Redevelopment

So is it the intention to make a decision on 3G in the near future?

If so I am concerned that the only information we would be voting on is that contained in the initial Feasibility Study. Although that study has gone into some depth and indicates a 3G facility is beneficial in income terms I believe there needs to be more analysis before any final decision can be considered.

There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment. (It certainly seems that the latter is going to cover many things apart from paying off loans and other debts). Neither is there any sensitivity analysis to show the financial implications of failing to meet the levels of usage and charging prices.

Peter Newman wrote:
There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment.  

I'm sure that this was raised at the meeting, which I think you attended. Nick Blofeld explained that the group exploring 3G would only pursue the funding issue if and when the go ahead was given.

comrade powell wrote:

Peter Newman wrote:
There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment.  

I'm sure that this was raised at the meeting, which I think you attended. Nick Blofeld explained that the group exploring 3G would only pursue the funding issue if and when the go ahead was given.

So would this imply two votes are needed? Otherwise everyone will be voting to accept something for which the true financial implications are not known (sounds familiar to me!)

I have a very cynical answer to your question but I'd better not post it!

Steve Whites Missus wrote:

comrade powell wrote:

Peter Newman wrote:
There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment.  

I'm sure that this was raised at the meeting, which I think you attended. Nick Blofeld explained that the group exploring 3G would only pursue the funding issue if and when the go ahead was given.

So would this imply two votes are needed?  Otherwise everyone will be voting to accept something for which the true financial implications are not known (sounds familiar to me!)

It's an interesting one. Bear in mind that the board and management are constantly making decisions on members' behalf, the financial implications of which are never fully known.

I guess the question boils down to, is it worth losing grass if it means that we can get £X in new profit each year?

It would be brilliant if the board could tell us, with absolute certainty, what £X will be. But of course this is not possible.

So perhaps the final question will be something along the lines of:

"The Society authorises the board to install a 3G pitch if the upfront costs can be met without incurring debt, and the projected profit from a fully-costed proposal exceed £50K per year over five years."

It's less elegant than "Should we install a 3G pitch?", but perhaps captures the state of play better.

comrade powell wrote:

Peter Newman wrote:
There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment.  

I'm sure that this was raised at the meeting, which I think you attended. Nick Blofeld explained that the group exploring 3G would only pursue the funding issue if and when the go ahead was given.

It was, and I asked the follow up question something along the lines of "Would the club be able to stop the 3G installation if the only way we could get the £600k was via some evil corporation charging XYZ interest?" To which Nick B replied in the positive.

The club, or the members? If the latter, that does suggest there would be two votes.

EDIT: although of course it's not up to Nick how many votes take place and when - it's up to the Society Committee

I think you've made an excellent point there, Oliver, about the wording which goes in to any motion put to members to vote on.

Agree with Oliver's suggestion as it seems to cover all bases.

Something along those lines, anyway - would be worth consulting Supporters Direct.

(It's thorny, complex and never ideal, but I hope members appreciate that we actually get to have a say!)

comrade powell wrote:I have a very cynical answer to your question but I'd better not post it!

We are of the same mind...misinformation / no detailed information, no answers to important questions

On the contrary, Beau! I think the feasibility study compiled by the club and recent meeting organised by the Society have shown that there is a desire to keep everyone as informed as possible. And while I disagree with some of its contents, the group opposing 3G provided an informative document for us to consider. I'm sure that when people vote it will be with the club's best interests in mind. My cynicism is related to other popular votes of recent times....

Beau Nash wrote:I was told that Odd Down costs £120 per hour.

Definitely didn't when we asked just under a year ago. I think it was just over £100 for two hours, and that included a changing room. I have no idea the cost if you book, say, a third of it for an hour. They might have some sort of discount scheme.

A number of previous posts highlight my assumed attendance at the recent meeting to discuss the pitch situation. I can confirm I was NOT at the meeting.

As at the last IGM there should be a proper procedure in place for members to propose and vote on amendments to the wording of a motion. This ideally should be confined to a meeting. If you want to have input on the motion you should have to attend. The final motion would then be offered for voting to the entire electorate.

So the result would not be known until after the meeting.

Steve Whites Missus wrote:

comrade powell wrote:

Peter Newman wrote:
There is nothing, so far, to show where the initial capital funding will be found other than the usual vague reference to grants and/or the redevelopment.  

I'm sure that this was raised at the meeting, which I think you attended. Nick Blofeld explained that the group exploring 3G would only pursue the funding issue if and when the go ahead was given.

So would this imply two votes are needed?  Otherwise everyone will be voting to accept something for which the true financial implications are not known (sounds familiar to me!)

"Plastic means plastic !"

I know it's an intangible, but no-one has mentioned the idea that artificial pitches give a slight advantage to those teams that use them (presumably due to familiarity?).

For example - only two of the teams in the Irish League (NI) Premier Division have artificial pitches, though between them they've won 4 of the last 5 titles (despite neither being the league's biggest or wealthiest clubs).

And only 1 of the 12 teams in the League of Ireland Premier Division (ROI) has an artificial pitch, and they've won 3 of the last 4 titles.

Plus Sutton United won National South the first season they played on an artificial surface.

It could all just be happenstance, but I think it's interesting anecdotally. My own club in Ireland (Derry City) has just had an artificial pitch installed. Despite a poor start to the season (Summer football), the only 2 games we've played on it so far have been a 5-0 and a 5-1 win. Which surprised the hell out of everyone )

BenE wrote:As at the last IGM there should be a proper procedure in place for members to propose and vote on amendments to the wording of a motion. This ideally should be confined to a meeting. If you want to have input on the motion you should have to attend. The final motion would then be offered for voting to the entire electorate.

So the result would not be known until after the meeting.

I like this idea in principle and have asked the SD "Ask the Expert" if it is possible - discussion here: https://supporters-direct.org/topics/running-an-election

Just to clarify, if I join the supporters society, I will be able to vote when the pitch vote comes? At the time of the Bid, I wasn’t in a position to pay £250, but am a season ticket holder and want to be involved in the vote. Will there be a cut-off date for when you can join and still have the right to vote?

Yes, you can join the Society now for £2 a month and be able to vote.

With yet another postponement, surely a 3G is a good idea. Unless they too get waterlogged/frozen?

There wasn’t a postponement at Twerton today?

I'll spell it out -
Does a 3G pitch mean that clubs/players/supporters get less postponements and disruption to the season?

And think about the costs to everyone to have to go back to Welling for another try. If we'd cancelled at the last minute we'd have to meet those costs for the visitors.

2weirdtown wrote:I'll spell it out -
Does a 3G pitch mean that clubs/players/supporters get less postponements and disruption to the season?

In general, yes, but I don't think that this is really an issue with Twerton Park in particular - very few postponements in recent years as I recall.