|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 14:19:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Oct 5, 2018 14:27:16 GMT
I have done your survey but we all know the old guard at the fa will take the best deal that feathers their own[or west hams] nest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 16:43:46 GMT
Thanks for doing the survey 3putts. I don't know if I am part of the "old guard" at the FA   To be fair, the FA had nothing to do with the deal on the London Stadium. And to be further fair, for all their (our ?) faults, conservatism and relatively high age profile (although that has got quite a lot better in recent times), if you ask me who I would trust to look after our game as between the FA 'blazers' and many of those who own our top clubs, I would choose the blazers every time. In some things, a bit of conservatism is no bad thing to preserve the traditions of our game. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 5, 2018 16:55:49 GMT
Thanks for doing the survey 3putts. I don't know if I am part of the "old guard" at the FA To be fair, the FA had nothing to do with the deal on the London Stadium. And to be further fair, for all their (our ?) faults, conservatism and relatively high age profile (although that has got quite a lot better in recent times), if you ask me who I would trust to look after our game as between the FA 'blazers' and many of those who own our top clubs, I would choose the blazers every time. In some things, a bit of conservatism is no bad thing to preserve the traditions of our game. Depressing to think the FA are better,even if it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by southcoaststokie on Oct 5, 2018 16:58:23 GMT
Survey done, as a country we seem to have sold everything , selling the national football stadium is one step to far, and should never be sold to the highest bidder, but kept under the English FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by spawnyruud on Oct 5, 2018 17:02:18 GMT
Malcolm - the survey outlines the financial terms of the deal - $600M sale of stadium to an individual with Club Wembley retained by the FA. Has there been any other deal terms announced? For example, I'd assume that once a private individual owns the stadium they make all the decisions on how it's used and are entitled to do anything they want with it with zero accountability to the general public (sell it on to some other unscrupulous businessman, or demolish it and build high rises?). I suspect, for example, there would be no supporter consultations when it's privately held. I agree with 3putts - my feeling is that this is purely financially driven - Why would the FA want to hand over control of an iconic national stadium to someone who can do what they want with it with zero accountability to the general public.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2018 17:02:24 GMT
Done.
Personally have no problem with it being sold - it's a soulless corporate monstrosity that doesn't care with the punters are there for football or a Mr Blobby concert. A proper sports stadium (ala the Principality Stadium in Cardiff) should have been built in the Midlands or the North (it should have been Birmingham by rights anyway - the decision to rebuild Wembley was a London biased stitch up).
Anyway the England team should tour - and semi finals shouldn't be played where the final is played.
Rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 5, 2018 17:07:14 GMT
If it means England play games away from London and around the country then they can sell the the thing for all I care.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 5, 2018 17:30:03 GMT
Just had a quick read through the info attached to the survey. A few thoughts occur (please correct me if I've misunderstood anything). If I understand correctly, about 30% of the net proceeds go to Sport England and will be spent on various sports (including football). The piece implies this means community sports, rather than elite sports (so won't be spent on Olympic Cycling or something). Half the rest is divided between the PL and the EFL. The PL won't say if they'll take their share of the money, or what they'll do with it if they do. If they don't take the money, what happens to it? Is it distributed proportionally as per the rest of the dosh? Does it go to EFL? If the PL do take their share, are there any legal mechanisms in place to affect how that money is spent? Can we guarantee it doesn't just go to enrich foreign owners? The EFL have said their share would be used for community facilities. Would this be spent meeting the capital costs of developments, or would the money be invested to produce an income to fund long-term, ongoing projects? Or some combination of the two? As for the PL share, are there any legal mechanisms in place to affect how that money is spent? Can we guarantee it doesn't just go to enrich foreign owners? Now, this leaves around 35% of the proceeds unaccounted for, around £215m. Where does this go? As it stands, does the FA owned Wembley Stadium generate any income for the FA? If so, how much? And how much will it cost the FA to stage international or cup matches there in the future? When you start thinking about it, it's not as straightforward a choice as I imagined! You're doing a grand job there Malcolm, keep it up  |
|
|
|
Post by onefatcopper on Oct 5, 2018 18:06:09 GMT
I think that Wembley should be sold, how much does it cost per day for maintenance,electric,gas,water,personnel etc, how many days per year is the stadium as a whole rented out for other events, Rugby, Concerts ? By as a whole I mean not for corporate events, private functions,marriages.
I think Wembley is a money pit and how it is presently run I don’t see how the construction costs will ever be recouped, it needs to be used more than just for football , I also think the mystique of Wembley has been lost since the introduction of both FA Cup semi finals being played there.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Oct 5, 2018 18:13:44 GMT
Malcolm, for me it's about understanding:
What is the benefit of selling if you still have to play games there?
