|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 6, 2013 22:55:36 GMT
I have come across this as a discussion point on a few club supporter sites. Basically it is a process that does what it says on the tin; it's there to protect assets which the community values. In a football sense it is a way for the local community to prevent their football stadium being sold for alternative use from under their feet.
The process allows the community to say well don't sell it, we may never be able to replace it.It allows a timescale of up to six months for any change procedures to be put on hold so that alternatives can be considered and negotiations can take place with any involved parties to keep football in the community in question.
Some may remember York City being faced with their ground being sold from under them by an unscrupulous owner not so long ago. There is the Brighton fiasco further back and no doubt many other examples you can remember.
It is an understandable and probably worthwhile item for consideration for clubs that do not enjoy the benefits our ownership brings to Stoke City in terms of stability and well being. I was therefore somewhat surprised to see this had been raised as a discussion point with the club by our own cuddly Supporters Council. The minutes of the most recent meeting read:
The above suggests that a reason the item should be considered was as a way of telling the club how much we all really, really love it. Tony Scholes seems to think it was more likely to be seen as an insult. I tend to see his point but it isn't really a very satisfactory explanation of why it was raised in the first place.
The only reasons I can think of to explain why the Supporters Council would want to discuss such a seemingly pointless (in the case of Stoke City) scheme are:
They have some genuine concerns that the Britannia Stadium is or could be earmarked for some development use other than the obvious current function.
or
The Supporters Council somehow feels obliged to bring up any old scheme/policy of national supporters groups regardless of its relevance to our club and its supporters.
If it is the former then I'd rather like to think it is news that would be shared with the supporters in general and if it is the latter then it rather flies in the face of purpose but a preferable alternative to discovering the stadium could be viewed as a disposable asset.
Perhaps it is neither but I'd certainly like to know why it was felt worthwhile raising for discussion at a Stoke City supporters representative meeting?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 6, 2013 23:05:03 GMT
Surly relevant if when Denise sells the club lock, stock and barrel, whilst her Father's still warm?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 6, 2013 23:15:25 GMT
Surly relevant if when Denise sells the club lock, stock and barrel, whilst her Father's still warm? That's sort of why I am asking. I am interested in what motivated the matter being raised.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 6, 2013 23:25:27 GMT
I'm sure Malcolm will be along tomorrow to illuminate. Is the stadium used for any community activities anymore or just all revenue generators?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 6, 2013 23:35:42 GMT
I'm sure Malcolm will be along tomorrow to illuminate. Is the stadium used for any community activities anymore or just all revenue generators? It never was! Remember Les "the scrote' Scott getting all uptight about not being able to play badminton there when the anti-stoke City shite was campaigning in the then Sentvale against the council support and everything else when the stadium was opening?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 6, 2013 23:45:43 GMT
I'm sure Malcolm will be along tomorrow to illuminate. Is the stadium used for any community activities anymore or just all revenue generators? It never was! Remember Les "the scrote' Scott getting all uptight about not being able to play badminton there when the anti-stoke City shite was campaigning in the then Sentvale against the council support and everything else when the stadium was opening? Thinking of Les Scott makes me sick, Mark and yes I remember those pretty vicious anti Stoke days! They definitely did some stuff with local schools for a bit though I'm sure. Perhaps just Stokie Ted ticking a few boxes though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 1:32:56 GMT
