|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Dec 30, 2014 11:21:58 GMT
lg, Many thanks for your kind comments. I came across this story two years ago as part of research for a financial feature on county cricket. I have spoken to those who’ve been involved with the project since its inception and learnt about their ups and downs and the many hurdles overcome along the way. When the property slump occurred in 2008, it was the perfect ammunition for their critics but the group held resolute. Visionaries are usually pilloried by society and the cricket field is no different where many don’t like change. I admire Essex’s ambition and courage and enjoy following their progress. For, if the club are successful and in 3-5 years time use the new wash of money to strengthen the squad, return to Division 1 and win trophies again, will their present critics still be moaning and whinging? I suspect so but on a different subject!  |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 8, 2015 11:40:22 GMT
It really is going to be fascinating to see how the new Leicestershire CEO fairs. Former Sussex player, Wasim Khan, is renowned for his ambition and in this article on the 'BBC Website' he says all the right things.  Khan told BBC Radio Leicester: "I'm very ambitious and I've spoken to people about promotion. Why not? Why not go for it and change our mindset." The recent wooden spoon specialists, Leicester CCC have nothing to lose but go with Khan's youthful energy, exuberance and vision. This will be a measure of the importance attached to a club CEO and the influence that he/she can garner. Uni Pals Simon Storey & Chris Grant Chairman Chris Grant alongside his old Loughborough University friend, Simon Storey, caused a positive upheaval at Derbyshire, so can Khan do the same at Leicestershire? www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30724992 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 12:45:02 GMT
The financial dramas at Kent CCC never cease to amaze. After CEO Jamie Clifford’s plans to develop a 130 bed hotel at the St Lawrence ground failed to materialise, plan B was set in motion to build 60 retirement homes (52 two bedroom/8 three bedroom flats), constructed by ‘McCarthy & Stone’ as a bespoke retirement scheme for the over 55s. This was considered a done deal. Meanwhile, Canterbury City Council leader, John Gilbey, had given the club an additional £1.5m loan several years ago on the sole agreement that this money would be paid off when either the hotel or later the retirement homes had been built. To the shock of everyone, planning permission was refused this week on the grounds that 'McCarthy & Stone' had not allocated any properties for “affordable housing”. Even more surprising, the planning committee overruled the express desire of their senior man, Steve Davies, to go ahead with the plan. The planning committee minutes go to full council tonight for ratification, which should be a formality as the minutes have now been published and show the vote wasn't even close - 7 -3 against. The application was rejected on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale, form and massing would result in an overly large and visually intrusive form of development that would be out of keeping with and detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area which is within the Canterbury– Old Dover Road, Oaten Hill, St Lawrence Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 17, 58 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies BE1 and BE7 of the Canterbury District Local Plan and policies DBE3, DBE4, HE1 and HE6, of the Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2014.
2. The proposed development fails to provide an acceptable level of contribution to meet obligations towards affordable housing provision in accordance with the adopted and emerging Local Plan requirements. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 17 and 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy IMP2 of the Canterbury District Local Plan and policy HD2 of the Canterbury District Local Plan Publication Draft 2014.
KCCC and McCarthy & Stone have until March 9 to appeal to the Secretary of State, but given that planning was rejected on a 70 per cent majority and the application apparently breaks so many requirments of the NPPF as well as running contrary to the City Council's Local Plan, it is hard to see that there is any way the decision will be overturned. Especially with a general election in May and Kent being such fertile territory for UKIP gains from the Tories. Hard to see any way back for Kent on this one, unless McCarthy & Stone are prepared to scale back the size of the delopment, put up more money for affordable housing provision and resubmit a more modest plan. But that will probably render the development uneconomic and they're now looking at other sites in Kent, with an application for a site in Tenterden and homes already under construction in Cranbrook. Meanwhile, after Kent CCC told the city council they couldn't find a hotel developer (which was the original plan for which they had outline approval), Travelodge last month put in a planning application to build a hotel only a mile from the KCCC site. It's all a bit of a horlicks, really. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 8, 2015 13:19:42 GMT
How far does the collapse of this scheme affect KCCC's ongoing financial viabilty, BM?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 8, 2015 13:33:02 GMT
Bm,
"Travelodge last month put in a planning application to build a hotel only a mile from the KCCC site..."
One remembers the bemusement of John Gilbey over why no hotel developer was found. When he agreed
to the second loan (£1.5m), both Gilbey and Clifford thought there would be no problem in finding one, given
interest had already been shown at the time by a hotel chain.
