McCabe to develop former Don Valley (Olympic Legacy Park)?

[I should coco]

Now Birmingham and Liverpool are getting the chance that could have been nailed on for Sheffield. Short sighted city council again.

Sheffield council are skint and have slashed their grant contributions to the Museums Trust, Showroom cinema, theatres etc. They are forced to lose front line staff and can't square this with paying out on lost causes. The snooker costs them a £500k handout and that is the only thing they ring fence due to its importance to the City.
The costs of any bid would run into millions and the cost of staging the Commonwealth Games don't bear thinking about.

It's easy to knock the council for lack of ambition but they really have no choice here. Tory austerity plans have hit them hard and they have no choice here.

Why are the Eagles given any credence over this? They are a non-entity supported by a few hundred fans and 99.9% of the city don't give a hoot about them or rugby league in general. It's about time we moved away from flogging dead horses and if this area is to be redeveloped into a sporting facility it should be to the benefit of a wider audience.

Absolutely. Even when they won the 'Can't-remember-what-it,s-called Cup' at Wemberlee, nobody could be arsed to go. Sheffield is a footy city and I've been surprised the Steelers still get a few thousand, but Rugby League is a complete non starter.

Let them go back to Huddersfield or wherever else they pissed off to last time.

 

[boo radley]

Sheffield council are skint and have slashed their grant contributions to the Museums Trust, Showroom cinema, theatres etc. They are forced to lose front line staff and can't square this with paying out on lost causes. The snooker costs them a £500k handout and that is the only thing they ring fence due to its importance to the City.
The costs of any bid would run into millions and the cost of staging the Commonwealth Games don't bear thinking about.

It's easy to knock the council for lack of ambition but they really have no choice here. Tory austerity plans have hit them hard and they have no choice here.

Prestigious events like that get government backing if they think it is viable. With a private investor like Mc Cabe building properties for the use after it cuts down the cost. It would have been a great legacy from the Olympics to put on this on in a regional city and a real political statement about Northern Powerhouse.
I understand about your point on Austerity but with the infrastructure already built and private backing, if Don Valley had still been there it could have heralded a massive change for all of South Yorkshire. Too late now. A new stadium would cost too much.

 

[coolhandluke]

So you did not understand my post then?

I understood your post perfectly well . Do you understand the situation regarding the Don Valley Stadium ?

 

[boo radley]

I understood your post perfectly well . Do you understand the situation regarding the Don Valley Stadium ?

Am I speaking to you in the past or present? either way enlighten me.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Is this the first step in a move from Bramall Lane?

Not a prayer.

 

[coolhandluke]

Am I speaking to you in the past or present? either way enlighten me.

As the Don Valley Stadium was demolished years ago I guess our discussion is rooted fairly and squarely in the past .

 

[boo radley]

As the Don Valley Stadium was demolished years ago I guess our discussion is rooted fairly and squarely in the past .

It was about the missed opportunity of a couple of years ago yes. It was about the deal that could have been done to keep the Athletics stadium and develop around it. I never mentioned McCabe investing directly in to the stadium, just the games.
This I did not suggest.

No one of sound mind let alone any business acumen would touch the Don Valley Stadium with a barge pole

 

[coolhandluke]

It was about the missed opportunity of a couple of years ago yes. It was about the deal that could have been done to keep the Athletics stadium and develop around it. I never mentioned McCabe investing directly in to the stadium, just the games.
This I did not suggest.

Are you seriously contending that a private investor going into partnership with Sheffield Council in a venture like the Commonwealth Games would have excluded the Don Valley Stadium ?

 

[boo radley]

Are you seriously contending that a private investor going into partnership with Sheffield Council in a venture like the Commonwealth Games would have excluded the Don Valley Stadium ?

Are you seriously wanting to discuss a scenario that can no longer happen to that extent? but yes the council would keep control of the stadium and have input from sports England and other sporting investors creating the Olympic Legacy. McCabe would've got easy planning permission on loads of projects around accommodation. That is what I was suggesting in post 10 to which you replied:

"McCabe may be a lot of things but he's not a fucking idiot . No one of sound mind let alone any business acumen would touch the Don Valley Stadium with a barge pole . KM's happy ( ish ) pumping his money into one loss making venture already and that's us . And the only reason he's with us in his current capacity is because it's his passion . The Don Valley Stadium was an abomination and a blight on our City . Why would KM want anything at all to do with the financial black hole that was the Don Valley Stadium ?"

