Yeah, the plans were there, but as with many things under the Weimar Republic, hyperinflation put paid to it until the NSDAP came along and threw money at it.
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust (NFST)
- Thread starter QUARKSOUP
- Start date
Yep. Let's hear it again for Rushcliffe Borough Council.
Joe Baker's Dog
Grenville Morris
Spot on. Parking is getting more difficult each season. I'm currently using the Rugby Club Carpark. 4 or 5 years ago you could get there at 2.15pm - for 3.00pm kick off - and there would places available. Now 1.30pm is borderline. When we were in the PL in the 1990s we used to park in children's nursery carpark on the Radcliffe Road & the guy running it would always keep a space for us.
sammy the snake
Jack Armstrong
To get to 45/50k on the current footprint is difficult but not impossible. The BC 3rd tier could add a further 5,6k. Sort the Bridgford end there’s another 4 or so. Scaled up approach is the only thing possible given the very valid point about risking success on the pitch. He’s right isn’t he? There’s a very valid reason for not rushing thing’s
Morpeth
John Robertson
He’s absolutely right. My take on his words was that it’ll be done regardless but they may leave it to the back end of the current planning approval window with the intention of not reducing crowds at a time when we really need them to help avoid relegation. Pretty sure that’s what he was saying anyway.
Redemption
Chief Eye Roller
The problem with 50k stadium at the current site is there isn't any money in it for Rushcliffe.
The current scheme, with 160+ resi units, allows the council to demand section 106 contributions to schooling and services.
Take the resi out, which you would have to do for a 50k ground, there's no cash in it for RBC.
Almost all of the economic gain would accrue to City side of the trent.
Anfield has some very peculiar reasons why the site matters and Liverpool CC work hard to make stuff happen there, which is about leverage for local development plans.
Redemption
Chief Eye Roller
The current site is on the Community Asstes register. And we're having to lose 1 site already.
I doubt that is the issue.
Not correct I'm afraid.
Timothy Pope
I know that Nuno that I know that Nuno that I know
MaxiRobriguez
Bob McKinlay
The flats were designed to somewhat offset the cost of the build - can't remember the figures but they were posted at the time, think somewhere between £20m and £40m expected to be raised, but of course this is before hyper-inflation became a thing so the ability to sell a number of flats overlooking a football stadium for £500k when interest rates are 5%+ seems fanciful.
There is nowhere near enough profit in the apartment project to fully finance the stand build.
Timothy Pope
I know that Nuno that I know that Nuno that I know
So not entirely correct, not entirely wrong then…
Correct
Redemption
Chief Eye Roller
The profit will be circa 20%.
There was an argument in committe about profit as it effects the social housing.
The club didn't want to agree to any social housing in the development so it could maximise the profits from the build.
During the argument the club said they expected GDV (gross development value = sales of properties - build costs ) to be industry standard.
This is usually around 20% for no social housing, 15% for mixed.
Let's say te average apartment is £325k, so 170 units - that's probably shaving off £11m the stand costs plus whatever gains come from adding the office/retail for the club into the build .
As well as the profit, contributing almost 200 dwellings is also attractive to RBC, because it has to help bring on stream so many as part of its local plan agreement with HMG.
There was an argument in committe about profit as it effects the social housing.
The club didn't want to agree to any social housing in the development so it could maximise the profits from the build.
During the argument the club said they expected GDV (gross development value = sales of properties - build costs ) to be industry standard.
This is usually around 20% for no social housing, 15% for mixed.
Let's say te average apartment is £325k, so 170 units - that's probably shaving off £11m the stand costs plus whatever gains come from adding the office/retail for the club into the build .
As well as the profit, contributing almost 200 dwellings is also attractive to RBC, because it has to help bring on stream so many as part of its local plan agreement with HMG.
That's spot on. My own " back of a fag packet" calculations were exactly in line with your more forensic analysis of the financials of this part of the clubs development proposals.
GreeksBearingGifts
Stuart Pearce
Anything I've ever read from them translates as "we are serious people and we should be taken seriously, and we won't cause any trouble, thank you very much".
valspoodle
Steve Chettle
All these odd groups at the fringes of the club serve a useful purpose in keeping fans busy whilst not actually disturbing the equilibrium of either the club or other fans. It makes them feel important to the club and in their own lunchtimes, but harms nobody.