As for the collapse of the retirement home deal, my understanding is that a major part of the difficulty was
‘McCarthy & Stone's’ refusal to agree to some social housing as being part of their development plan. For,
that is why Chelmsford Council accepted Essex CCC 4 apartment towers proposal because the club accepted
that 50 of their proposed 350 apartments would be for social housing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 13:43:41 GMT
No idea, really, fb. They have long claimed that the club's survival depended on selling the site, initially for a hotel and then as retirment homes. But then they have been saying that the club's future depended on the land sales since 2007 when members voted on the disposal - and eight years on I'm happy to report that KCCC is still around!
I never believed that selling this piece of land for a reported £1.5 million was going to secure the club's long-term future, anyway. It's a trifling sum in the grand scheme, equivalent to what - a season's staffing costs? You can't keep on selling off the family silver because eventually you run out of silver to sell; that's why Sussex's plan for four or five business units to let at the Cromwell Rd end which will produce a steady and on-going annual income, is so much more sensible.
And it's not hard to see why Canterbury city council has lost patience. When KCCC successfully applied to the city council for a £3 million loan in 2009/10 to finance the development, it promised huge communuity benefits in return.
This from the club's submission to the council at the time:-
"Beside the cricket ground development the redevelopment will provide:
• A high quality four star hotel
• A state of the art conference facility for 350 delegates
• An enlarged and enhanced physiotherapy unit
• A health and fitness centre including a swimming pool
• Retail units including a pharmacy and community shop".
None of it has transpired. Instead, they've built some ugly houses on the old nets site and a Sainsbury's convenience store and tried to switch the "high quality four star hotel" to a hideous-looking old people's home that resembles Long Kesh prison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 13:50:05 GMT
As for the collapse of the retirement home deal, my understanding is that a major part of the difficulty was ‘McCarthy & Stone's’ refusal to agree to some social housing as being part of their development plan. Not quite accurate. They offered £350k towards social housing provision. The District Valuers Service had originally suggested £1.5 million was the appropriate sum, but then revised it down to £831k. McCarthy & Stone contested the figure and it was eventually reduced to £650k. To offer little more than half of a sum that had already been so drastically negotiated down was taking the pee. But if you read the minutes , that was the secondary reason, after rejection on grounds of "design, scale, form and massing" and the visual intrusiveness of the development in a conservation area. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 8, 2015 13:54:32 GMT
Bm,
They offered £350k towards social housing provision.
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of that figure. As you say, greed perhaps, was a factor. As for 'the design
and scale' what did Kent supporters and the Council think of the hotel plans, then? Could this not have been seen
as a visual blight too on St Lawrence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 14:04:40 GMT
Bm,
They offered £350k towards social housing provision.Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of that figure. As you say, greed perhaps, was a factor. As for 'the design and scale' what did Kent supporters and the Council think of the hotel plans, then? Could this not have been seen as a visual blight too on St Lawrence? The 'artist's impression' in the 2007 brochure showed a rather handsome looking hotel with a Victorian style awning on the top, like the one on the mound stand at Lords or the pavilion at the Ageas. It looked quite aesthetically pleasing, in the way that architect's drawings always do! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 10:57:39 GMT
How far does the collapse of this scheme affect KCCC's ongoing financial viabilty, BM? Update on this: was told yesterday by a Kent insider that the £1.5 million loan made in Jan 2012 was on a short-term basis and repayable within three years. In other words, any outstanding sum on the loan is due for full repayment now, Jan 2015. Part of it may have already been repaid as I was also told the club may have handed over some or all of the ECB £1 million 'soft loan' to the council (the ECB had specified the money should not be used to pay off debt, but I guess it's possible they made a 'special needs' dispensation for Kent on the basis of Giles Clarke's "no county will be allowed to go under on my watch" policy). Either way, it seems a parlous situation as there is a further £4 million debt outstanding to the city council, made on a longer-term basis in 2009. The interest payments on £5.5 million, even at the privileged rate the council offered, must be crippling to a small county with very limited revenue streams. You would also have to question whether it was wise to saddle future generations of Kent members with multi-million pound long-term debt, when there is apparently little prospect of it being paid-off. In short, I'd say they are in desperate need of a Kentish equivalent of Spen Cama! |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 11, 2015 13:49:04 GMT
