Benali Banned From St Marys ?

[Frank's cousin]

I think so, but don't forget Stoneham had extras like the athletics stadium, tennis courts etc., as part of the development, which needed to be funded.

 

Why it was never going to be bigger than 25k though, I'll never know. I assume cost, but just don't know.

 

What always struck me about Stoneham was why the project was considered a failure.... you only have to look at teh current issues faced by Brighton, and still faced by Everton and Portsmuff to appreciate that its a very delecate situation gaining the necessary planning approvals and many chops and chnages are often required. I understand that Lowe placed all the proverbial eggs in that basket, and without an alternative when the planners said no it looked like once again the club was not going anywhere as in the past with the West Quay plan etc.

 

But I struggle to see why the addition of a leisure complex and the rest of it was such a 'bad idea'? It seems logical to look at additional revenue sources to help fund and sustain these major developments as Bolton did etc - I can see the argument that it was a feck up IF it was never going to get planning because of the concerns of Eastleigh, but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere?

 

I am interested in the truth, but as often happens on here the issue has been hijacked by those opposed on both sides to either: Say Lowe was crap ...again, or those that use SMS as an example of teh positives under Lowe, yet where is the unbiassed account of why the plans were put together in the way they were, why they were changed etc and is this all really a **** up or just the nature of the planning process and politics?

[Torres]

So, you mean it was a cookoo sh*t plan in the first place, in other words ?

 

In my opinion it was, yes. Had we not been desperate for a new ground and been trying to move for longer than anyone can remember I don't think it would have progressed as far as it did.

[Torres]

Why it was never going to be bigger than 25k though, I'll never know. I assume cost, but just don't know.

 

Access?

[Frank's cousin]

Thing is we are so bloody emotional about these things - The logical thing to do would have been to do a Munich and build a single new stadium for 50,000 with Pompey off the M27.... but fans want city centre locations (always going to restrict access and therefore capacity) close to pubs etc... which is why we are next to a gas works...

 

Would be interesting to see the business plan of the stoneham project...before making up ones mind?

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

As for Stoneham, it was not a cluster because we turned it down, what would have been a cluster is accepting those conditions. It's very simple, we could not afford it and had no benefit from moving from the Dell. The equation is very simple, if the move makes financial sense it gets done, otherwise you have to say NO.

So kindly inform us all of the natural conclusion that one has to arrive at from your last sentence.

 

It is that in the absence of any other alternative site to build a stadium locally, we would still be at The Dell with 15000 seats.

 

Please don't forget that at the time of the Stoneham project, there was no other alternative. Your post should be viewed agianst that background and under those circumstances different criteria would have been brought into play regarding it.

 

Not that I agree for one second anyway about your assertion that Stoneham was not viable financially, especially as it would have accommodated an extra 10,000 bums on seats. But I grow tired of arguing the toss against those blinkered individuals who believe that Lowe had no alternatives.

 

It's the same for any business considering investing vast amounts of capital into it's infrastructure, it's got to have a long term objective of being commercially viable.

 

The very fact we had no alternative would make us accept conditions that were less than ideal. The lack of alternative is more of a spur in accepting Stoneham than rejecting it. The reason we kept going back to Eastleigh over god knows how many months, was because we had no alternative, but that does not mean you have to commit financial suicide just to move from the Dell. That would be the equivalent of taking all your various mortgage and credit card debts, to roll up with one all in deal from your local loan shark.

 

Even the idiots accept that the final deal we got on St Mary's was exceptional, so Stoneham would have not come near those figures. Then just look at the debt we were left with St Mary's and things should start to click, with full capacity on 32500, not 25000. When ever anyone of us moves house we abide by some basic rules or you end up having your property repossessed, it has to be affordable in the long term. In the case of a stadium it is even more imperative because you can't take the option of down sizing.

[Danny]

Access?

I'd have thought that was the one area where Stoneham would blow St. Mary's out of the water, but I guess it could have been one of the reasons.

[Danny]

What always struck me about Stoneham was why the project was considered a failure.... you only have to look at teh current issues faced by Brighton, and still faced by Everton and Portsmuff to appreciate that its a very delecate situation gaining the necessary planning approvals and many chops and chnages are often required. I understand that Lowe placed all the proverbial eggs in that basket, and without an alternative when the planners said no it looked like once again the club was not going anywhere as in the past with the West Quay plan etc.

 

But I struggle to see why the addition of a leisure complex and the rest of it was such a 'bad idea'? It seems logical to look at additional revenue sources to help fund and sustain these major developments as Bolton did etc - I can see the argument that it was a feck up IF it was never going to get planning because of the concerns of Eastleigh, but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere?

 

I am interested in the truth, but as often happens on here the issue has been hijacked by those opposed on both sides to either: Say Lowe was crap ...again, or those that use SMS as an example of teh positives under Lowe, yet where is the unbiassed account of why the plans were put together in the way they were, why they were changed etc and is this all really a **** up or just the nature of the planning process and politics?

