Stadium news

[The Red Baron]

Apparently we have some \"whizzkids\" working for us! Can't say I've noticed.

http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/doncaster-news/stadium-finances-come-under-fire-from-councillors-1-4409218

The old anti-Rovers bias on the council dies hard, I see. Reminiscent of when we were trying to negotiate with them over Belle Vue. How do these types get voted in- or are they the \"dustbin with a red rosette\" variety?

[Chris Black come back]

To be fair, we DID get a very good deal - especially if you look at the fact that the OBV site is still vacant and highly unlikely to realise any significant windfall (planning problems over large development on site, collapse of real estate market etc).

They are in a bind because they realise that the only viable option they have is to give Rovers the lease - and seemingly reward (again) the entity who seemingly fleeced DMBC previously.

All in all, good news for Rovers but bad news for DMBC.

[Filo]

We do keep hearing  that £32M was paid out by the tax payer, when that is not true, did n`t Rovers get a grant towards the building costs of the stadium from some football related organization?

And on another point, the various reports we keep reading harp on about the council subsidising a private business, well that argument would have some substance if Rovers were the sole users of the Stadium, but as we all know, the Dons, the Athletic Club, the Belles and the general public all use the Stadiums facilities, you know, anyone would think that it`s facilities were being used by the community of Doncaster would n`t they, rather than just Rovers like a lot of councillors and media are trying to portray. Maybe the Council should look at themselves and ask the question why the team they put in place (SMC) failed to realise the whole facilities potential and why those facilities are under used, maybe the people that ran the SMC thought they had a job for life working for the council and thus were in the comfort zone and did n`t have to try too hard!

[Norfolk N Chance]

Should not have to pay any rent for what this club has done for this town!

[Rios]

We do keep hearing  that £32M was paid out by the tax payer, when that is not true, did n`t Rovers get a grant towards the building costs of the stadium from some football related organization?

And on another point, the various reports we keep reading harp on about the council subsidising a private business, well that argument would have some substance if Rovers were the sole users of the Stadium, but as we all know, the Dons, the Athletic Club, the Belles and the general public all use the Stadiums facilities, you know, anyone would think that it`s facilities were being used by the community of Doncaster would n`t they, rather than just Rovers like a lot of councillors and media are trying to portray. Maybe the Council should look at themselves and ask the question why the team they put in place (SMC) failed to realise the whole facilities potential and why those facilities are under used, maybe the people that ran the SMC thought they had a job for life working for the council and thus were in the comfort zone and did n`t have to try too hard!

That's the crux of the matter though.  There's been an election and change of councillors and especially mayor since the ground was built.  First rule of politics, always blame the current problems on the ones that came before you.

[Chris Black come back]

To be fair though, Martin Winter (to his credit) pushed the stadium through and he is/was Labour - as are the two councillors quoted in the article being critical of the deal we have, and Labour now control the Council.

Mayor Davies - god only knows what his motivation is.

[silent majority]

A few points.

Firstly Filo is right, the Football Foundation did make a considerable donation. I think a figure close to £2m was obtained from them.

The councillors are speaking on behalf of the ratepayers and their concerns are that the ratepayers would be subsidising a private company, which is not only unfair but illegal. They realise the original deal was not a good one and they just want to make sure the next deal is done fairly. They certainly didn't object to the principle of the Rovers getting their hands on the Keepmoat. The Free Press are the only ones mentioning £32m, and they are giving unfair bias to some of the negative comments made, when in fairness the meeting wasn't like that.

Furthermore it was the original business plan that caught more of the flack, and deservedly so. The SMC were handed a budget that would never have worked, for them or anybody else. The council actually employed a private consultancy to put the budget together and the council couldn't foresee how inaccurate this would be.

Finally, the council have much bigger problem areas than this one, although this one does attract the obvious headlines.

[MartinB]

You could ask what do Doncaster Rovers/Belles/Egg Chasers provide the town as Whole? How many away fans come to Sunny Donny for a weekend? How many supporters eat in Donny restaurants, drink in Donny Pubs? Shop in Donny Town Centre? All this money helps keep people in jobs, helps businesses. I would say the Sporting Clubs of Doncaster really do help the community as a whole.

[Norfolk N Chance]

You could ask what do Doncaster Rovers/Belles/Egg Chasers provide the town as Whole? How many away fans come to Sunny Donny for a weekend? How many supporters eat in Donny restaurants, drink in Donny Pubs? Shop in Donny Town Centre? All this money helps keep people in jobs, helps businesses. I would say the Sporting Clubs of Doncaster really do help the community as a whole.

Totally spot on !

[The Red Baron]

A few points.

Firstly Filo is right, the Football Foundation did make a considerable donation. I think a figure close to £2m was obtained from them.

The councillors are speaking on behalf of the ratepayers and their concerns are that the ratepayers would be subsidising a private company, which is not only unfair but illegal. They realise the original deal was not a good one and they just want to make sure the next deal is done fairly. They certainly didn't object to the principle of the Rovers getting their hands on the Keepmoat. The Free Press are the only ones mentioning £32m, and they are giving unfair bias to some of the negative comments made, when in fairness the meeting wasn't like that.