Bm, I came across a transcript of a past interview with Canterbury City Council leader, John Gilbey, which may explain more about Kent's present financial plight. Kent were lent £5.5m via two loans. The first was for £4m (2010) which covers a 6 year period. The second £1.5m (2012) was to be paid off once the hotel development and/or the retirement homes were secured. Neither ventures have occurred. The £4m loan is being paid off in 4 quarterly payments per year. So a fair amount has already been remunerated. When each county received their £1m from the ECB, several clubs used this to help pay of their debt as 'special dispensation' from the ECB. They included Kent and Yorkshire. As John Gilbey explained, "We were pleasantly surprised to discover one of the quarterly payments was of a much larger sum than usual." It seems a "significant" amount of the £1m was used to pay off part of the Canterbury City Council £4m loan. Therefore, it is fair to say that today, perhaps, £2m or so is left and when the other £1.5m is added, around £3.5m is still to be paid off. Gilbey was bemused as to why the club had not found a hotel developer. When the £1.5m loan was agreed, a potential party had been found leading to Club Chairman, George Kennedy, to say at the time: “We’re hopeful of moving forward with the hotel and are well-advanced with negotiations with one particular party. In the next week or so, we hope to meet with them again and things are certainly moving in the right direction.” But this agreement was never formalised and simply drifted on until the said developer dropped out. "The St Lawrence Ground is a lovely site for a hotel. I just don't understand why a developer wasn't secured," Gilbey said. He cited the success at Worcestershire CCC and 'Premier Inn', even when the ground regularly floods, and of course, now 'Travelodge' are building a new outlet around a mile from the ground, it makes little sense. Gilbey continued, "It's all a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps, the club were unlucky." One of the Few Kent CCCs Off-Field Commercial Successes Gilbey went on to say that he felt Kent CCC had turned the corner financially, although there was still a long way to go, and the Council were delighted with the success of the 'Sainsbury's' outlet. Adding that if 'Canterbury City Council' had not lent them the two loan tranches, "For all intents and purposes, Kent CCC would have gone bankrupt." Whoever the new Council leader is come May, one way forward is to combine the two outstanding loans as one and renegotiate the annual 4 quarterly payment scheme. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 15:33:00 GMT
s&f : The first loan of £4m was agreed in Nov 2009 and is an annuity loan over 25 years, with interest payable at the PWLB rate of 4.39 per cent per annum. Don't know where the six year period comes from , and if the ECB soft loan was used towards paying off one of the two city council loans, it should sensibly have been against the second loan for £1.5 million agreed in Jan 2012, because that was approved as "emergency" funding repayable within three years.
The council's 'risk assessment' in 2009 on the £4 million loan said: "There is a risk that the business plan proves to be over-optimistic but the projections are based on reasonable assumptions... the council will be protected by securing the loan against the club's assets."
As the only assets are the ground, that means that if the club cannot repay, then ownership of the ground will pass to the city council.
Which may well be the best outcome and perhaps was even the plan all along, because if the city council took over the ground, they would surely not want to evict the club but lease it back at a nominal rent in order to keep Kent CCC's HQ in Canterbury and prevent them decamping lock, stock and barrel to the recently redeveloped ground in Beckenham, which the club now has for the next 20 years on a peppercorn rent from Leander Sport & Development.
But the rise of UKIP may have introduced a touch of uncertainty into this. Who knows if anyone will be in majority control of the council after the May elections and what kind of coalition might take power? East Kent is prime UKIP territory and Lib Dem councillor Nick Eden-Green, who has led the attack on Kent CCC for failing to provide the community benefits promised in the original 2009 loan application, has received strong public backing from Canterbury UKIP for his criticisms of the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 11, 2015 16:23:19 GMT
Bm,
The first loan of £4m was agreed in Nov 2009 and is an annuity loan over 25 years...I agree about Nov' or was it Dec' 2009? My point being, the money was first used in 2010. As for the 25 years, I have no idea. My notes state the loan was to be paid back after 6 years. Perhaps, I misunderstood what John Gilbey said. Also, I agree about the Council's ability to take over the ground. Rather like Eastleigh Borough Council and the 'Ageas Bowl', I am surprised not more Councils own their cricket county grounds. Who knows this may occur with more frequency. Glamorgan (Cardiff Council) and Durham (Durham County Council) are two likely contenders in the future while Warwickshire (Birmingham City Council) are looking pretty sick. On a very dull Sunday afternoon, I have discovered what Kent promised for their £4m loan along with other plans. These plans include a 130 bed hotel, a health and fitness centre, a new debenture/conference centre, an enhanced physiotherapy clinic
and headquarters building with retail outlets centred around a new public square. It was also proposed that the facilities for spectators
were to be upgraded to provide a refurbished, open-plan pavilion, a redevelopment of the Woolley stand for corporate boxes, a reconfigured
seating plan for 5,500 seats and floodlights.