 

I think there is a fairly straight forward account in Full Time at The Dell, which certainly gives the impression that it was more a decision based on political wrangling rather anything the club did.

[Gemmel]

But I struggle to see why the addition of a leisure complex and the rest of it was such a 'bad idea'? It seems logical to look at additional revenue sources to help fund and sustain these major developments as Bolton did etc - I can see the argument that it was a feck up IF it was never going to get planning because of the concerns of Eastleigh, but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere?

 

I am interested in the truth, but as often happens on here the issue has been hijacked by those opposed on both sides to either: Say Lowe was crap ...again, or those that use SMS as an example of teh positives under Lowe, yet where is the unbiassed account of why the plans were put together in the way they were, why they were changed etc and is this all really a **** up or just the nature of the planning process and politics?

 

The council gave outlined planning permission based on certain criteria. When the plans were re submitted, it included a cinema and other things (Can't remember exactly what) that the council believed would take revenue and customers out of Eastleigh town centre (They were going to put a cinema in Eastleigh town centre themsleves) and therefore opposed the new plans.

[krissyboy31]

I'd have thought that was the one area where Stoneham would blow St. Mary's out of the water, but I guess it could have been one of the reasons.

 

I think it was 25,000 because, although the Monks Brook site was pretty sizeable, much of it would have been taken up by the auxiliary developments and the massive car park that the planners insisted on (something like one space for every 4 or 5 fans). Certain developments like the cinema and bowling alley had been agreed but when extra retail outlets were added the planners threw it out.

[Danny]

The council gave outlined planning permission based on certain criteria. When the plans were re submitted, it included a cinema and other things (Can't remember exactly what) that the council believed would take revenue and customers out of Eastleigh town centre (They were going to put a cinema in Eastleigh town centre themsleves) and therefore opposed the new plans.

 

I found a link the other day from a construction industry website which said Hants CC demanded changes to the plans, which the club couldn't fund without the introduction of more commercial activity on the site.

 

I can't find it now but it's on the last thread where Stoneham was discussed on here the other week.

 

Edit: Found this from the Indy, but it's not what I was after.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-saints-concentrate-on-building-on-and-off-the-pitch-1180834.html

Edited 11 January, 2010 by Danny

[Frank's cousin]

The council gave outlined planning permission based on certain criteria. When the plans were re submitted, it included a cinema and other things (Can't remember exactly what) that the council believed would take revenue and customers out of Eastleigh town centre (They were going to put a cinema in Eastleigh town centre themsleves) and therefore opposed the new plans.

 

I read Full Time at the Dell and thats my problem, Whilst I can see that some may see a resubmission with extras as a 'mistake' that is actually fairly nmormal part of the planning process - given the politcal nature of it all - So I dont see why some are stoic that it was somehow one big **** up by the club. I would love to see a copy and rationale of both the original submission and resubmission before making a judgement on who, what is to to blame etc. Because form a neutral perspective it does not seem any different from other major construction projects of this type especially where two councils are involved...

 

As to the 26,000 seater - I would add that it was only from 2003 onwards when we had had a cup final that our ST number rose to 25000 and we saw weekly sell outs - prior to this we regularly only had 25000 or so for most prem games excluding the top four, so it wa snot that far out - sure its better to have the extra capacity, but there are many clubs with bigger stadia who struggle to fill them regularly...

[scally]

I read Full Time at the Dell and thats my problem, Whilst I can see that some may see a resubmission with extras as a 'mistake' that is actually fairly nmormal part of the planning process - given the politcal nature of it all - So I dont see why some are stoic that it was somehow one big **** up by the club. I would love to see a copy and rationale of both the original submission and resubmission before making a judgement on who, what is to to blame etc. Because form a neutral perspective it does not seem any different from other major construction projects of this type especially where two councils are involved...

 

As to the 26,000 seater - I would add that it was only from 2003 onwards when we had had a cup final that our ST number rose to 25000 and we saw weekly sell outs - prior to this we regularly only had 25000 or so for most prem games excluding the top four, so it wa snot that far out - sure its better to have the extra capacity, but there are many clubs with bigger stadia who struggle to fill them regularly...

 

I think your stats on numbers at St Marys need checking because we were getting 30k plus every week before the Cup Final.

 

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm

Edited 12 January, 2010 by scally

[Wes Tender]

It's the same for any business considering investing vast amounts of capital into it's infrastructure, it's got to have a long term objective of being commercially viable.

 

The very fact we had no alternative would make us accept conditions that were less than ideal. The lack of alternative is more of a spur in accepting Stoneham than rejecting it. The reason we kept going back to Eastleigh over god knows how many months, was because we had no alternative, but that does not mean you have to commit financial suicide just to move from the Dell. That would be the equivalent of taking all your various mortgage and credit card debts, to roll up with one all in deal from your local loan shark.