If the answer is cash for development of grass roots facilities, then put levys on the premier league clubs, especially when the average premier league wage is double that of the next European league, obviously an unnecessary amount to attract the talent.
A sale and guaranteed rent is a dreadful deal. You wouldn't do it with your own assets would you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 20:31:27 GMT
Malcolm - the survey outlines the financial terms of the deal - $600M sale of stadium to an individual with Club Wembley retained by the FA. Has there been any other deal terms announced? For example, I'd assume that once a private individual owns the stadium they make all the decisions on how it's used and are entitled to do anything they want with it with zero accountability to the general public (sell it on to some other unscrupulous businessman, or demolish it and build high rises?). I suspect, for example, there would be no supporter consultations when it's privately held. I agree with 3putts - my feeling is that this is purely financially driven - Why would the FA want to hand over control of an iconic national stadium to someone who can do what they want with it with zero accountability to the general public. We are assured that the contract will include many safeguards. Football will still stage its key games and finals there apart from England internationals in the NFL season ( Sept to Dec); the stadium can't be rebranded; it can't be sold on without permission of the FA. The answer to your last question would be in order to get much-needed funds for grassroots facilities. I'm trying to be neutral here ! |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 20:54:35 GMT
Just had a quick read through the info attached to the survey. A few thoughts occur (please correct me if I've misunderstood anything). I think you've understood it all correctly If I understand correctly, about 30% of the net proceeds go to Sport England and will be spent on various sports (including football). The piece implies this means community sports, rather than elite sports (so won't be spent on Olympic Cycling or something). CorrectHalf the rest is divided between the PL and the EFL. The PL won't say if they'll take their share of the money, or what they'll do with it if they do. If they don't take the money, what happens to it? Is it distributed proportionally as per the rest of the dosh? Does it go to EFL? If the PL do take their share, are there any legal mechanisms in place to affect how that money is spent? Can we guarantee it doesn't just go to enrich foreign owners? I don't know what would happen to the Pl share if they don't claim it, but I would guess it would be added to the Football foundation pot, but the EFL might try to claim in because of the 50/50 rule. The Government have to agree the sale, and I don't think either they or the Fa would agree to sell unless the PL share, if taken up, were used for community facilities ( however defined).
The EFL have said their share would be used for community facilities. Would this be spent meeting the capital costs of developments, or would the money be invested to produce an income to fund long-term, ongoing projects? Or some combination of the two? I don't think there is a clear answer to this. There is also the question of accessibility to the community, which is determined by geographical location, cost of hire and hours of availability. It's no good saying it's a community facility if it's only available for few hours a week, at inconvenient times for a big hire cost
As for the PL share, are there any legal mechanisms in place to affect how that money is spent? Can we guarantee it doesn't just go to enrich foreign owners? see aboveNow, this leaves around 35% of the proceeds unaccounted for, around £215m. Where does this go? This will be distributed via a special fund administered by the Football Foundation, and it is likely to go predominantly to new pitches run by County FAs for grassroots use As it stands, does the FA owned Wembley Stadium generate any income for the FA? If so, how much? And how much will it cost the FA to stage international or cup matches there in the future? I'll probably have the detailed answers to that when we come to meet. One of the arguments in favour of sale is that we are now entering the period when maintenance and repairs costs are increasing, and these would be borne by the new owner
When you start thinking about it, it's not as straightforward a choice as I imagined! I agree You're doing a grand job there Malcolm, keep it up Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 21:15:10 GMT
Malcolm, for me it's about understanding: What is the benefit of selling if you still have to play games there? If the answer is cash for development of grass roots facilities, then put levys on the premier league clubs, especially when the average premier league wage is double that of the next European league, obviously an unnecessary amount to attract the talent. A sale and guaranteed rent is a dreadful deal. You wouldn't do it with your own assets would you? That's exactly what Gary Neville argued for in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee, and I agree. The problem is that long ago the FA surrendered the right to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Oct 5, 2018 21:16:27 GMT
Malcolm. Would it be possible to sell the FA instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 21:18:02 GMT
Malcolm. Would it be possible to sell the FA instead?  |
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Oct 5, 2018 21:20:11 GMT
Jokes aside.You do great work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 5, 2018 21:41:11 GMT
Jokes aside.You do great work. That's very kind of you. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Oct 6, 2018 9:26:08 GMT
Malcolm, for me it's about understanding: What is the benefit of selling if you still have to play games there? If the answer is cash for development of grass roots facilities, then put levys on the premier league clubs, especially when the average premier league wage is double that of the next European league, obviously an unnecessary amount to attract the talent. A sale and guaranteed rent is a dreadful deal. You wouldn't do it with your own assets would you? That's exactly what Gary Neville argued for in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee, and I agree. The problem is that long ago the FA surrendered the right to do that. Thanks For letting me know that. When did this happen? Who made this decision? What was the financials for the deal? What stops it from being renegotiated? |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 6, 2018 9:35:36 GMT