How much of this has been actually achieved? The physiotherapy centre I believe is successful. Retail outlets around a new public square became a 'Sainsbury's Local'. No hotel, so what has actually manifested and how did the Club spend the loan? A great achievement for a non-TMG whose ground floods more often than a floodplain Meanwhile, The Hilton Hotel at ‘The Ageas Bowl’ is on time for completion this Spring after its major setback at the beginning of last year; ‘The Premier Inn and Restaurant’ at Worcestershire CCC is now complete and open for business; and Lancashire are demolishing their present ‘Lodge’ to make way for a £3m+ branded 4* hotel. Cleverly, the club is launching its first ever retail bond to raise the money. The club is offering bonds for investments from £1000 and promises a five-year initial fixed term offering 7% gross interest per annum, split between 5% in cash and 2% in 'Credit4Cricket Units', which can be used to buy international and domestic tickets, hospitality and Membership fees at the ground. Lancashire CEO Daniel Gidney says: “Our vision is for Emirates Old Trafford to provide one of the best sports, entertainment and business experiences in world cricket. An attractive, contemporary hotel that will appeal to corporate visitors and private customers alike is central to this aim.” So, elsewhere hotels are being planned and constructed successfully. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 19:38:19 GMT
On a very dull Sunday afternoon, I have discovered what Kent promised for their £4m loan along with other plans. These plans include a 130 bed hotel, a health and fitness centre, a new debenture/conference centre, an enhanced physiotherapy clinic
and headquarters building with retail outlets centred around a new public square. It was also proposed that the facilities for spectators
were to be upgraded to provide a refurbished, open-plan pavilion, a redevelopment of the Woolley stand for corporate boxes, a reconfigured
seating plan for 5,500 seats and floodlights.
How much of this has been actually achieved? The physiotherapy centre I believe is successful. Retail outlets around a new public square became a 'Sainsbury's Local'. No hotel, so what has actually manifested and how did the Club spend the loan? How indeed, s&f? According to the business plans lodged with the city council something like £11-12 million has been spent but virtually none of the community faciltites which the club promised in order to secure the council loan have materialised - which is why the anti-Gilbey faction on the city council have turned nasty and is one of the reasons why they rejected the club's planning application. Gilbey stands down in May (if he hadn't promised to go quietly he would have been kicked out, after being found guilty last year of leaking commercially confidential planning info to an interested third party). As a result KCCC now finds itself in the position of being a pawn in a political game in which the ingenues running the club are completely out of their depth. What has happened at Kent over the last few years is a tragedy that breaks my ageing heart - not least because it need not have happened. I received an e-mail today from a journalist who has been writing about Kent since 1973, asking if I knew that a few years ago Rod Bransgrove - who was born in Kent and grew up supporting the county - offered to bailout Kent. I had heard that rumour at the time, but it had never been confirmed. This e-mail not only appears to confirm Bransgrove's offer, but also alleges that Kent sent him away with a flea in his ear because the existing 'big cheeses' on the club's committee felt threatened by what they saw as "outside interference." What upsets me even more than Kent's decline on and off the field is that this is a club that has sold it's soul Coincidentally as I write this , my glass of wine is sitting on one of a set of coasters I bought from the Kent CCC shop about 35 years ago. It shows the Colin Blythe WW1 memorial at the Canterbury ground with a magnificent avenue of mature trees behind it. Where are those glorious, spreading horse-chestnuts now ? Criminally chopped down (why weren't they listed??) to make way for a hotel that is never going to be built. And where, as we commemorate the centenary of the Great War, is the Blythe memorial? It was knocked down in 2011 and the last time I asked, I was told it was in "safe storage". Has it since been restored? I certainly couldn't see it anywhere when I visited the Canterbury ground last season. Such wanton destruction and disregard for history seems a fitting but tragic metaphor for a club that has not only lost its way on the field of play and screwed up everything off-the-field, but which has also has thrown away its moral compass. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 13, 2015 10:16:12 GMT
Bm,
Where are those glorious, spreading horse-chestnuts now ?
Perhaps, sums up Kent CCCs general plight? One understands the upset and the hankering of
the past. The club won 10 trophies in the 1970s - ten! In the noughties a further two and then
dropping down to division 2 in 2008 echoed the growing off-field demise.
Yet, without the Spen Cama legacy and later the coaching expertise of Mark Robinson, what
might have happened to Sussex? Luck and being in the right place can play such a major role
with success.
So, have Kent been unlucky or are there important questions hanging above the head of your former
CEO, Paul Millman? When one looks at the money Kent have proffered during the last 6 years from
Bellway Homes, to Chairman 'gifts', to £5.5m loans from Canterbury City Council and then on to the
sold painting worth over £600k, what has happened to all that money? Surely, one disastrous music
concert didn't swallow this tidy sum up?
|
|