 

Even the idiots accept that the final deal we got on St Mary's was exceptional, so Stoneham would have not come near those figures. Then just look at the debt we were left with St Mary's and things should start to click, with full capacity on 32500, not 25000. When ever anyone of us moves house we abide by some basic rules or you end up having your property repossessed, it has to be affordable in the long term. In the case of a stadium it is even more imperative because you can't take the option of down sizing.

 

It seems that I'll just have to repeat those same old arguments to counter yours after all.

 

St. Mary's was a stand alone stadium with no additional revenue generators, so Stoneham had that advantage for a start. The reason why Stoneham didn't proceed, was because Lowe wanted a multiplex cinema complex and shopping outlets the size of the Chandlers Ford ASDA on site. Both of these things could not be allowed because the shops would have affected trade in the town centre and the cinema had already been earmarked for the Swan centre. A number of other alternative revenue stream generators would have been perfectly acceptable, such as a big 4* hotel, a bowling alley, ice rink, Planet Hollywood type restaurant, night club, sports megastore etc. The site would also have included an international standard athletics stadium additional to the football stadium, tennis courts, playing fields, etc.

 

In light of the fact that there was no alternative at the time, the debate must centre around the fact that apparently the club were satisfied that the project would have stacked up financially with the cinema and shopping, but somehow not with the list of things I mentioned above. The finance for all the ancilliary sports facilities would have been borne by the Council.

 

The complex in its entirety would have achieved widespread recognition once International athletic events had been held there and much more likely to have attracted investment. In the event of the situation that we found ourselves in when we went into administration, the club would have been much more saleable. Also, in light of the problems that our rivals down the road find themselves, the potential for ground-sharing would have been a more practical option, so we must be grateful at how things turned out and that it is not an option now.

 

So the case that somehow St. Mary's was sustainable financially without any additional revenue generation facilities, but that the smaller stadium at Stoneham with several revenue generators was not, is yet to be explained.

 

Yes, there was political wrangling by the three councils involved, but the way that the club approached it with Lowe's usual charm was not conducive to its smooth passage anyway. Ultimately, when the impasse had been reached, I understand that there was provision for the decision to have been taken to the Home Office for jurisdiction.

 

We ought to never forget that at the time of the collapse of Stoneham, the only remaining solution was to attempt to shoehorn another thousand or so seats into The Dell. Thankfully, Southampton City Council found the St. Mary's site for us and saved Lowe's bacon. Undoubtedly we would have been relegated shortly afterwards anyway, but with the smaller ground capacity and delapidated stadium, we would not have presented the investment opportunity that attracted us to ML. We might have kept afloat in the third division, as we had no debt with The Dell, but neither would we have had any realistic hope of ever getting back to the top flight.

 

It is impossible to surmise where we might have been now had Stoneham succeeded, but as it has turned out with St. Mary's we have been extremely fortunate that the stadium debt that caused our financial downfall once we were relegated, was effectively the magnet that attracted ML to buy us from the bargain basement, the infrastructure being sound and attractive once the debt had been reduced in administration.

[Torres]

Thankfully, Southampton City Council found the St. Mary's site for us and saved Lowe's bacon.

 

I've never understood how they suddenly "found" this site for a new ground. It's remarkable.

[Frank's cousin]

Wes, the question you ask about how SMS was sustainable v Stoneham not being so without the additional stuff is a good one and perhaps the crux. There are a number of probable reason with everything from the cost of the land itself and clean up etc, but perhaps more importantly I think its most likely a political planning thing - its is possible that given the location of the site that a stand alone football stadium would never have been granted planning, but that a complex which has wider local appeal may well have been a requirement of the approval awarding body. So for Saints to be able to fund the scope of works demanded to gain planning consent, its possible to speculate they were looking for commercial opportunities that would maximise the revenue - such as retail and cinema, rather than others that may have provided a community service, but had lower revenue potential. In effect, perhaps SFC were being asked to fund things as part of the complex that were not the best revenue earners?

 

Dont get me wrong, I dont like the idea of town centers becomming ghost towns because of the giant out of town complexes... but had this application been TESCO and the promise of 500 jobs, the outcome would have been different - we all know it - and no one would have cared about Eastleigh town centre.

 

The politics and the demands of planning consent, I believe are too complex to start to throw wild accusations around IMHO. As to Southampton City Council 'saving' us, it does beg the question as Torres points out...were any councillors up for re-election around then?

Edited 12 January, 2010 by Frank's cousin

[Viking Warrior]

Franks Cousin

 

"but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere"

 

 

As someone who was very much involved in the say yes to stoneham campaign. I still have documents etc on this lurking somewhere in my attic.