(Not that I need to be speaking for Malcolm or any of the other SC Members - I'm sure they are more than capable of doing that for themselves when they wake up ... but it's early and I haven't had my lunch yet, so I'll waffle on about it anyway ... Don't mind me ... ) One version of the supporters council or another, over the years, has tried to get something put in writing, somewhere, to formally notify the club's owners/local-council/government that - because the club does not own it's ground, but that it is owned by a bookies (the same bookies that currently own the majority of the club) - the Britannia stadium is wanted, by the community of Stoke-on-Trent, to watch football (for now and forever and all that). (it is very possible to argue this would have been better done for the Vic ... about 30 years ago ... but too late now and that remains an undeveloped wasteland, I believe?) It's usually thought of as an issue if/when current owners were ever to sell the club - whether they sold the ground with the club or not - having the Brit protected as a Community Asset would mean the Coucil would be under pressure not to grant planning permission to turn it into a Tesco's distribution center, or whatever. But it would also have an effect if the owners looked to sell and lease back whilst the club remained under their ownership (as a few clubs have famously done, over the last decade or so). The issue has always received the same treatment from Dear Old Scholsey (please don't embarrass me in front of my employers) Saint Peter treats the issue with that mock horrified look he gets, when he doesn't want to talk about something Lord knows what the daughter in chief thinks ... but I'll bet she doesn't like the idea either And that's about that. I doubt The Family will do it (unless forced) - from their point of view the Brit is one of the few tangible assets that they have to show for their investment - And Scholsey indicates that by asking the SC to drop it (no change there) Whilst (almost) anything is a nice break from all of the moaning about the football ... I doubt this will be much of a diversion for very long.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 7, 2013 2:38:24 GMT
The only reasons I can think of to explain why the Supporters Council would want to discuss such a seemingly pointless (in the case of Stoke City) scheme are: They have some genuine concerns that the Britannia Stadium is or could be earmarked for some development use other than the obvious current function. or The Supporters Council somehow feels obliged to bring up any old scheme/policy of national supporters groups regardless of its relevance to our club and its supporters. Perhaps it is neither but I'd certainly like to know why it was felt worthwhile raising for discussion at a Stoke City supporters representative meeting? Because stadiums last longer than owners?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 3:13:47 GMT
It popped on here a few days back too. Maybe a few supporters reckon that because the club didn't sign a recognised striker (for whatever reason) in the summer, with a new manager in place, maybe they have percieved this as the beginning of the end for The Coates family's association with the club?
We all know how twitchy our support can get. It's hardly an insult is it? More of a case of 2 + 2 = 5 i'd say. Feels like Scholes was simply overstating the ridiculousness of the suggestion too. There's hardly a shortage of land up at Trentham Lakes either.
Or as you say Mark, maybe it's just one of those classic emotive discussion techniques, some call it turning the gas up, that's bled across from another Supporters Council and they thought they'd throw it into the mix as a bit of devilment in relation to the family's comittment? I can well imagine that ego, kidology and a bit of attrition comes into play in some of these meetings, although i've always thought that Malcolm is about as grounded as you can be. Has Malcolm said anything?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 7, 2013 6:49:19 GMT
Wouldn't it have been easier simply to ask the Supporter's Council to tell us the reasons, rather than speculate before asking them? To be fair, I think it would also have been helpful if the Supporters' Council had consulted the fans before raising the question with the club. A classic chicken and egg situation, I suppose. Still, whilst we are speculating my take on it is that, whilst we need have no fears about the current owners planning to asset strip the city of its stadium, I'd quite like something in place to, at best, "guarantee" and at the very least, make it very difficult, for any future owners to divorce the club and its ground. We have "benevolent" owners but it would possibly be too late to act to secure the ground if/when the ownership of the club was put up for sale in the future. Personally, I wish the Supporters' Council had not asked the question before consulting us, but what's done is done and they do now owe us a fully informed discussion on the subject.
|
|
yoc
Academy Starlet
Posts: 231
|
Post by yoc on Oct 7, 2013 16:43:28 GMT
I cannot see why anybody with the long term interests of the Club at heart, would have any problem with this? Any group of 20 or so local residents can do it. Maybe no problems with our present owners, but what about the future? Well done, the Fans Forum Member who brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by larrypotter on Oct 7, 2013 17:02:08 GMT
I would imagine that the current owners would not welcome it because it may devalue the asset in the event of any sale. If it were placed on the Local Authority's list it may delay a quick sale.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 7, 2013 23:00:53 GMT
John's considered speculation makes sense but it would be nice to have it from one of the horses mouths (so to speak)on what prompted a paper be presented to the club by representatives of the Supporters Council.
