[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

MP-Spire, on Oct 6 2005, 08:26 PM, said:

Source:- www.chesterfield-fc.co.uk

CFSS Board Minutes - 14/09/05

AW then asked if it might turn out that we may move from Saltergate, which the Club owns, to a new site which we will rent. PRT said this may come about but that the Council would be an acceptable 'landlord'.
On a separate note, from the same set of minutes, in addition to the meeting with the stewards, I hope the Board have met with the Club's press officer to ensure that any future press releases are distributed word-for-word as agreed by the Board and not 'tampered' with in any way to ensure no embarrassment is brought upon the Club in future.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The minutes say what they want to say, detailed in places, vague where it matters. Not much use unless you were at the meeting

[mr. smith]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on Oct 6 2005, 08:28 PM, said:

The minutes say what they want to say, detailed in places, vague where it matters. Not much use unless you were at the meeting
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

pity they arent on the cfss web page then we could all read them, those from june1 are a bit boring now.

seems like we want the land owners to 'give' us 10 acres [literally give or sell at knock down price] for the new ground & are now looking at the council to stump up most of the cash to build the ground in return for us renting [at a cut price rate] it off them.
reality is a wonderful place, i think some of our 'leaders' ought to visit it more often.

[mr. smith]

MP-Spire, on Oct 6 2005, 10:37 PM, said:

It's certainly an interesting one, considering the level of secured debt against Saltergate.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sell saltergate, use some of ££ to pay debts off. move into new ground we dont own & use rest of our ££ to pay rent for years & years.
what happens when council decides they need more ££ or a less footy friendly council comes to power where does that leave us?

[Lorraine]

MP-Spire, on Oct 6 2005, 10:53 PM, said:

All good points. We badly need to move to a new stadium, but the last thing we should be doing is disposing of our biggest asset in favour of a lease option, especially as we have no long-term financial commitment from the money men.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although to be fair Mike, it also states in the Minutes that the matters mentioned in your first post would be discussed again at a later date when the issues are clarified.

[Aspire_webby]

MP-Spire, on Oct 6 2005, 07:26 PM, said:

Source:- www.chesterfield-fc.co.uk

CFSS Board Minutes - 14/09/05

AW then asked if it might turn out that we may move from Saltergate, which the Club owns, to a new site which we will rent. PRT said this may come about but that the Council would be an acceptable 'landlord'.
On a separate note, from the same set of minutes, in addition to the meeting with the stewards, I hope the Board have met with the Club's press officer to ensure that any future press releases are distributed word-for-word as agreed by the Board and not 'tampered' with in any way to ensure no embarrassment is brought upon the Club in the future.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Renting might not be such a serious problem as long as the club is able to pursue commercial income. Coventry have moved from their own ground to a rented stadium but their problem is that they do precisely that - the commercial income largely goes to the operating company. If, however, renting is the immediate option would like to see options available for the club to purchase the ground in the future. That ought to be possible to negotiate if the council is the landlord.

[Colin Heath's Butler]

At this stage, I'd like to think every option is ruled in and no options are ruled out. UNless everything's considered, you may not go for the best option.

Generally I'd want an 'own' situation but if the Coucil or other owner said 200 year lease at a quid a year and club keep all comercial income, I'd vote for that!

Let's trust the club to look at every angle, discard the bad ones and maximise the benefits of the good ones. Since Fat Boy Brown raped and pillaged us, they've done a pretty good job and I expect them to continuemaking more good calls than bad ones

[BITColour]

Aspire_webby, on Oct 7 2005, 09:06 AM, said:

Renting might not be such a serious problem as long as the club is able to pursue commercial income. Coventry have moved from their own ground to a rented stadium but their problem is that they do precisely that - the commercial income largely goes to the operating company. If, however, renting is the immediate option  would like to see options available for the club to purchase the ground in the future. That ought to be possible to negotiate if the council is the landlord.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we were to rent it I would rather not see our board negotiate the terms.