 

MY understanding was that the stoneham site was indeed about a spat between Eastleigh, Southampton and Hampshire County Council

 

Eastlieghs Davies Dear (From Wales) the a prospective liberal Democrat MP was vehemently opposed to the stoneham project at all costs. he stated to me and others when we met him that he'd rather see Cross country introduced across the fields , He enjoyed cross country running and had no time for football. Aligned to his plan to stop the project were a group of professional activists who suddenly came on the scene. Not even from the area. I had quite a spat with her about the fact she didnt live in anywhere near hampshire so how an earth could she be entering such a debate about stoneham. Her and her gang were professional activist . whose campaigns included the newbury and winchester by passes.

 

Another issue that raised its ugly head was about the Multi plex cinema not gaining planning permission at Hedge end a couple of years earlier(Southampton Vetoed this) I think some pof the hedge end boundaries fell in Eastligh Borough councils territory. I will need to get into my atttic to confirm this.

 

Anyway Eastliegh got a strop on especially when uncle rupes wanted to add on a multiplex to stoneham The rest is History , A few years later Eastliegh built a cinema complex on the old pirrelli site Somebody can correct if I have got the wrong site.

 

But to answer Franks comment , the planning permission was basically turned down due to the political infighting between eastliegh, Southampton and Hampshire County Council and nothing to do with Uncle Rupes.

 

 

I will did out any other relevent information I have when I clamber into my attic.

[Frank's cousin]

Cheers Viking - I dont doubt that Rupes was perhaps not the best at maybe trying to find common ground, which will not have helped, but the politics seems to be the biggest influence here.

[Wes Tender]

Franks Cousin

 

"but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere"

 

 

As someone who was very much involved in the say yes to stoneham campaign. I still have documents etc on this lurking somewhere in my attic.

 

MY understanding was that the stoneham site was indeed about a spat between Eastleigh, Southampton and Hampshire County Council

 

Eastlieghs Davies Dear (From Wales) the a prospective liberal Democrat MP was vehemently opposed to the stoneham project at all costs. he stated to me and others when we met him that he'd rather see Cross country introduced across the fields , He enjoyed cross country running and had no time for football. Aligned to his plan to stop the project were a group of professional activists who suddenly came on the scene. Not even from the area. I had quite a spat with her about the fact she didnt live in anywhere near hampshire so how an earth could she be entering such a debate about stoneham. Her and her gang were professional activist . whose campaigns included the newbury and winchester by passes.

 

Another issue that raised its ugly head was about the Multi plex cinema not gaining planning permission at Hedge end a couple of years earlier(Southampton Vetoed this) I think some pof the hedge end boundaries fell in Eastligh Borough councils territory. I will need to get into my atttic to confirm this.

 

Anyway Eastliegh got a strop on especially when uncle rupes wanted to add on a multiplex to stoneham The rest is History , A few years later Eastliegh built a cinema complex on the old pirrelli site Somebody can correct if I have got the wrong site.

 

But to answer Franks comment , the planning permission was basically turned down due to the political infighting between eastliegh, Southampton and Hampshire County Council and nothing to do with Uncle Rupes.

 

 

I will did out any other relevent information I have when I clamber into my attic.

 

A lot of what you say about the background is correct. Your meeting, with others, was with Davies Dear. My meeting with others at the time that the project was moving forward, was with the principal Council Officer in charge of it, whose name will come to me soon.

 

Although the waters were muddied by Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council owning some of the land, Eastleigh Borough Council were the main local authority with a say on it and although Davies Dear might have objected to the development, the Council as a whole was for it. The football stadium was merely the centrepiece of the development and the feeling was that the whole project would put Eastleigh on the map and was a desirable facility a feather in their cap.

 

Regrettably, the protests began some before by a load of NIMBYs, the sort of hypocrites who don't like football, but probably go and watch the cricket which I detest, in my back yard. I have lived here at West End for over 16 years and don't recall anybody asking me as a local resident whether I objected to the Rose Bowl. The thing was announced as a fait accomplis and that was the first that I had heard about it. Double standards as usual.

 

The cinema complex went on to the Swan centre as originally planned, not on the Pirelli site.

 

The St. Mary's site only became available when Stoneham collapsed. Several councillors felt concerned that Southampton would not have a new stadium and were looking for a solution. Some land that had been zoned for Social Housing on the old gasworks site was being discussed and one of them had the bright idea that it might have been suitable for the stadium site. The club had been resigned to staying at the Dell and bit their hands off at the offer.

 

I heard a couple of snippets at council level as a result of the fallout between the club and the various councils, as there was some bad blood caused by it all. Eastleigh were extremely angry at Lowe and the club and I had it from fairly high up there that should the land at Jackson's Farm be put forward for development, they would refuse permission. Secondly, I heard at the same time that Southampton would probably zone the land that they owned at Stoneham for social housing to put the noses of those NIMBYs out of joint for the part they played in blocking Stoneham for so long. I had also heard that the Conservatives running Hampshire at the time did not feel very cosy towards Lowe because he had stood as a Referendum Party candidate, although I am not sure about the timescale on that.

