18-02-2025, 08:42 PM
I thought 42k after Taylor and Bridgford stands done.
|
The Infrastructure Projects
|
|
18-02-2025, 08:42 PM
I thought 42k after Taylor and Bridgford stands done.
18-02-2025, 09:50 PM
(18-02-2025, 08:42 PM)Sausage Roll Wrote: I thought 42k after Taylor and Bridgford stands done. Indeed - but I seem to recall there were rumours about a 50k + stadium and I think rushcliffe made some defensive comments about the delays in approval being down to new plans or something along those lines. This was all wrapped up with various cartledge soundbites and then a change at the tiller and so I wondered if planning had now been approved by all the councils and if so, what the final approval was for. Come to think of it, did we acquire the freehold in the end? Maybe I’ve been in a coma and missed it all. (Hopefully not as that would mean this CL adventure is just a dream. Doubly so as I now can’t get the image of Bobby Ewing in a shower out of my mind). Fetch me more wine…
18-02-2025, 10:25 PM
(18-02-2025, 09:50 PM)DR Forest Wrote:(18-02-2025, 08:42 PM)Sausage Roll Wrote: I thought 42k after Taylor and Bridgford stands done. As I understand it we agreed a price for the freehold but didn't want to go any further and actually make the purchase until all the approvals were granted.
18-02-2025, 10:40 PM
Is this going to go on for ever?
18-02-2025, 11:21 PM
130m for an extra 10k seats is a lot of money
18-02-2025, 11:28 PM
New sites have been looked at. Eastcroft, land west of the park and ride off the A453 and Gamston. All 3 are viable for a new stadium - current favourite staying put is becoming dwarfed by the finance and difficulty in building there.
Not a lover of out of town development but the a453 option already has the tram line and road infrastructure.
19-02-2025, 07:40 AM
(18-02-2025, 11:21 PM)Reds73 Wrote: 130m for an extra 10k seats is a lot of money Its not just the seats though is it Reds? There's the potential for conferencing, concerts (I know we had Take That already) which would hold far more than the Arena holds, with facilities to facilitate them, etc. I think the stumbling block will now be whether EM wants to go ahead with the new PT stand now he knows the apartment scheme may not be a viable business opportunity for him anymore with the cost of building far outweighing the sales potential per apartment. He was after all hoping the apartments would help fund the new stand.
"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time, it's Trickay, It's Tricky, Tricky, Tricky Tricky" - Run DMC
19-02-2025, 09:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-02-2025, 09:38 AM by Salvatore Matrecano.)
Been wondering about the flats because they were although they helped finance the project they were also a source of problems.
Are the flats a part of the new proposal? Gone vey quiet on that bit. Are they even necessary any more? They were part of it when we were in the Championship with revenue of about £15m a year. Our revenue as a PL club is nearly 10x that.
19-02-2025, 10:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-02-2025, 10:04 AM by Salvatore Matrecano.)
Further to the above only just seen the DT article, had no idea it was there, says what Tricky alluded to that the apartments wont make much profit now. So are they still part of the plan?
A wordy article that basically says we are 6 years in and due to the UK’s restrictive planning laws which seem to only serve to pay lawyers and bureaucrats we remain hopeful, the same positive soundbites are recycled but nothing ever gets done. Not saying its the right way but I bet EM wishes we had the greek method where a few backhanders and bungs to the relevant council and influential people and you build what you want, where you want.
19-02-2025, 11:38 AM
(19-02-2025, 07:40 AM)Tricky Wrote:(18-02-2025, 11:21 PM)Reds73 Wrote: 130m for an extra 10k seats is a lot of money I know that some real estate bloke said that last week but is it really true? If so why are so many being built around the country? It doesn't sound right to me.
Panic on the streets of London
19-02-2025, 12:07 PM
(19-02-2025, 11:38 AM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote:(19-02-2025, 07:40 AM)Tricky Wrote:(18-02-2025, 11:21 PM)Reds73 Wrote: 130m for an extra 10k seats is a lot of money I hear what youre saying Sniffo me owd Bod and tend to agree with you, especially as the apartments are not only in a prime riverside location but are also uniquely positioned alongside the WFCG, which is, in its own rights, an iconic location. I think part of the drop in potential is the fact the plans had to be lowered from 19 storeys to 12. That will take out a sizeable chunk of EM's projected profits on the scheme (IMO), alongside a massive increase in building costs. Given the recent history of how the club tried to blame the freehold issue on the City Council, when in fact it was the club playing silly buggers, is this the club sending out messages putting the emphasis on Rushcliffe to re-visit the 19 storey option? Just a thought!
"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time, it's Trickay, It's Tricky, Tricky, Tricky Tricky" - Run DMC
19-02-2025, 12:12 PM
(19-02-2025, 11:38 AM)Sniffer Dog (Admin) Wrote:(19-02-2025, 07:40 AM)Tricky Wrote:(18-02-2025, 11:21 PM)Reds73 Wrote: 130m for an extra 10k seats is a lot of money Most of the housebuilding going on in the UK will be taking place on land that was land banked years ago. The land is usually the most expensive aspect in housebuilding; Builders tend to buy the land when the prices are low and then build on the land when house prices start to rise. I think the plan, as far as the flats were concerned, would have been to get the planning permission and then sell the project on. It could be that this falls outside of the House building cycle and the numbers just do not add up. EM will find a way round it |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|