At the end of the day there is not going to be any demand from any other teams to use a football stadium in Chesterfield, so more than likely could be on a 99 or 999 year lease. Obviously the council would want built-in rent reviews, so we can insist on options to buy it at certain points. It would all form part of the negotiation process.

[K9CFC]

very good points made about our new ground

i presume we should be in by 2007/2008
if we do rent we need to agreement for least 99 years and option after 25 or 50 we can buy the ground

does anyone know what the new ground looks like

[Town_Fan]

What mandate from the fans does CFSS have to make a decision like this anyway?

Seems to me that CFSS are doing whats best for them to keep control and not neccessarily whats in the best interests of the club.

[Aspire_webby]

Town_Fan, on Oct 7 2005, 09:58 AM, said:

What mandate from the fans does CFSS have to make a decision like this anyway?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They don't need a mandate - they own the club. Their bigger problem is getting agreement with the club board and they need to carry the dwindling membership with them of course. If you want a say either join CFSS or better still stump up a £200k loan and get on the board

[Town_Fan]

Aspire_webby, on Oct 7 2005, 11:01 AM, said:

They don't need a mandate - they own the club. Their bigger problem is getting agreement with the club board and they need to carry the dwindling membership with them of course. If you want a say either join CFSS or better still stump up a £200k loan and get on the board
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if CFSS board can do what they like without consulting its members whats the point of being in CFSS? Thats something that over 2000 people seem to have realised.

[Town_Fan]

spireiteblue, on Oct 7 2005, 11:12 AM, said:

http://www.wbdevelopments.co.uk/

This link tells you who the new owners are and its seems obvious to me that they will want Saltergate so they can develop it,Barry Hubbard said on SW although nothing is going to happen at this stage but eventually we the club can start to negotiate a price for the land and he also said we could get it for FREE,but didn't elaborate but i think Saltergate will be the key issue in all of this,BH also said they need some cash for training facilities and there are 2 sites he has in mind but didn't want to say anything at this stage as he hasn't spoken to the owners of these 2 plots of land,i wonder if part of Wheeldon Mill is one of them ?This is my view on things but unless you know the ins and outs of it all everything is speculation.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about McAlpine?

I would imagine that we would deal directly with McAlpine and they would do all purchasing etc on our behalf. Presumably there would be a final bill and we would settle this up with saltergate plus cash. So if the new guys want Saltergate it could get messy.

[Aspire_webby]

Town_Fan, on Oct 7 2005, 10:05 AM, said:

Well if CFSS board can do what they like without consulting its members whats the point of being in CFSS? Thats something that over 2000 people seem to have realised.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think the CFSS board can do everything they want without consulting their members - elections to the board are a safeguard but there is a constitution to consider too which I'm sure is on the site somewhere.

I don't think CFSS has ever really decided what it is there for. To some extent it is a glorified supporters club with a brief to raise funds etc. It's real problem is that without the current board and other significant supporters like the council it can't run the club. That gives those groups massive influence and if the CFSS memebers choose a route that will drive, say the board, away then the interests of the members and the club as a whole might be served by ignoring what the membership actually says it wants.

In short CFSS own the club but don't necessarily control it.

[Town_Fan]

Aspire_webby, on Oct 7 2005, 12:08 PM, said:

I don't think the CFSS board can do everything they want without consulting their members - elections to the board are a safeguard but there is a constitution to consider too which I'm sure is on the site somewhere.

I don't think CFSS has ever really decided what it is there for. To some extent it is a glorified supporters club with a brief to raise funds etc. It's real problem is that without the current board and other significant supporters like the council it can't run the club. That gives those groups massive influence and if the CFSS memebers choose a route that will drive, say the board, away then the interests of the members and the club as a whole might be served by ignoring what the membership actually says it wants.

In short CFSS own the club but don't necessarily control it.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll get no argument from me about what you say, in fact thats what annoys me about CFSS, is that they have given away control yet not safeguarded the long term future of the club.

In short CFSS own the debt, Barrie Hubbard runs the football club.