 

These are the sort of petty tit for tat reprisals that occur in local politics and they muddied the waters with Stoneham. But these problems were not insurmountable had there not been the stubborn intractable stance on the cinema and the retail developments by Lowe. Ultimately, the project could have gone to the Home Office (I think) for a final ruling. I believe that Two Jags Prescott was in charge then and he was likely to have approved, as he would have anticipated that the majority of football supporters (wrongly in my case) were Labour voters and that there were votes in it for them.

[up and away]

Wes, the question you ask about how SMS was sustainable v Stoneham not being so without the additional stuff is a good one and perhaps the crux. There are a number of probable reason with everything from the cost of the land itself and clean up etc, but perhaps more importantly I think its most likely a political planning thing - its is possible that given the location of the site that a stand alone football stadium would never have been granted planning, but that a complex which has wider local appeal may well have been a requirement of the approval awarding body. So for Saints to be able to fund the scope of works demanded to gain planning consent, its possible to speculate they were looking for commercial opportunities that would maximise the revenue - such as retail and cinema, rather than others that may have provided a community service, but had lower revenue potential. In effect, perhaps SFC were being asked to fund things as part of the complex that were not the best revenue earners?

 

Dont get me wrong, I dont like the idea of town centers becomming ghost towns because of the giant out of town complexes... but had this application been TESCO and the promise of 500 jobs, the outcome would have been different - we all know it - and no one would have cared about Eastleigh town centre.

 

The politics and the demands of planning consent, I believe are too complex to start to throw wild accusations around IMHO. As to Southampton City Council 'saving' us, it does beg the question as Torres points out...were any councillors up for re-election around then?

 

The main point about the additionals to Stoneham were to reduce the cost of the infrastructure, such that the stadium could share those costs and reduce it's outlay. That infrastructure would be the start up cost, parking, roads, access, lighting etc that any complex would require. Again the figure of 25000 is factored against these infrastructure costs and planning for that area. We could not afford to fund any of these other ventures, only come alongside them to reduce the infrastructure burden.

 

When you consider the exceptional value we had at the time with St Mary's, you only have to look at the remaining debt to get some idea of the economic problem to the equation. If Stoneham was anywhere near the same value, we would have bit their hands off.

 

This was just a simple judgement upon what we could afford, even though we were absolutely desperate to move from the Dell.

[Channon's Sideburns]

So, is Franny banned or not?

[Wes Tender]

The main point about the additionals to Stoneham were to reduce the cost of the infrastructure, such that the stadium could share those costs and reduce it's outlay. That infrastructure would be the start up cost, parking, roads, access, lighting etc that any complex would require. Again the figure of 25000 is factored against these infrastructure costs and planning for that area. We could not afford to fund any of these other ventures, only come alongside them to reduce the infrastructure burden.

 

When you consider the exceptional value we had at the time with St Mary's, you only have to look at the remaining debt to get some idea of the economic problem to the equation. If Stoneham was anywhere near the same value, we would have bit their hands off.

 

This was just a simple judgement upon what we could afford, even though we were absolutely desperate to move from the Dell.

 

Again, it is a mistake to talk about the infrastructure costs of the parking, roads, access, lighting, etc, inferring that they were down to the club exclusively. The same access and parking would have been utilised by the athletics arena, the tennis courts, playing fields, hotel, bowling, restaurants, ice rink and whatever else was placed on the site. As a lot of that was to be built by Eastleigh, then they would have borne a lot of the cost.

[Torres]

So' date=' is Franny banned or not?[/quote']

 

From Stoneham? Yes.

[John B]

Again, it is a mistake to talk about the infrastructure costs of the parking, roads, access, lighting, etc, inferring that they were down to the club exclusively. The same access and parking would have been utilised by the athletics arena, the tennis courts, playing fields, hotel, bowling, restaurants, ice rink and whatever else was placed on the site. As a lot of that was to be built by Eastleigh, then they would have borne a lot of the cost.

 

I am really glad the Saints play at St Marys I leave my car at my brothers walk down the Avenue have a couple of pints and then walk to the ground .

 

Just like we did at the Dell

[Noodles34]

me too! I got banned once, for fighting, maybe Franny lumped someone after the Brighton match?

[Lord Duckhunter]

St Marys is a far better location.

 

My opinion is that we missed a once in a lifetime chance to build something great, but we ended up with a run of the mill stadium. Now I dont know anything about plans or the ins and outs of it, but personally I would have liked the stands nearer the pitch and a capacity of 35,000-40,000. I would have also liked it to be unique to southampton in some way.Of course it was a step up from the Dell, but when you look at Pride Park and other new stadiums, they just seem a bit better.