Furthermore it was the original business plan that caught more of the flack, and deservedly so. The SMC were handed a budget that would never have worked, for them or anybody else. The council actually employed a private consultancy to put the budget together and the council couldn't foresee how inaccurate this would be.

Finally, the council have much bigger problem areas than this one, although this one does attract the obvious headlines.

Nice to hear from someone who was at the meeting, and that the tone wasn't as the FP report gives it. (The FP has always had a negative agenda around the stadium.)

I hope we can get this issue sorted out.

[roversdude]

I believe that Hartlepool council are giving the ground to poolies as they realise that fnds are broght into area

[Rovin Reporter]

The council were talked into the stadium by the previous Mayor. It has stuck in their craw ever since. It would have made far more sense to have rebuild Belle View over time . There seems like little common ground if the council don't concede that it has been badly managed and except their part in this farce. I would assume had Rovers reached the Premier League and not about be relegated there would not be this discussion..... Hypocrites

[Chris Black come back]

Key point here is WHO would have paid to rebuild Belle Vue.

The limited Football Foundation money Rovers received for the KMS (£2million) would not have been available for Belle Vue I suspect.

Clearly DMBC would not have financed reconstruction at Belle Vue (the KMS funding was for a community asset which was to be largely financed by.....selling off the Belle Vue site). Equally where would Rovers have found £5, 10 or 15 million to finance a wholesale reconstruction of Belle Vue into an ALL SEATER stadium which is unfortunately the reality of being in the Championship (as much as we probably all prefer to stand).

Also, the chances of getting a decent sized stand built at Belle Vue would be limited due to planning/access restrictions at the site.

[Rovin Reporter]

It use to hold 25,000 and had a record of 45000 ,iT should NOT hve been allowed to get into the state it did it was there home for over a 100 years and no money spent to keep it up to date. But as i said prior, If were in the Premier League there would not now be a problem.

[RedJ]

It use to hold 25,000 and had a record of 45000 ,iT should NOT hve been allowed to get into the state it did it was there home for over a 100 years and no money spent to keep it up to date. But as i said prior, If were in the Premier League there would not now be a problem.

Key point here - you can get more people onto terracing than into an all seater. But I know what you mean.

[BobG]

The ROvers best ever home attendance was 'only' 37,000 Roving. Against Hull City. It was allowed to get into the state it did by - the Rovers. Yes. There were issues around the benefit from investing big in something they didn't own - but that was the Rovers choice too. We can't knock the Council. They have bailed out the Rovers twice on ground matters. We might think their nominees run the KM very badly - but ultimately, if it were noitfor the Council the Rovers would now either be out of the League altogether as a result of not having a ground up to standard, or, significantly lower down the league structure having been forced to spend shed loads on upgrading something they don't own.

Don't get me on about the despicable Premier League - and Sky - though!And the equally despicable FA too come to that.

BobG

[hoolahoop]

However we really are making a fuss over this when considering the money being spent on the Cultural Quarter (also a community project) and that includes a state of the art Council chambers and offices for those whingeing Councillors too. Again one could argue that the existing facilities for the Council are perfectly adequate and the money spent should go into Library upkeep etc.....
Do we all use the town library or would we all use the new swimming baths when ready.......of course not.
This council pisses me off when you take the bloody Earth Centre project into this context!
The Belle Vue land will be a great DMBC asset if not now but in the future, it's in a prime area across from the Racecourse ffs.

[Sprotyrover]

Key point here is WHO would have paid to rebuild Belle Vue.

The limited Football Foundation money Rovers received for the KMS (£2million) would not have been available for Belle Vue I suspect.

Clearly DMBC would not have financed reconstruction at Belle Vue (the KMS funding was for a community asset which was to be largely financed by.....selling off the Belle Vue site). Equally where would Rovers have found £5, 10 or 15 million to finance a wholesale reconstruction of Belle Vue into an ALL SEATER stadium which is unfortunately the reality of being in the Championship (as much as we probably all prefer to stand).

Also, the chances of getting a decent sized stand built at Belle Vue would be limited due to planning/access restrictions at the site.

The Football foundation money was available provided that the club recieving it match funded it, I know this because it cropped up in safety meeting about Rotherhams old main stand, the FF guy said they had offered the club the money but Boothy said he wasnt going to put the other £2 milllion in.

[weststander]

A few points.

Firstly Filo is right, the Football Foundation did make a considerable donation. I think a figure close to £2m was obtained from them.

The councillors are speaking on behalf of the ratepayers and their concerns are that the ratepayers would be subsidising a private company, which is not only unfair but illegal. They realise the original deal was not a good one and they just want to make sure the next deal is done fairly. They certainly didn't object to the principle of the Rovers getting their hands on the Keepmoat. The Free Press are the only ones mentioning £32m, and they are giving unfair bias to some of the negative comments made, when in fairness the meeting wasn't like that.

Furthermore it was the original business plan that caught more of the flack, and deservedly so. The SMC were handed a budget that would never have worked, for them or anybody else. The council actually employed a private consultancy to put the budget together and the council couldn't foresee how inaccurate this would be.