Again I never mentioned anything about McCabe ploughing money in to Don Valley Stadium. Which incidentally was not a blight on the city it was just underused. Again down to to council mismanagement.
So you misunderstood post 10.
Leaving it.

 

[stringer]

The Star is written by fucking morons. You can't expect even a semblance of lucidity from that rag.

I thought we were pals now?

 

[Tyler Durden]

I thought we were pals now?

I can still be friends with fucking morons can't I?

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Let them go back to Huddersfield or wherever else they pissed off to last time.

They turned down the £1M pound on offer to merge with Huddersfield to remain a Sheffield team and Huddersfield got the lot.
Caused lots of problems for 'em but at least they stuck to their guns and showed some back bone.

Pity our board don't do the same with academy players.

 

[Grizzly blade]

It can be levelled, I didn't say it was impossible, I said it wasn't feasible.

Clubs are obviously businesses, and as such would consider the cost of any major redevelopments against the potential income gained.

Demolishing the stand, removing the hill and building an entirely new stand wouldn't be cost effective, so it won't be done.

As for the old WW2 bombs, as far as I know it's only a rumour, though it doesn't seem baseless. It would hugely add to the cost obviously, making it less likely.

I don't agree.

I suspect the theory of bombs being in the ground is just silly myth. At the time of the war, it will have been obvious if a bomb had impacted in the stand, even if not detonated. They would hardly have just chucked some new muck and concrete over it and carried on. Even if there were unexploded ordinance it's hardly a huge increase in cost. Slow it down a bit but the army come out and deal with it.

As for removing the mound, I think it's a must. Yes it would be more expensive, but would be costed over the life of the stand. And the added office space/retail space or even car parking for flats....whatever use it generates the income would eventually cover the increased cost and then turn a profit. The other benefit would be improved access to the stand, better facilities for matchday and thus likely a higher ticket price. All adding to the increase in revenue.

So rather than just putting a new roof on, and sprucing up the bogs if it's going to be done it needs to be done properly as a project to fill in the final corner and connect it with the rest of the stadium. It's a 2 season project probably, but I can see this being done in the nit too distant future.

 

[BerksBlade]

They turned down the £1M pound on offer to merge with Huddersfield to remain a Sheffield team and Huddersfield got the lot.
Caused lots of problems for 'em but at least they stuck to their guns and showed some back bone.

Pity our board don't do the same with academy players.

They did merge & played as the Huddersfield-Sheffield Giants for most of one season before dropping the Sheffield name. The current Eagles are a "phoenix" club formed by Mark Aston & opponents of the merger.

 

[robbiez666]

It would be a decent location for flats.

 

[Chali 2na]

I don't agree.

I suspect the theory of bombs being in the ground is just silly myth. At the time of the war, it will have been obvious if a bomb had impacted in the stand, even if not detonated. They would hardly have just chucked some new muck and concrete over it and carried on. Even if there were unexploded ordinance it's hardly a huge increase in cost. Slow it down a bit but the army come out and deal with it.

As for removing the mound, I think it's a must. Yes it would be more expensive, but would be costed over the life of the stand. And the added office space/retail space or even car parking for flats....whatever use it generates the income would eventually cover the increased cost and then turn a profit. The other benefit would be improved access to the stand, better facilities for matchday and thus likely a higher ticket price. All adding to the increase in revenue.

So rather than just putting a new roof on, and sprucing up the bogs if it's going to be done it needs to be done properly as a project to fill in the final corner and connect it with the rest of the stadium. It's a 2 season project probably, but I can see this being done in the nit too distant future.

I acknowledged that the unexploded bomb theory is a myth, but you say:

Even if there were unexploded ordinance it's hardly a huge increase in cost. Slow it down a bit...

It would slow it down a lot. Any time spent with the stand not build or partially built costs money, and lowers revenue.