Speculation again but I assume the paper advocated the process as applicable to Stoke City. I'm still interested to know why. It may even help to explain why Mr Scholes kicked it so decisively into touch.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 0:22:18 GMT
It is what it says it is, Wooly. It's Listed Places status for places that aren't old/rare enough to be listed. Like churches and stately homes; it means private ownership is possible, but the owner can't turn it into a disco, nor paint the walls turquoise. I would imagine that the current owners would not welcome it because it may devalue the asset in the event of any sale. If it were placed on the Local Authority's list it may delay a quick sale. Yes, I would imagine that is true. Like Listed Buildings, fewer people want one when you can't whip the roof off and replace it with a massive pile of blamange* *God damn French. Can't speel for sh1te. I shall say this only once; 'Monge - obviously - has an "o" in it, not some random "A" malarky that requires you to speak like a cast member of Allo, Allo. Needs sorting out. Sharpish.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 5:36:29 GMT
It is what it says it is, Wooly. It's Listed Places status for places that aren't old/rare enough to be listed. Like churches and stately homes; it means private ownership is possible, but the owner can't turn it into a disco, nor paint the walls turquoise. I would imagine that the current owners would not welcome it because it may devalue the asset in the event of any sale. If it were placed on the Local Authority's list it may delay a quick sale. Yes, I would imagine that is true. Like Listed Buildings, fewer people want one when you can't whip the roof off and replace it with a massive pile of blamange* *God damn French. Can't speel for sh1te. I shall say this only once; 'Monge - obviously - has an "o" in it, not some random "A" malarky that requires you to speak like a cast member of Allo, Allo. Needs sorting out. Sharpish. Try including an 'n' and a 'c' as well - blancmange - sorted!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 5:39:55 GMT
John's considered speculation makes sense but it would be nice to have it from one of the horses mouths (so to speak)on what prompted a paper be presented to the club by representatives of the Supporters Council. Speculation again but I assume the paper advocated the process as applicable to Stoke City. I'm still interested to know why. It may even help to explain why Mr Scholes kicked it so decisively into touch. Dunno why the Council haven't joined in this thread, Mark - possibly the thread title just didn't ring alarm bells! I'll email a link to this thread to Malcolm Clarke and Angela Smith. EDIT: I've just emailed a link to Malcolm and Angela.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 8, 2013 8:43:33 GMT
I read the thread last night and felt as Malcolm had raised the issue, he should have the right to respond first. Given that he has not, he may well be very busy, I will do my best to clarify what happened. Malcolm chose to highlight a situation that is happening across the game by raising this point. He is entitled to request any item be placed on the agenda, as is any supporter. Tony Scholes answered for the club, feeling that it was inappropriate to continue with this as it would undoubtedly be seen in a negative light by the current owners of the football club. Several of the Council members went a little further in expressing their own views which ranged from being perplexed to being insulting to the current owners to even suggest such a matter.
I hope this clarifies the situation. On another point, if anyone feels that the Supporters Council is "cuddly" and requires a little more steel, why not stand as a rep? I certainly don't have time to waste and consider my role as a serious one as I am sure do all the other reps. Thanks for bringing the matter to everyone's attention, debate is always healthy in my opinion and I will happily answer any questions that I can on this issue as I am sure will Malcolm.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 10:06:16 GMT
Cheers for that Angela. I've just had a brief email from Malcolm. As you suggested he is busy but will try to respond on this thread later in the day.
Speaking purely personally, I can't see why the current owners (or Tony Scholes) would regard the raising of the matter as "insulting." There will be very few, if any, fans who would expect the current owners to asset strip the club of its stadium. By the same token there will be very few fans who would not have some concerns if the club were to be sold, that the new owners might not have the same benevolent attitude as the current owners. And the best time to put safeguards in place is surely BEFORE the club is sold and not after. Maybe Malcolm will add his thoughts when he posts.
