keep it up dated. Also which seats will not be there again. We are in M row. The guy at shop basically laughed when we asked whether our seats will be available after the boxes are completed
- Why are the executive boxes not being extended right across the DRS? Surely this should be done once and for all?
- Are the floodlights being retained in situ? What is the long term plan? Is there any documented master plan the club is working to?
- My concern is a small but vital point for us aging supporters who struggle with our knees and flexibility. The current seats are about 4/5 inches too low for me to bend my knees enough to sit down. Luckily the seat in front is often empty so I can push my feet into the seat area in front. If I couldn’t do this I have to bring something to put on the seat to raise me up. So many stadiums cram supporters into tiny cheap seats, with notable exceptions like MK Dons and Arsenal. Given we pay thousands of pounds over the years for our seats, what is happening to make them comfortable and accessible for the less able physically.
- Is there any plan to install solar panels on the roof of the DRS as part of its redevelopment? This should definitely be considered, as it would comply with green standards and potentially reduce the club’s energy expenses.
- Anderson and Prescott are notable architects in terms of residential and commercial operations, but do not appear to have completed a sports stadium project before. It was reported that STFC were previously in negotiations with KSS, who have completed a number of elite level stadium and sports developments. What were the reasons for not proceeding with the KSS deal?
- Given delays and issues with previous, smaller scale projects – what do the club plan to do to give Trust members the assurance that these projects will be appropriately funded and finished on schedule?
- Will us season ticket holders who have sat in that area for a number of seasons now, be given first option to purchase a box?
- What are the other projects that the Club have seriously looked at doing first, at what stage did those other ideas ruled out and why?
- Can it be asked to the club why the plans have a corridor to a hotel when the covenant on the land would seem not to allow a hotel?