Finally, the council have much bigger problem areas than this one, although this one does attract the obvious headlines.

hoolahoop

 However we really are making a fuss over this when considering the money being spent on the Cultural Quarter (also a community project) and that includes a state of the art Council chambers and offices for those whingeing Councillors too. Again one could argue that the existing facilities for the Council are perfectly adequate and the money spent should go into Library upkeep etc.....
Do we all use the town library or would we all use the new swimming baths when ready.......of course not.
This council pisses me off when you take the bloody Earth Centre project into this context!
The Belle Vue land will be a great DMBC asset if not now but in the future, it's in a prime area across from the Racecourse ffs.  


Speaking as an exile I wonder if it's possible for a Doncaster council tax payer to write an open letter to the DFP raising these points to air a more balanced view of the issues. At least then those reading it would be aware of the biased reporting.

[Sprotyrover]

Just been talking to a friend whose son is at a football academy based at the keepmoat, called 'Esprit academy' apparently 25k a year to attend, a money generating stream that no body has mentioned?

[CusworthRovers]

The Dome, Earth Centre, Keepmoat Stadium............there's a pattern here.


Those top dogs at our Local Authority are paid a right perishing whack for their business acumen and development skills.

And now all the workers (except schools staff) within DMBC are to be laid off and re-employed with far worse terms. Obviously if they don't accept the new shit terms, it's bye byes. Apologies, as this doesn't effect the Chief Officers within DMBC. They will not lose a penny or take any cut in conditions. They need their 80-90-100k salary to keep them in their positions and carry on making Doncaster proud of it's achievements. But they keep telling the lads and lasses who are delivering the services that 'we are all in it together'. Is it me, or is this the type of stunt you would expect from some City Bankers or High profile Business Managers.......not from people who live in and pertain to love our town and feel the spirit.

[Sprotyrover]

Just been talking to a friend whose son is at a football academy based at the keepmoat, called 'Esprit academy' apparently 25k a year to attend, a money generating stream that no body has mentioned?

http://www.esprit-fa.com/

their site

[Dagenham Rover]

At the heart of the complex is the spectacular Keepmoat Stadium, a 15,000 capacity all-seater arena, which is the venue for our end-of-season gala game and certain key fixtures, throughout the season.


http://www.esprit-fa.com/facilities/our-facilities

No wonder we are not allowed to train

[Sheepskin Stu]

Why would someone aged 16-24 want to spend over £18000 for a year of football coaching? Surely if they were any good they would already be attached to a professional club?

[Muttley]

Why would someone aged 16-24 want to spend over £18000 for a year of football coaching? Surely if they were any good they would already be attached to a professional club?

Yeah, but at least this way they get up to match fitness and put themselves into a \"shop window\"

[Dagenham Rover]

Why would someone aged 16-24 want to spend over £18000 for a year of football coaching? Surely if they were any good they would already be attached to a professional club?

Yeah, but at least this way they get up to match fitness and put themselves into a \"shop window\"

as long as they don't get injured on the super hard pitch

[WBDRFC]

At the heart of the complex is the spectacular Keepmoat Stadium, a 15,000 capacity all-seater arena, which is the venue for our end-of-season gala game and certain key fixtures, throughout the season.


http://www.esprit-fa.com/facilities/our-facilities

No wonder we are not allowed to train

We are not allowed to train on the Keepmoat pitch because the club only have use of the ground for 25 days per year (plus cup matches). There are 23 home games per year, plus a couple of friendlies normally. It's the club who agreed to those conditions, so they only have themselves to blame when the SMC deny permission for training at the stadium.

[Colin C No.3]

At the heart of the complex is the spectacular Keepmoat Stadium, a 15,000 capacity all-seater arena, which is the venue for our end-of-season gala game and certain key fixtures, throughout the season.


http://www.esprit-fa.com/facilities/our-facilities

No wonder we are not allowed to train

We are not allowed to train on the Keepmoat pitch because the club only have use of the ground for 25 days per year (plus cup matches). There are 23 home games per year, plus a couple of friendlies normally. It's the club who agreed to those conditions, so they only have themselves to blame when the SMC deny permission for training at the stadium.

If we're paying £250,000 a year in rent, at £10,000 per day is there little wonder the club has to restrict the number of days it requests use of the stadium?!

[WBDRFC]

At the heart of the complex is the spectacular Keepmoat Stadium, a 15,000 capacity all-seater arena, which is the venue for our end-of-season gala game and certain key fixtures, throughout the season.


http://www.esprit-fa.com/facilities/our-facilities

No wonder we are not allowed to train

We are not allowed to train on the Keepmoat pitch because the club only have use of the ground for 25 days per year (plus cup matches). There are 23 home games per year, plus a couple of friendlies normally. It's the club who agreed to those conditions, so they only have themselves to blame when the SMC deny permission for training at the stadium.

If we're paying £250,000 a year in rent, at £10,000 per day is there little wonder the club has to restrict the number of days it requests use of the stadium?!

The rent is slightly higher than that. £286,000 a year, from memory.

[Dagenham Rover]

It was mean't to be somewhat tongue in cheek