That's exactly what Gary Neville argued for in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee, and I agree. The problem is that long ago the FA surrendered the right to do that. Thanks For letting me know that. When did this happen? Who made this decision? What was the financials for the deal? What stops it from being renegotiated? I’m on coach to Norwich at the moment 🙄 so not easy to give detailed reply. Will do so in next couple of days |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 6, 2018 11:01:38 GMT
It should be sold, and the money should be used to rebuild the Victoria Ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Oct 6, 2018 11:07:06 GMT
No issue for me whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Oct 6, 2018 11:30:23 GMT
If it means England play games away from London and around the country then they can sell the the thing for all I care. It won't though. No one would buy it unless guarentees over such a major source of income were provided. Personally I couldn't give a shit who owns it. Particularly not the incompetents who try to run the national game. |
|
|
|
Post by mozzer on Oct 6, 2018 12:23:00 GMT
Damn right it should be sold,
It should be sold and the money used to build a stadium slap bang in the middle of the country so fans of the North East only have as far to travel as fans in the south west, all this London bias is bollocks, the old stadium was a delapitated shit hole but it had presence and romance, this new stadium is a white elephant built to pander to the corporate hangers on rather than the true grass roots of football, the fans.
The best time of football was when Wembley was shut and the national team played at the larger league grounds giving fans the chance to watch the national side without needing two days off work to do so, who can put up any type of argument against the Welsh national stadium should have been the blue print of what was needed, built on the edge of town bringing prosperity where its needed, no faffing around with infrastructure, the crowd on top of the pitch....well done FAW shame on Efa
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Oct 6, 2018 13:37:15 GMT
I think that the questionnaire should consider some other options.
For me, a massive priority for the FA should be getting rid of the expensive white elephant in London and building a proper stadium in the Midlands, with dedicated transport links and not in the middle of an area that's a complete dump, even by London's standards. They made a complete pig's ear of the whole thing in the first place, and we'd best off getting rid ASAP. For example, there are the ticket allocation problems with the middle tier and dugout seats, and the fact that the sheer cost of it meant that the Cup semi-finals now have to be played there.
Here we have a lunatic willing to pay a huge sum of money to take it off the FA's hands. They should snap his hand off. They may even be able to buy it back for half the price when it turns out that there's no actual interest in the boring NFL, apart from when it's a one-off novelty.
|
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Oct 12, 2018 18:34:27 GMT
Any more info after the meeting/ presentation this week what was the feeling in the room??
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 12, 2018 20:29:53 GMT
Any more info after the meeting/ presentation this week what was the feeling in the room?? It was a good, and on the whole constructive, debate. The FA Council at its best. Quite difficult to judge the overall feeling because a lot of people didn't speak. There were probably more speakers against than for, but not hugely so. A lot of colleagues still want more information on different points. The Council will vote at another special meeting on 24 October. It's a Board, not Council, decision but Greg Clarke has said that the Board will not go ahead unless there is a significant majority of the Council in favour. On that basis, at the moment my money would be on it not going ahead, but things could change in the next couple of weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Oct 12, 2018 23:17:41 GMT
Significant amounts of money have been spent on developing a world class facility with excellent transport links. All this talk about a stadium in the Midlands is all well and good, but we couldn’t get people to/from it like we can in London with the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines, London Northwestern Railway, London Overground and Chiltern Railway all serving it at 2 seperate stations.
The FA should keep it and maintain the provision of a world class facility for our nations top football matches. If its sold, I don’t have the confidence that the proceeds will be put to good use nor does the country have stadia of 90,000 capacity of similar standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Oct 13, 2018 9:25:30 GMT
Hasn't the ex financial controller at Fulham, who knows this man, intimated that there is corruption involved. Just something I heard them talking about on Talksport.
|
|
|
|
Post by southernish on Oct 13, 2018 9:36:14 GMT
I am dubious of selling it, considering we are being offered a price lower than what we paid to build it...
However, I would not oppose an American Football Team being based there considering I love the sport. I live relatively nearby (Hertfordshire) so I'd be more than happy to attend games there.
|
|
To be fair, the FA had nothing to do with the deal on the London Stadium. And to be further fair, for all their (our ?) faults, conservatism and relatively high age profile (although that has got quite a lot better in recent times), if you ask me who I would trust to look after our game as between the FA 'blazers' and many of those who own our top clubs, I would choose the blazers every time. In some things, a bit of conservatism is no bad thing to preserve the traditions of our game. 
