Rage Online

Ah right, thanks for checking that - well that covenant doesn't help at all now then!

So who fancies a trip to MK Dons for a home match….

Important new update out today on the club's Vision page. A few things leap out:

• 16,000 capacity stadium including safe standing

• Plans for a 200-bed hotel

• Strong focus on protecting the green areas around the stadium and on promoting sustainable travel

• New community pitches to be built to the east of the site, as well as having the existing Stratfield Brake facilities to the west

Less helpfully, today's local council election results are broadly (I think) unhelpful to OUFC's cause with a number of pro-FoSB candidates winning. Happy to be corrected though, as I'm watching from a distance.

So, Kidlington residents voted two-to-one AGAINST the stadium proposition. Non-binding vote, low turnout, little time for debate and information - but that's local politics for you, and I would argue that those crying foul about the poll or trying to spin that the non-voters are sympathetic to the stadium are making bad faith arguments. There are plenty of people in the local community who still need persuading; let's hope the club and the fans can do so (EDIT: this is a good start and hopefully we'll see more of it).

Due to the bridge repair works at Nuneham, I've been getting the train to Oxford via Marylebone and Oxford Parkway looked almost empty last Sunday. Perhaps because it was a Sunday and fairly early in the morning, I don't know how busy it is during typical matchday times.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23539 ... -revealed/

This anticipates that the club would invest at least £100m on its new home.
The factsheet said: "The club is confident that the money will be raised in the markets, with the security of its owners standing behind the club.
---
So the £100M was the total investment mentioned in the earlier link.
But raising money in the markets I assume to mean that the club or PropCo will be issuing some sort of debt, which means an extra cost to the club? So will we end up back at square one, but replacing a rent to Kassam with an interest payment to some 3rd party investors?
Even a complete guess of 5% interest on half of this of £50M would be £2.5M per year.
I thought the intention was that stadium revenues would stay with the club, but now that the project has been downsized from Stratfield Brake to the Triangle, has that part slipped?

I wonder whether we'd consider going down the road of a fans' bond like AFC Wimbledon did to get themselves back to Plough Lane - the club get to borrow at an interest rate that's slightly below market rate, and fans get to invest savings at a rate that's better than any high-street account. Everyone wins (except the moneylenders in the city, for whom we need to find the world's tiniest violin). In reality I guess our rich and well-connected Board probably won't consider it, but I always thought it was a neat idea.

Just looked at the summary of the conditions attached to the decision yesterday. One question for those who know the ins and outs of such things - does "with limited commercial activities permitted only within the stadium footprint" mean that we cannot also build a hotel unless it were to be incorporated into the stadium? What might this mean for the viability of the commercial viability of the whole development?

Not sure of the answer to that, Bob, but I have a related question - does anyone know why this is a lease of the land and not (as I had thought was going to be the case) the sale of the land?

In as far as I could hear the discussion it was argued that (a) it would be easier to enforce covenants if it were a lease not freehold and (b) there was an argument that it protected the club from a separation of the club and the ground owner. It caused a lengthy and slightly worrying delay while they worked out the implications and sorted the wording of the decision to avoid having to come back to a later meeting. Some of that is in the "other place's" live thread on the debate/vote but you'll have to wade through a lot of FoSB abuse to find it.

Ancient Colin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:28 pm In as far as I could hear the discussion it was argued that (a) it would be easier to enforce covenants if it were a lease not freehold and (b) there was an argument that it protected the club from a separation of the club and the ground owner. It caused a lengthy and slightly worrying delay while they worked out the implications and sorted the wording of the decision to avoid having to come back to a later meeting. Some of that is in the "other place's" live thread on the debate/vote but you'll have to wade through a lot of FoSB abuse to find it.

Thanks Colin, that's interesting. I can see the argument, even if on paper it sounds frustrating.

Delighted to see from the latest update that 25% of the new stadium will be safe standing, that's excellent news and highly increases the chances of re-establishing atmosphere at Oxford games that has sadly been missing since The Manor.

One piece of good news in a week where OxVox have delivered an uncharacteristic broadside at the club. Astonishing if it's accurate that the club feel they have 'over-communicated' in the past and are seeking to rectify it by telling us so little about what's going on. And like OxVox, I have serious misgivings about this new "fan advisory board" (or whatever it’s called) - the whole point of having a democratically-elected Trust is that they can genuinely claim to be the fans' mouthpiece in dealings with the club. The club have already muddied the waters with their Supporters’ Panel, and this further dilutes our voice.

Not living in Oxford anymore, I’m not as close to the county’s politics as I once was. Can someone who knows this stuff please explain the implication of this week’s council election results in Cherwell for United’s chances of getting permission for the new stadium?

Lib Dems now the largest party on Cherwell - is that a good thing (because they’ve got more pro-stadium councillors than the Greens) or a bad thing (because they’ve still got quite a few sceptics)?