[Wes Tender]

Yes, St. Mary's is a better location for those in the city, but not as good for those living outside the city, where the transport infrastructure of air, rail and road favours Stoneham.

 

Of course, somebody of ML's wealth could afford to resurrect the Stoneham project and sell the land at St. Mary's for redevelopment as luxury accommodation alongside the water edge to re-imburse the expense. He could dismantle the kit-form St. Mary's and re-erect it at Stoneham. We could then ground-share with the Skates, overcoming any reservations that the Police would have with a Southampton city centre stadium. It would be but a short walk from the Airport for Markus from his private jet

 

Scary prospect, eh?

[John B]

Yes, St. Mary's is a better location for those in the city, but not as good for those living outside the city, where the transport infrastructure of air, rail and road favours Stoneham.

 

Of course, somebody of ML's wealth could afford to resurrect the Stoneham project and sell the land at St. Mary's for redevelopment as luxury accommodation alongside the water edge to re-imburse the expense. He could dismantle the kit-form St. Mary's and re-erect it at Stoneham. We could then ground-share with the Skates, overcoming any reservations that the Police would have with a Southampton city centre stadium. It would be but a short walk from the Airport for Markus from his private jet

 

Scary prospect, eh?

 

 

Well it is Southampton FC not Eastleigh West End or Totton.

[Torres]

Yes, St. Mary's is a better location for those in the city, but not as good for those living outside the city, where the transport infrastructure of air, rail and road favours Stoneham.

 

I bet the thousands of fans who fly to games were gutted when the Stoneham plan died.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Yes, St. Mary's is a better location for those in the city, but not as good for those living outside the city, where the transport infrastructure of air, rail and road favours Stoneham.

 

So, all this time it was about you !! Selfish, selfish Wes

[Wes Tender]

Well it is Southampton FC not Eastleigh West End or Totton.

 

What? In the same way that it is Southampton Airport or Southampton Parkway railway station?

 

Quote:Torres

I bet the thousands of fans who fly to games were gutted when the Stoneham plan died.

 

Weren't there posts about fans from down here flying up north to Hartlepool recently? Whereas I suspect that it isn't many, I'm sure that some would find it a convenience flying in from other regional airports with budget airline tickets. More to the point is the motorway link right on the doorstep and the main train services to Parkway.

 

Quote: Inflenced. com

So, all this time it was about you !! Selfish, selfish Wes

 

Not at all. I drive in early at midday, park within walking distance of the St. Mary's stadium, go into town for lunch, leave wife in town for shopping. I was thinking much more of those living in Bournemouth, Poole, Eastleigh, Winchester, Andover, Totton, New Forest, Hedge End, Basingstoke, etc, all of whom would find the journey to Stoneham much easier.

 

Anyway, I'm just being a tad mischievous talking about the possibility of the resurrection of the Stoneham stadium and the ground-share with the Skates. Better keep it hushed up, as ML and NC might think that the idea has legs.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

The main point about the additionals to Stoneham were to reduce the cost of the infrastructure, such that the stadium could share those costs and reduce it's outlay. That infrastructure would be the start up cost, parking, roads, access, lighting etc that any complex would require. Again the figure of 25000 is factored against these infrastructure costs and planning for that area. We could not afford to fund any of these other ventures, only come alongside them to reduce the infrastructure burden.

 

When you consider the exceptional value we had at the time with St Mary's, you only have to look at the remaining debt to get some idea of the economic problem to the equation. If Stoneham was anywhere near the same value, we would have bit their hands off.

 

This was just a simple judgement upon what we could afford, even though we were absolutely desperate to move from the Dell.

Again, it is a mistake to talk about the infrastructure costs of the parking, roads, access, lighting, etc, inferring that they were down to the club exclusively. The same access and parking would have been utilised by the athletics arena, the tennis courts, playing fields, hotel, bowling, restaurants, ice rink and whatever else was placed on the site. As a lot of that was to be built by Eastleigh, then they would have borne a lot of the cost.

 

It's all about the infrastructure and their associated costs. Or do you believe we were investing money into cinema complexes and the like? This was simply a method to share the costs around such that our slice became affordable!

[Wes Tender]

It's all about the infrastructure and their associated costs. Or do you believe we were investing money into cinema complexes and the like? This was simply a method to share the costs around such that our slice became affordable!

 

Of course it was. But people need roads to get to the other sporting and entertainment facilities on the site and once there, they also need spaces to park their cars. The infrastructure of roads and car parks would have been shared by all of the facilities sited there, the hotel, restaurants, athletics track, tennis courts, bowling alley, ice rink, night club, etc. Therefore the bulk of the cost of the infrastructure would have been picked up by EBC, as the club would only have utilised it once a fortnight, whereas many of the other facilities would have made use of them more regularly

[70's Mike]

I am not convinced Stoneham would have been better for transport, getting to the game may have been ok but leaving from 1 car park would have been a nightmare.

the good thing about SMS is that by the time people get to their cars and head in many directions the traffic is not that bad.