I can see this being done in the nit too distant future

I can see you being disappointed in the not too distant future:
Firstly, we're in no position to be increasing the capacity as we rarely sell out.
Secondly, the kop is the cheapest stand in the ground. Meaning that it would take longer to return the investment.
Thirdly, the South stand is more convenient to extend in terms of practicality and cost, so that would be done prior to re-building the kop.

I'm about to make some assumptions, so adjust the figures as you see fit, but:

If the development cost us around £40m, and increased the capacity by 10,000, each seat would in effect cost £4000. If the average seat on the kop is worth about £300p/a to the club, then it would take over 13 years to break even, not including the revenue lost when the stand was out of action.

 

[coolhandluke]

Leaving it.

Fair enough .

 

[SUFC Handsworth]

The original DVS would have been ideal for a T20 cricket franchise team.

 

[Grizzly blade]

I acknowledged that the unexploded bomb theory is a myth, but you say:



It would slow it down a lot. Any time spent with the stand not build or partially built costs money, and lowers revenue.



I can see you being disappointed in the not too distant future:
Firstly, we're in no position to be increasing the capacity as we rarely sell out.
Secondly, the kop is the cheapest stand in the ground. Meaning that it would take longer to return the investment.
Thirdly, the South stand is more convenient to extend in terms of practicality and cost, so that would be done prior to re-building the kop.

I'm about to make some assumptions, so adjust the figures as you see fit, but:

If the development cost us around £40m, and increased the capacity by 10,000, each seat would in effect cost £4000. If the average seat on the kop is worth about £300p/a to the club, then it would take over 13 years to break even, not including the revenue lost when the stand was out of action.

No problem with your assumptions at all. In fact, I think you have answered my point perfectly. A 13 year return to break even when not taking into account any other revenue stream other than ticket price is reason to get it done.
The life of the stand will be well over 20 years...if done from the ground up lfor he the south stand then that is significantly longer.

Such an investment in the bricks and mortar of the club is a long term investment...much like a mortgage.

As for getting on with it, why are we in no position to be selling out? We had a few games last season which sold out, there will be more this season. A good season and average could well too 27k.
If we are planning a return to the premier league what then? Do we wait til we get up and then close a quarter of the ground?

 

[Fraggle Blade]

I thought we already had planning permission for the KOP development..........which also included the filling in of the KOP / South stand corner and the offices / facilities that were designed under the KOP stand.
Seems there is a lot of potential for extra income from the development other than just seat income............but agree it's not likely to take place until a premiership return is on the cards.
I believe that WCEC architects did the design for the KOP and the planning permission was extended not long ago.

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

I acknowledged that the unexploded bomb theory is a myth, but you say:



It would slow it down a lot. Any time spent with the stand not build or partially built costs money, and lowers revenue.



I can see you being disappointed in the not too distant future:
Firstly, we're in no position to be increasing the capacity as we rarely sell out.
Secondly, the kop is the cheapest stand in the ground. Meaning that it would take longer to return the investment.
Thirdly, the South stand is more convenient to extend in terms of practicality and cost, so that would be done prior to re-building the kop.

I'm about to make some assumptions, so adjust the figures as you see fit, but:

If the development cost us around £40m, and increased the capacity by 10,000, each seat would in effect cost £4000. If the average seat on the kop is worth about £300p/a to the club, then it would take over 13 years to break even, not including the revenue lost when the stand was out of action.

Is 13 years too long a time to recoup capital investment ? I`m not a fan of half measures which are not economical in the long run when put against the quality of the resulting changes. The Kop needs the roof pillars removed, new toilets, a new roof if extended, wider seats, more leg room, and improved food, drink and general sales facilities. I don`t see the point, bearing in mind the cost of the above, why we don`t provide a 21st century Kop rather than making half-arsed changes to a 19th century ediface.

 

[Chali 2na]

No problem with your assumptions at all. In fact, I think you have answered my point perfectly. A 13 year return to break even when not taking into account any other revenue stream other than ticket price is reason to get it done.
The life of the stand will be well over 20 years...if done from the ground up lfor he the south stand then that is significantly longer.

