The Original 59er Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 TopCat Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:08 Offices sound a great idea, good to see the board being proactive in trying to maximise income for the club. As a generality I don't disagree, but any speculative development, be it offices, retail or residential will only be carried out if a strong feasibility study (and the Banks) can support it. In an ideal world we would have a pre-let, otherwise in this market you will only find that support for such a venture is thin on the ground, either that or the BoD's have bottomless pockets (ahem)............................ then if you borrow to build, then in theory (and practice) you have a larger debt to service / get reimbursed in any sale, unless of course that the income from said development is sufficiently long-term to cover the interest charges on the original development cost........................ simple mathematics! Rents in Paisley for offices aren't that good. Historically they lag well behind Glasgow and on top of that it takes a certain type of organisation to trade out of the offices stuck into the corner of a football ground........................ not that I know much about it of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smfcbuddie Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 He / they could have sold to Gordon Scott well before that and would have been well out of the firing line by now. With 1998 'saved the club' reputation intact for all time. Indeed they could, but it doesn't explain even in part why they failed to go with a sale to the fans. They proved they were capable of some property development but where is the evidence they know how to prevent the club stagnating or worse? Why are our fans so against fan ownership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 Indeed they could, but it doesn't explain even in part why they failed to go with a sale to the fans. They proved they were capable of some property development but where is the evidence they know how to prevent the club stagnating or worse? Why are our fans so against fan ownership? The problem wasn't with fan ownership as a concept. The 10000hours bid however dragged on, and on, and on, and changed (sometimes seemingly on the hoof, on the back of a fag packet) so often that any momentum it once had was lost under a hazy blanket of ifs, buts, maybes, and a certain amount of a wing and a prayer.... IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.