[speculator]

A lot of what you say about the background is correct. Your meeting, with others, was with Davies Dear. My meeting with others at the time that the project was moving forward, was with the principal Council Officer in charge of it, whose name will come to me soon.

 

Although the waters were muddied by Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council owning some of the land, Eastleigh Borough Council were the main local authority with a say on it and although Davies Dear might have objected to the development, the Council as a whole was for it. The football stadium was merely the centrepiece of the development and the feeling was that the whole project would put Eastleigh on the map and was a desirable facility a feather in their cap.

 

Regrettably, the protests began some before by a load of NIMBYs, the sort of hypocrites who don't like football, but probably go and watch the cricket which I detest, in my back yard. I have lived here at West End for over 16 years and don't recall anybody asking me as a local resident whether I objected to the Rose Bowl. The thing was announced as a fait accomplis and that was the first that I had heard about it. Double standards as usual.

 

The cinema complex went on to the Swan centre as originally planned, not on the Pirelli site.

 

The St. Mary's site only became available when Stoneham collapsed. Several councillors felt concerned that Southampton would not have a new stadium and were looking for a solution. Some land that had been zoned for Social Housing on the old gasworks site was being discussed and one of them had the bright idea that it might have been suitable for the stadium site. The club had been resigned to staying at the Dell and bit their hands off at the offer.

 

I heard a couple of snippets at council level as a result of the fallout between the club and the various councils, as there was some bad blood caused by it all. Eastleigh were extremely angry at Lowe and the club and I had it from fairly high up there that should the land at Jackson's Farm be put forward for development, they would refuse permission. Secondly, I heard at the same time that Southampton would probably zone the land that they owned at Stoneham for social housing to put the noses of those NIMBYs out of joint for the part they played in blocking Stoneham for so long. I had also heard that the Conservatives running Hampshire at the time did not feel very cosy towards Lowe because he had stood as a Referendum Party candidate, although I am not sure about the timescale on that.

 

These are the sort of petty tit for tat reprisals that occur in local politics and they muddied the waters with Stoneham. But these problems were not insurmountable had there not been the stubborn intractable stance on the cinema and the retail developments by Lowe. Ultimately, the project could have gone to the Home Office (I think) for a final ruling. I believe that Two Jags Prescott was in charge then and he was likely to have approved, as he would have anticipated that the majority of football supporters (wrongly in my case) were Labour voters and that there were votes in it for them.

 

I don't believe anyone detests cricket when there are so many other things in this world that really warrant such strong language. Most people who don't love cricket are either ambivalent or simply don't understand it but detest it? I don't think that is the case but can believe people may detest the image of football and especially football related violence no matter how wrong those prejudices may be held.

 

This comes back to the NIMBY argument and I guess there is a widely held perceived difference between ugly fighting and anti-social behaviour between factions of football supporters and opposing cricket fans fervently flicking through the pages of Wisden and spilling the cucumber from their sandwiches all over the pavements.

[derry]

So if I get this right, Benali didn't get banned, he wanted to be at Stoneham. So what did happen?:confused:

[Puddings and Monkeys]

St Marys is a far better location.

 

My opinion is that we missed a once in a lifetime chance to build something great, but we ended up with a run of the mill stadium. Now I dont know anything about plans or the ins and outs of it, but personally I would have liked the stands nearer the pitch and a capacity of 35,000-40,000. I would have also liked it to be unique to southampton in some way.Of course it was a step up from the Dell, but when you look at Pride Park and other new stadiums, they just seem a bit better.

 

The distance from the pitch thing is (I beleive) a requirement from one of the governing bodies, possibly Uefa, for all new stadia. It would be better to be closer to the pitch and I beleive the club wanted that but had to fall in line with the directive.

[OldNick]

Can somebody tell me if Frannie was banned from SMS because we didnt build Stoneham? There must be a different reason

[Channon's Sideburns]

So, when did we take a wrong turning at the crossroads and end up at Stoneham then?

 

Is it too much to ask, based on the OP's question....

 

Why was Frannie banned?

[Wes Tender]

So, when did we take a wrong turning at the crossroads and end up at Stoneham then?

 

Is it too much to ask, based on the OP's question....

 

Why was Frannie banned?

 

Well, Sad Old Git started it with his post 56. Then Canada Saint picked up the ball and ran with it. Up until then, Cortese's predecessor hadn't been mentioned. But when he had been, it was predictable that some luvvie would credit him with getting us St. Mary's.

 

Nobody seems to be able to put some flesh on this Benali story.

[Viking Warrior]

Lowe didnt get ST Mary's there were lots of people involved. Rupes was lucky that the St Mary's site was handed to him on a plate. but credit where credit is due. He did have big hand (Well Andrew Cowans ) did have a big impact on the stadium being built.