Such an investment in the bricks and mortar of the club is a long term investment...much like a mortgage.

As for getting on with it, why are we in no position to be selling out? We had a few games last season which sold out, there will be more this season. A good season and average could well too 27k.
If we are planning a return to the premier league what then? Do we wait til we get up and then close a quarter of the ground?

Is 13 years too long a time to recoup capital investment ? I`m not a fan of half measures which are not economical in the long run when put against the quality of the resulting changes. The Kop needs the roof pillars removed, new toilets, a new roof if extended, wider seats, more leg room, and improved food, drink and general sales facilities. I don`t see the point, bearing in mind the cost of the above, why we don`t provide a 21st century Kop rather than making half-arsed changes to a 19th century ediface.

Like I say, why would you make an investment that will likely take 13 years to recoup when they could expand other areas of the ground that would return the investment far quicker?

And that 13 years doesn't include the time and lost revenue during the construction, and also assumes that the stand will be full all the time, which it won't be.

I would love the kop to be improved, I sit there, but I just don't think it will happen.

And Grizzly, as for this:

As for getting on with it, why are we in no position to be selling out? We had a fewgames last season which sold out, there will be more this season. A good season and average could well too 27k.

I think you answered your own question: an average attendance of 5000 below our capacity is an indication that we're not really in a position to extend.

 

[tyke1889]

think you answered your own question: an average attendance of 5000 below our capacity is an indication that we're not really in a position to extend.

But that says to me that now would be the perfect time to close the Kop, as everyone who normally sits/stands there will get a seat until it's complete. If we become more popular and start to sell out then some will not get a seat when we do develop it.

 

[bladesmanluke]

We're not going to change the plans for the Kop

 

[coolhandluke]

I don't agree.

I suspect the theory of bombs being in the ground is just silly myth. At the time of the war, it will have been obvious if a bomb had impacted in the stand, even if not detonated. They would hardly have just chucked some new muck and concrete over it and carried on. Even if there were unexploded ordinance it's hardly a huge increase in cost. Slow it down a bit but the army come out and deal with it.

As for removing the mound, I think it's a must. Yes it would be more expensive, but would be costed over the life of the stand. And the added office space/retail space or even car parking for flats....whatever use it generates the income would eventually cover the increased cost and then turn a profit. The other benefit would be improved access to the stand, better facilities for matchday and thus likely a higher ticket price. All adding to the increase in revenue.

So rather than just putting a new roof on, and sprucing up the bogs if it's going to be done it needs to be done properly as a project to fill in the final corner and connect it with the rest of the stadium. It's a 2 season project probably, but I can see this being done in the nit too distant future.

I acknowledged that the unexploded bomb theory is a myth, but you say:



It would slow it down a lot. Any time spent with the stand not build or partially built costs money, and lowers revenue.



I can see you being disappointed in the not too distant future:
Firstly, we're in no position to be increasing the capacity as we rarely sell out.
Secondly, the kop is the cheapest stand in the ground. Meaning that it would take longer to return the investment.
Thirdly, the South stand is more convenient to extend in terms of practicality and cost, so that would be done prior to re-building the kop.

I'm about to make some assumptions, so adjust the figures as you see fit, but:

If the development cost us around £40m, and increased the capacity by 10,000, each seat would in effect cost £4000. If the average seat on the kop is worth about £300p/a to the club, then it would take over 13 years to break even, not including the revenue lost when the stand was out of action.

No problem with your assumptions at all. In fact, I think you have answered my point perfectly. A 13 year return to break even when not taking into account any other revenue stream other than ticket price is reason to get it done.
The life of the stand will be well over 20 years...if done from the ground up lfor he the south stand then that is significantly longer.

Such an investment in the bricks and mortar of the club is a long term investment...much like a mortgage.

As for getting on with it, why are we in no position to be selling out? We had a few games last season which sold out, there will be more this season. A good season and average could well too 27k.
If we are planning a return to the premier league what then? Do we wait til we get up and then close a quarter of the ground?

I thought we already had planning permission for the KOP development..........which also included the filling in of the KOP / South stand corner and the offices / facilities that were designed under the KOP stand.
Seems there is a lot of potential for extra income from the development other than just seat income............but agree it's not likely to take place until a premiership return is on the cards.
I believe that WCEC architects did the design for the KOP and the planning permission was extended not long ago.