Personally I hope the club will remain in the ownership of Bet365 and the Coates family for many years to come. Until/unless England adopts the German model of fan involvement and ownership of its football clubs, our current ownership set up at Stoke is fine.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 8, 2013 11:11:31 GMT
Stoke fans being frightened to death of upsetting the owners sensibilities and Scholes playing the camp outraged maiden Aunt on behalf of the people who pay him 3/4 Million quid a year and kicking it in to the long grass.
In terms of rigorous debate it sounds more like Des O'Connor and Joe Pasquale than Frost/Nixon.
Doesn't sound too much different from the toothless previous iterations of the Fans Forum steamrollered and side-lined by the dismissive Chief Executive.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 8, 2013 11:15:21 GMT
I am very happy to provide some background. Before looking at the ACV issue, there seems to be some misunderstanding about the way the Supporters Council operates. There are three categories of supporter reps. on the Council - direct reps. of supporters organisations; reps. of specific groups (e.g Q-railing upper; disabled supporters etc etc) and general seats. The Council meets with the club present, and, as Ange says, any member can put an item on the agenda. The Council as a collective body does not therefore raise issues with the club - individual members do, by placing items on the agenda. There are also working groups with the club on specific topic areas.
It would be possible for the Council to operate in a different way, by meeting without the Club and only taking proposals forward for discussion with the Club which the majority of members support. It would mean more meetings, and a much more formal way of working which in my personal opinion would be too restrictive on the role and rights of individual members. But it could be done that way if Council so decided.
As Ange says, I placed the ACV item on the agenda, following questions to me by supporters who had done exactly what Mark has done - seen web discussions on this at other clubs. I think at least 3 football grounds, Old Trafford, Anfield and the Kassam Stadium have been designated as ACVs and there are discussions elsewhere.
To assist the Council I produced a brief paper to explain what ACVs are. It doesn't say a great deal more than is already in this thread, but if anyone wants a copy - PM me with your email address and I'll happily send it to you. My intention was to raise awareness of the issue and discuss its appropriateness for the Brit.
One point which I tried to stress at the meeting, and do so here, is that it's not about the owners, it's about the asset, the ground. That's the whole point of the legislation. As Potterlog and Lakeland have said, grounds tend to last longer than owners. If, only a decade ago, someone had shown me a list of the people who own PL clubs today,or told me that the ownership and use of grounds at proud historic clubs like Portsmouth and Coventry would be fought out in the highest courts in the land, I simply would not have believed that it would happen. Designating the ground as an ACV is not a huge deal, because the powers are very limited anyway, but it is, if you like, a minor piece of future-proofing.
I genuinely thought that the owners might be comfortable with the idea. I know that Peter Coates sees the Club as an important part of the community in which he was born and has worked in all his life, and is rightly proud of the contribution both it and bet365 make to the local economy. I again heard him say so in a talk to the North Staffs Co-Op party only 10 days ago. Designating the ground as an ACV could be seen a symbolic indication of that, almost a badge of pride. My thinking was that if, at some point in the future, the club is sold, the current owners would in any case want that role and the ground protected, and therefore an ACV designation wouldn't be a problem. If it isn't sold, it makes no difference whatsoever.
I was wrong ! (it often happens !) as the CEO's strong response indicates. I simply don't understand the view expressed at the meeting that it could be seen as insulting the owners, for the reasons above. Speaking personally, I have huge respect for Peter Coates, who I personally know well from the FA Council, and for what he has done both for our Club and his local community. The last thing I would do is insult him.
Any decision to designate the ground as an ACV is one for the local Council to take. It is still open to a supporters or community group to make an application to the Council if they think it's worth doing.
For my part, having raised it, as requested, and explained it, and not got much interest or support from colleagues on the SC, I don't intend to spend more time on it at present. I've got plenty more urgent fish to fry. But at least by placing it on the agenda, which gave rise to this thread, the awareness of the issue has been raised, which is no bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 11:39:14 GMT
Cheers Malcolm.
