Crystal Palace stadium re-development?

[Dorian]

Sorry Dorian - sold in property speak can mean obtaining an interest in land whether it be actually purchasing the freehold or leasehold interest. It will have to be one or the other. I expect CPFC to be looking at a sweet lease on a long term.

I do know a little about property speak , but thanks for the heads up.

The little I do know tells me that there is a huge abyss size difference between selling a Freehold of a property, forever, in perpetuity and granting a Lease for a number of years. A lease can be the size of war and peace and contain numerous liabilties,performace clauses , rent reviews , repair schedules, break clauses etc etc etc. A Freehold sale does not. To glibly make the same type of sale as similar is naieve to the extreem.

erm .... an unlimited liability one, where its owners also own the responsibility for ALL the debts they incur.

hilly, WTF is an Unlimited Liabilty Company ? Im sure you are aware that the Directors of any Private Company investing there personnel money and expertise in a venture are asked for personnel guarentee's from both banks and parties that they are contracting to, these PG's will be bonded. Im amazed you didnt know that. Every adult takes measures to minimize future liabilty, thats why we Insure ourselves.

If I am wrong the PRIVATE company that have a lease on the kids Gym and creche, should not be in a PUBLIC building should they ? they are a LTD Co , have a lease ......................?

[Hill Dweller]

Keep it polite eh? OR push off back to facebook.


In a limited liability situation each co-owner is only liable for their share of debts (which I suppose is pro-rated with their stake).

Given that this consortium comprises people whose other holdings will benefit from the income CPFCLtd can put their way during good times .... get my drift Borian?

[Dorian]

I do not see that I have been impolite in any way, and if I have upset your obvious sensibilities HD Im very very sorry. Do you have admin status now to tell me to " Push off". I really dont see what I have said that is impolite ?

I have lived in Sydenham for 25 years, use the Park, and as far as I am concerned that gives me as much right to join the debate as you.

[admin]

Keep on topic please - if you want to get personal, go down the pub.

Admin

[The Commander]

Sorry Dorian - sold in property speak can mean obtaining an interest in land whether it be actually purchasing the freehold or leasehold interest. It will have to be one or the other. I expect CPFC to be looking at a sweet lease on a long term.

I do know a little about property speak , but thanks for the heads up.

The little I do know tells me that there is a huge abyss size difference between selling a Freehold of a property, forever, in perpetuity and granting a Lease for a number of years. A lease can be the size of war and peace and contain numerous liabilties,performace clauses , rent reviews , repair schedules, break clauses etc etc etc. A Freehold sale does not. To glibly make the same type of sale as similar is naieve to the extreem.

Goodness Dorian - I apologise if I have offended your sensibilities. I certainly wasn't being glib and if I had known you were a property professional I'd have got out my Parry's valuation tables. What I should have said is that it is likely to be a land disposal where the council either sells the freehold or grants a leasehold to CPFC. You are quite right there is a world of difference and I should have been more expansive.

As you are in the know what sort of deal do you think CPFC will be looking to do - it isn't going to be all charity and philathropy is it? Honest answer please.

A further question - do you think there is potential for any disposal to fall within the EU procurement rules?

[Hill Dweller]

I do not see that I have been impolite in any way, and if I have upset your obvious sensibilities HD Im very very sorry. Do you have admin status now to tell me to " Push off". I really dont see what I have said that is impolite ?

I have lived in Sydenham for 25 years, use the Park, and as far as I am concerned that gives me as much right to join the debate as you.

I'm not sure what the convos around your dinner table include but initialisms like 'WTF' don't take place around mine and were being too easily introduced too early and melodramatically and poseur-like in this thread IMHoO (note the HONEST not the HUMBLE). Such melodramatic over-reacting is so common .... in both senses of the word.

You didn't know the ramifications of a LIMITED private company, now you do. Let's get back to my point ..... if a LIMITED liability consortium is going to do works IN the public park, which will most likely occupy a far bigger footprint than their grandplan eventually will AND have only limited liability and could take four years, we do not need it imHOo. CPP isn't to become any 'local boy done good's cash cow.

No data about the planned hotel as far as I could see on the graphics btw.


---------

Re my 'push off to facebook' I think most know that many of the footie convos there have the sweetener of EDL propaganda, I was simply suggesting you fulfil all your appetites D. As in 'fill yer boots'.


Late edit: to end a sentence

[Dorian]

I'm in no way offended.

I do not for one moment think the plans are philanthropotic . I'm checking on the EU bit and will revert , back later when not standing in a muddy field

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Hill Dweller]

Re my earlier mention about the likelihood of residents' parking restrictions becoming necessary around such a ground, I had no idea they'd previously mooted the idea yadder yadder

http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5740

[The Commander]

I'm in no way offended.

back later when not standing in a muddy field

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Ha ha not the best day for it - green or blue barbour jacket?

[Duke of Clarence]

I have lived in Sydenham for 25 years, use the Park, and as far as I am concerned that gives me as much right to join the debate as you.

Now now Dor, I have it on good authority (yours) that you don't live anywhere near CPP. You're sounding like Steve Parrish now, rolling out the "but we/i used to live/play there years ago so I/we got rights innit"

I wonder would you welcome a 40,000 capcity stadium, CPZs and road closures in leafy West Wickham

[Eagle]

Now Now your Lordship or Dukeship.
Are your spies The Stasi.
CPZ's should be everywhere in Lewisham.
1. More employment for Traffic Wardens
2. Would encourage your subjects to walk or ride the Bus.