Is 13 years too long a time to recoup capital investment ? I`m not a fan of half measures which are not economical in the long run when put against the quality of the resulting changes. The Kop needs the roof pillars removed, new toilets, a new roof if extended, wider seats, more leg room, and improved food, drink and general sales facilities. I don`t see the point, bearing in mind the cost of the above, why we don`t provide a 21st century Kop rather than making half-arsed changes to a 19th century ediface.

Like I say, why would you make an investment that will likely take 13 years to recoup when they could expand other areas of the ground that would return the investment far quicker?

And that 13 years doesn't include the time and lost revenue during the construction, and also assumes that the stand will be full all the time, which it won't be.

I would love the kop to be improved, I sit there, but I just don't think it will happen.

And Grizzly, as for this:



I think you answered your own question: an average attendance of 5000 below our capacity is an indication that we're not really in a position to extend.

But that says to me that now would be the perfect time to close the Kop, as everyone who normally sits/stands there will get a seat until it's complete. If we become more popular and start to sell out then some will not get a seat when we do develop it.

When discussing ROI and any development of the Kop we have to factor in plans for student accommodation aswell . This should ensure that returns on the original investment would be greatly enhanced and accelerated . Quite how our fan base would react to McCabe effectively ' trouser pocketing ' the proceeds from accommodation is a contentious issue and one I think he'd be hammered for . Personally speaking , I'd have no problem with it at all if the development was good .

 

[Chali 2na]

But that says to me that now would be the perfect time to close the Kop, as everyone who normally sits/stands there will get a seat until it's complete. If we become more popular and start to sell out then some will not get a seat when we do develop it.

I don't agree, but even if you are right; why would we prioritise rebuilding the kop over expanding the South stand? (Considering expanding the South stand would be far more cost effective.)

When discussing ROI and any development of the Kop we have to factor in plans for student accommodation aswell . This should ensure that returns on the original investment would be greatly enhanced and accelerated . Quite how our fan base would react to McCabe effectively ' trouser pocketing ' the proceeds from accommodation is a contentious issue and one I think he'd be hammered for . Personally speaking , I'd have no problem with it at all if the development was good .

The inclusion of student flats or similar ventures would change things. Do such plans exist?

 

[tyke1889]

When discussing ROI and any development of the Kop we have to factor in plans for student accommodation aswell . This should ensure that returns on the original investment would be greatly enhanced and accelerated . Quite how our fan base would react to McCabe effectively ' trouser pocketing ' the proceeds from accommodation is a contentious issue and one I think he'd be hammered for . Personally speaking , I'd have no problem with it at all if the development was good .

Why couldn't we, the club, build the student accommodation as part of the development and trouser the proceeds?

 

[tyke1889]

I don't agree, but even if you are right; why would we prioritise rebuilding the kop over expanding the South stand? (Considering expanding the South stand would be far more cost effective.)

Cos the long-suffering Kop fans deserve a clear view of the game, good facilities and decent seating as much as anyone else. I'd happily pay £50 a season more on my ST for that.

 

[Chali 2na]

Cos the long-suffering Kop fans deserve a clear view of the game, good facilities and decent seating as much as anyone else. I'd happily pay £50 a season more on my ST for that.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but multi-million pound investments to the stadium won't be based on what "kop fans deserve". Any such plans will be financial.

 

[snootyfenooty]

It would slow it down a lot. Any time spent with the stand not build or partially built costs money, and lowers revenue.

You can do a UXO survey before any excavation or construction. It would take a couple of weeks and costs peanuts compared to the overall construction cost. It involves the hydraulic pushing into the rubble of a probe with special sensors built in to detect UXO. You'd get full coverage of the whole kop with about 30-40 probes. It's quite a common technique.

I've mentioned before on this forum that the main issue with the rubble under the kop is hazardous waste material and the disposal/clean up costs associated with this would run into millions before you even start any construction. That's even assuming you'd find a landfill operator willing to take it. Removal of that mound is a non-starter.