[Toadhall Saint]

Well, Sad Old Git started it with his post 56. Then Canada Saint picked up the ball and ran with it. Up until then, Cortese's predecessor hadn't been mentioned. But when he had been, it was predictable that some luvvie would credit him with getting us St. Mary's.

 

Nobody seems to be able to put some flesh on this Benali story.

 

 

Which suggest there is no flesh (or legs) in this.

[CanadaSaint]

Well, Sad Old Git started it with his post 56. Then Canada Saint picked up the ball and ran with it. Up until then, Cortese's predecessor hadn't been mentioned. But when he had been, it was predictable that some luvvie would credit him with getting us St. Mary's.

 

Nobody seems to be able to put some flesh on this Benali story.

 

Jeez, officer, I categorically deny going anywhere near Stoneham.

 

All I did was express bemusement that people were much more ho-hum about the alleged banning of Benali that they would have been if Lowe had done it. It was never intended to be a put-down of Cortese and a boosting of Lowe, but that's how some chose to take it.

 

Granted, the thread did go pear-shaped not long after that, and I think the takeaway is "Be really cautious about mentioning 'that person's' name".

 

It was all worth it, though, because the discussion triggered this absolute nugget that I have kept for future reference:

 

I am a "not make a judgement until I know some/all of the facts" type of person....seems others clearly are not

[John B]

Jeez, officer, I categorically deny going anywhere near Stoneham.

 

All I did was express bemusement that people were much more ho-hum about the alleged banning of Benali that they would have been if Lowe had done it. It was never intended to be a put-down of Cortese and a boosting of Lowe, but that's how some chose to take it.

 

Granted, the thread did go pear-shaped not long after that, and I think the takeaway is "Be really cautious about mentioning 'that person's' name".

 

It was all worth it, though, because the discussion triggered this absolute nugget that I have kept for future reference:

 

I thought you made a realistic comment but it was nothing really to do with thread but then nobody has enlightened me on what has really happened between Bennali and SFC.

Edited 13 January, 2010 by John B

[CanadaSaint]

I thought you made a realistic comment but it was nothing really to do with thread but then nobody has enlightened me on what has really happened between Bannali and SFC.

 

You're dead right on both counts, and I'd also like to know if there's substance in the Franny story.

 

Next time a thread frustrates me, though, I'm more likely to leave well alone!

[Wes Tender]

Jeez, officer, I categorically deny going anywhere near Stoneham.

 

All I did was express bemusement that people were much more ho-hum about the alleged banning of Benali that they would have been if Lowe had done it. It was never intended to be a put-down of Cortese and a boosting of Lowe, but that's how some chose to take it.

 

Granted, the thread did go pear-shaped not long after that, and I think the takeaway is "Be really cautious about mentioning 'that person's' name".

 

It was all worth it, though, because the discussion triggered this absolute nugget that I have kept for future reference:

 

Your point and SOG's was a fair enough observation by itself and I didn't take it myself that you were having a pop at Cortese.

 

But as you say, whenever the former Chairman's name enters the conversation, there is inevitably somebody who makes comparisons and credits him with getting us the new stadium, which more accurately we got almost despite him, rather than because of him.

[saint77]

Rumour going around that he and his company have been booted out

 

 

Edit.........

 

Some might say hes banned himself

 

benali and walsh company gone bust owing lots of southampton companys

perhaps this is why he has been banned

[Redondo Saint]

Paul Walsh?

[saint77]

Paul Walsh?

 

no billy walsh benalis father in law

[SFC Forever]

What? In the same way that it is Southampton Airport or Southampton Parkway railway station?

 

Quote:Torres

 

Weren't there posts about fans from down here flying up north to Hartlepool recently? Whereas I suspect that it isn't many, I'm sure that some would find it a convenience flying in from other regional airports with budget airline tickets. More to the point is the motorway link right on the doorstep and the main train services to Parkway.

 

Quote: Inflenced. com

 

 

Not at all. I drive in early at midday, park within walking distance of the St. Mary's stadium, go into town for lunch, leave wife in town for shopping. I was thinking much more of those living in Bournemouth, Poole, Eastleigh, Winchester, Andover, Totton, New Forest, Hedge End, Basingstoke, etc, all of whom would find the journey to Stoneham much easier.

 

Anyway, I'm just being a tad mischievous talking about the possibility of the resurrection of the Stoneham stadium and the ground-share with the Skates. Better keep it hushed up, as ML and NC might think that the idea has legs.

 

 

Good idea actually. ML could buy out Pompey after they have either folded or gone into admin. Then he can put their best players in our team and think about using avram. AFC Pompey could then be placed into one of the non league divisions to keep their few fans happy.

[dronskisaint]

benali and walsh company gone bust owing lots of southampton companys

perhaps this is why he has been banned

 

His truck has been parked at the Megastore car park every time I've been there during the day recently..perhaps it's been impounded?