Do we KNOW that Peter Coates and his family would regard the suggestion as insulting - or do we simply have Tony Scholes assertion that they would? If it is simply Scholes' assertion that they would then is the matter not worth pursuing with Peter and his family - at least to the point of requesting a face to face meeting to sound them out.
Surely they must be aware that not every possible future owner would have the same history of 70 years support that Peter has and that a sale of the club might pose a risk to the future of the stadium. Turn the question on its head and ask them what they feel is the best way to secure the future of the stadium if the club were to be sold.
If Peter wants to leave a lasting legacy then setting up some sort of security for the stadium would be a good way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 8, 2013 11:44:16 GMT
sheikhmomo, I repeat that anyone can stand for election. We didn't hear too many moans when we were involved in the organisation of free transport and continuing cheaper season ticket prices.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 8, 2013 11:47:24 GMT
sheikhmomo, I repeat that anyone can stand for election. We didn't hear too many moans when we were involved in the organisation of free transport and continuing cheaper season ticket prices. Do you think the issue was discussed rigorously then Ange. Do you think the CE understood the reasons for it being raised and gave it due consideration or do you think he is a bully who does whatever he wants?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 8, 2013 11:47:28 GMT
Why would any owner make his asset potentially less attractive to a potential buyer?
Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 8, 2013 11:50:04 GMT
Why would any owner make his asset potentially less attractive to a potential buyer? Or am I missing something? Wouldn't we as a 'community' want to discourage new owners who would be put off by this being in place though Pugs?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 8, 2013 11:56:08 GMT
Why would any owner make his asset potentially less attractive to a potential buyer? Or am I missing something? Wouldn't we as a 'community' want to discourage new owners who would be put off by this being in place though Pugs? Most probably but would any serious investor be interested if they couldn't own the whole shooting match? Also depends on the current owner and whether they give a shit or not once they have got back their money. To me this is misty eyed romanticism for a few individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 8, 2013 11:57:09 GMT
John - As I recall I think Tony said that he thought the owners would regard it as insulting, but I might be wrong about precisely what he said. It was certainly a negative message !
Had there been a decision to support at least further discussions from other Council members, it might have been appropriate to do as you say, but I would now have no mandate or authority to do so.
Also, as I said, it's not that big a deal because the powers are very limited anyway - essentially a delay on sale to give a chance for community bids. I saw it as much as a symbolic thing about what the football club is in its local community, not as something which is likely to have practical importance in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by tpholloway1 on Oct 8, 2013 12:05:34 GMT
Am I missing something or would an AVC also mean that if, in the future, the club wanted to move to a new, possibly bigger, stadium they would not be able to sell the Brit?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 12:31:17 GMT
John - As I recall I think Tony said that he thought the owners would regard it as insulting, but I might be wrong about precisely what he said. It was certainly a negative message ! Had there been a decision to support at least further discussions from other Council members, it might have been appropriate to do as you say, but I would now have no mandate or authority to do so. Also, as I said, it's not that big a deal because the powers are very limited anyway - essentially a delay on sale to give a chance for community bids. I saw it as much as a symbolic thing about what the football club is in its local community, as something which is likely to have practical importance in the near future. Cheers Malcolm. I'm sure Peter Coates, as a fan for even longer than most of us, would not want the club he has supported all his life to end up in the situation of Brighton and few years back or Coventry at the moment. And he must realise that if/when the club is sold there is a chance (however remote) that is what could happen. So, perhaps someone could ask him if he and the board have any proposals to ensure that any future owners do not leave the club without a home of their own.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 8, 2013 12:33:18 GMT
Am I missing something or would an AVC also mean that if, in the future, the club wanted to move to a new, possibly bigger, stadium they would not be able to sell the Brit? Presumably not, as Liverpool's AVC does not prevent the building of a new stadium in Stanley Park - although the owners have decided not to follow up that option.
|
|