Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:45 am  

It's my understanding that Saints have to leave KR at the end of October as Langtree? have a contract in place for the purchase / ownership of the land from then.

Is that correct?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:14 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It's my understanding that Saints have to leave KR at the end of October as Langtree? have a contract in place for the purchase / ownership of the land from then.

Is that correct?

No.

Taylor Wimpey entered into a contract a number of years ago to purchase the Knowsley Road site at a set price based upon land values at the time. The contract will include a "longstop" date by which time Saints will have to hand-over the land or the contract can be invalidated by Taylor Wimpey.

Taylor Wimpey are paying massiveley over the odds for the land and would love the opportunity to get out of the purchase. Saints have no alternative but to vacate Knowsley Road by the date mentioned as to not do so would bring the whole deal crashing down as they wouldn't be able to put their "share" of funding into the pot. The way things are looking I woould not be suprised to see Saints spend the whole of the 2011 season on the road.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:17 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

The way things are looking I woould not be suprised to see Saints spend the whole of the 2011 season on the road.

Nor would I, given the silence from the club.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:33 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

No.

Taylor Wimpey entered into a contract a number of years ago to purchase the Knowsley Road site at a set price based upon land values at the time. The contract will include a "longstop" date by which time Saints will have to hand-over the land or the contract can be invalidated by Taylor Wimpey.

Taylor Wimpey are paying massiveley over the odds for the land and would love the opportunity to get out of the purchase. Saints have no alternative but to vacate Knowsley Road by the date mentioned as to not do so would bring the whole deal crashing down as they wouldn't be able to put their "share" of funding into the pot. The way things are looking I woould not be suprised to see Saints spend the whole of the 2011 season on the road.

So I was right except that it wasn't Langtree hence the?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:53 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

So I was right except that it wasn't Langtree hence the?

yep

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:56 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

No.

Taylor Wimpey entered into a contract a number of years ago to purchase the Knowsley Road site at a set price based upon land values at the time. The contract will include a "longstop" date by which time Saints will have to hand-over the land or the contract can be invalidated by Taylor Wimpey.

Taylor Wimpey are paying massiveley over the odds for the land and would love the opportunity to get out of the purchase. Saints have no alternative but to vacate Knowsley Road by the date mentioned as to not do so would bring the whole deal crashing down as they wouldn't be able to put their "share" of funding into the pot. The way things are looking I woould not be suprised to see Saints spend the whole of the 2011 season on the road.

Taylor Wimpey may have paid over the odds for KR, but with a
guarantee of planning permission they did well out of the deal.
One main reason Saints are leaving KR early for mine, is the cost of the Bridging loan they need to take out.
The Saint are taking out an £8million bridging loan over 18 months, it will cost the club £750,000 in interest payements. the club must have their reason, but 18 months seems a little long.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:19 am  

Paul Youane wrote:

The one thing we do know is that Tesco CAN open their store without the stadium being open.
It is there to be seen in the S106 document.

Only if they cough up money to guarantee that the stadium will open.
Section 3.13 and 3.14 states

The Superstore would not open prior to the Stadium coming into use;
Should the developer request that the Superstore open prior to the
Stadium coming into use, then a bond would be put in place to cover the
remaining construction cost of the Stadium at the time the bond is entered
into.
The Council to subsequently agree that the Superstore can open on the basis the above is complied with.
The timescale for completing the development and calling on the bond would be either 18 months from the date the new Superstore is first open for trading; or following 6 months of inactivity on the site following occupation of the Superstore

3.14 The purpose of a bond is essentially to guarantee the completion of the Stadium building once the construction on the site had begun, should
anything unforeseen happen. The applicant’s proposals are such that, even if the Superstore were to be built, it could not begin to trade unless the Council agreed, and the necessary finance to complete the Stadium building was put in place.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:56 am  

The Chair Maker wrote:

Only if they cough up money to guarantee that the stadium will open.
Section 3.13 and 3.14 states

The Superstore would not open prior to the Stadium coming into use;
Should the developer request that the Superstore open prior to the
Stadium coming into use, then a bond would be put in place to cover the
remaining construction cost of the Stadium at the time the bond is entered
into.
The Council to subsequently agree that the Superstore can open on the basis the above is complied with.
The timescale for completing the development and calling on the bond would be either 18 months from the date the new Superstore is first open for trading; or following 6 months of inactivity on the site following occupation of the Superstore

3.14 The purpose of a bond is essentially to guarantee the completion of the Stadium building once the construction on the site had begun, should
anything unforeseen happen. The applicant’s proposals are such that, even if the Superstore were to be built, it could not begin to trade unless the Council agreed, and the necessary finance to complete the Stadium building was put in place.

I like that, but then to tesco the numbers involved here are chicken feed

[Sadfish]

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:14 am  

The Chair Maker wrote:

Only if they cough up money to guarantee that the stadium will open.
Section 3.13 and 3.14 states

The Superstore would not open prior to the Stadium coming into use;
Should the developer request that the Superstore open prior to the
Stadium coming into use, then a bond would be put in place to cover the
remaining construction cost of the Stadium at the time the bond is entered
into.
The Council to subsequently agree that the Superstore can open on the basis the above is complied with.
The timescale for completing the development and calling on the bond would be either 18 months from the date the new Superstore is first open for trading; or following 6 months of inactivity on the site following occupation of the Superstore

3.14 The purpose of a bond is essentially to guarantee the completion of the Stadium building once the construction on the site had begun, should
anything unforeseen happen. The applicant’s proposals are such that, even if the Superstore were to be built, it could not begin to trade unless the Council agreed, and the necessary finance to complete the Stadium building was put in place.

Nice pwnage there mate.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:43 am  

On the Tesco part of it, and I'm not being negative. In the current economic climate would Tesco really be be bothered about any major delays.

They already have a town Centre store which IMO is in a better location than the one they are moving to.
Even if the new store is bigger, how long will it take thm to get their money back on that investment?