I still rememeber Sydenham in early 60's with probably one quarter of less of todays vehicles. ,uch nicer.

[JeeBee]

erm .... an unlimited liability one, where its owners also own the responsibility for ALL the debts they incur.

Unlimited liability companies are few and far between in the UK. CPFC2010 are hardly Land Rover or Credit Suisse. Most companies are limited by shares so I hardly think that this line of thought about their liability is a reasonable one to be going down.

If Bromley decide to lease the land to CPFC2010 for, say, 50 years, for a certain fee per year, then the public purse gets its money - hopefully the upkeep of the rest of the park is thus guaranteed and the major improvements that the park needs will occur. The risk is that the stadium isn't finished so there is an abandoned development site on the park - ringfencing the stadium development costs beforehand could aid here perhaps?

[Hill Dweller]

I realise fully, utterly and completely that unlimited liability companies are few and far between. Doesn't make me agree that a limited liability private company is the best choice of developer for this scheme on public land (especially as we are discussing it without seeing the full plan, where's the hotel? How far down will the dig go?).

Nor does it negate my concerns about a consortiumful of chancers that have other companies/business interests that will benefit from this scheme if it does go ahead (and at the personal expense of park users / nearby residents, all of whose environment will be impacted negatively for four years) could walk away if it goes belly or ***s up during that four years.

However, if it does not go belly or ***s up during the building years and becomes the 'success' that some would say Chelsea has, the gain will all be to those chancers.

So there is a cushion and limited risk for the chancers and limitless profits thereafter AND their other companies are protected vs: unlimited risk and nothing but disturbance for residents thereafter.

[JeeBee]

I don't think they're 'chancers', and accept that at least Mr Parish is a dedicated fan of the club. Also, as successful businessmen they probably have the nous to do a good job with the club on the business side - although the football side is another thing altogether!

I doubt they will dig down far enough to unleash a balrog on the park

The stadium will get knocked down and rebuilt whether or not it is Crystal Palace or Tottenham that determine the work to be done there. That does mean noise for local residents, and traffic as lorries come and go.

The limited risk for these 'chancers' is the millions that they have already put into the club. Limitless profits - ha! It's a football club. Even Chelsea made a £50m loss last year. Limited risk is done because it encourages entrepreneurial ventures, which is good for the economy and the country. As a society we encourage people to set up business via limiting the liabilities and recognising the company as a separate entity to the people that have set it up. In return we force the companies to submit annual accounts to keep track of what they are up to.

[Duke of Clarence]

I don't think they're 'chancers', and accept that at least Mr Parish is a dedicated fan of the club. Also, as successful businessmen they probably have the nous to do a good job with the club on the business side - although the football side is another thing altogether!

You darn right about Parrish and Long being canny businessmen. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank with this one, bet they couldn't believe how easy it was. Mind you appealing to different people's/organisations self interests, greed and desire to shed responsibilties, behind closed doors would be a walk in the park for them!

What gets me is the consortium's brainwashing and manipulation of supporters' passion to back their proposal so far. What the fans should be taking note of is the Press Release documents that have Mr Parrish on record declaring that he wants to be able to make a quick sale of the land and outline planning permission to a larger commercial venture and recoup his investment in CPFC2010 at the earliest opportunity.He only bought it back 6 months ago and wants shot of it already.

And the implications for CPP and the environs just become even more worrying. Who are the backers? Are they going to follow all Team Parrish's guff about investing in the park and surrounding areas? Apart from introducing CPZs and road closures nothing much is mentioned about surrounding neighbourhoods.

And does anyone think they're going to get anything like what's on the architect's drawings for £50? Given that most players cost upwards of £50M it's not really much of an investment in their "homecoming" is it?

[ALIB]

knee
jerk



reaction

[Hill Dweller]

So wannabe-succinct alib that one needs a clairvoyant to make any sense if there is any re at whom it's intended.

====

I don't need your 'lesson' in economics Jeeby, been in private business a very long time.
The chancers don't have a fully-funded plan yet, wings on prayers that they will ever get it before during or after the works AND they have other holdings that will profit massively from the merchandising possibilities but which will NOT be held to account with their sibling partners if the footie club goes bust.
Take a look at the 'artists' impression on their plan which coincidentally, even to the direction it faces, matches exactly to the present stadium's footprint. Take a look at the increased seating AND what is to be placed underneath (for those that want to swim in a dungeon) and just take a guess at the depth down it all needs to go.

As Commander has said (fingers, legs and teeth crossed) .... it won't happen.
Although under Bromley? Who knows?

[Hill Dweller]

Duke of Clarence » 4 Feb 2011 17:28

Seems to me DoC, that per mrs woman's thread in this section, Bromley's going to be enforcing Res Permits anyway

Endorsing this development will certainly help them get the permissions they've apparently been canvassing for for some time.

[JeeBee]

Think I'm done with trying to have a civilised discussion here. Still harping on about the swimming pool being underneath the stadium... sheesh. Brick wall.

[Duke of Clarence]

Duke of Clarence » 4 Feb 2011 17:28
Bromley's going to be enforcing Res Permits anyway

Endorsing this development will certainly help them get the permissions they've apparently been canvassing for for some time.

Too true HD and here's a reminder of what a large area the 1M CPZ will effect: