Ground Development

[Mog]

Slogger and Andy;

My recollection of how Peter Edwards made sure that ECCC served its members, involved the distribution of tickets when the Club reached Lords' Finals. One example was when Essex reached Cup Finals in three consecutive seasons; '96. '97. '98. Each of the festival venues received an allocation of tickets. Being local to Southend, this meant the Southchurch Park pavilion on a Sunday morning. Peter Edwards himself arrived at the exact advertised start of ticket sale time with the tickets and cash box. It helped he only lived around five minutes away, but that's what he thought of members and how they WERE important in his eyes.

Sadly, since David East took over we've seen; two out of three festival grounds discontinued and a general attitude of 'like it or lump it' to key issues where members interests are and continue to be disregarded. Let's not forget the 'redevelopment' was the vanity project instigated by DE himself as some kind of lasting legacy.....Rather apt then, that not a foundation has been laid or apparently even a plan in place for the spectator aspect of it!

[Mog]

Mog, I will ask for a place so feel free to drop me a list of things you want asked at the event.  It is unlikely that i will be kept quiet

 

Happy to . However, I think one fundamental the Club need to publicise prior to this 'consultation' is what plans are in place? Is it a completely new blank canvas or merely some tweaks to the designs (not that anyone outside of the ECCC Politburo was privileged to view them) of 2007/08 vintage?
Perhaps someone at the Club can divulge, as it is rather important and would help to form a basis for discussion.

[Slogger]

Mog I recall the festival ground ticket sales too. A bit different to what happened in the T20 a few years back when just about anyone could get loads of tickets apart from hardcore members supporting the team at Bristol. That would never have happened in Mr Edwards' day!

[vim]

I will not be able to attend the meeting.

What I would expect at the meeting is a scale model on display of what the development will look like and the opportunity for photographs to be taken for those of us who cannot attend.

If not, there is definitely something to hide. Although hiding a re developed ground is impossible, I bet that the lack of information is to get membership renewals. If the truth was out there, we would lose possibly 40 to 50% of the membership.

[squarelegumpire]

The development was discussed at the Forum this evening. I have to say I wasn't entirely happy with the way things went, although I'm no expert in these things and would appreciate a face-to-face (or at least a 'phone chat with someone who is).

My understanding from this evening is that, while the plans are decided upon and agreed, there is still discussion with contractors concerning the building of blocks 2 and 3, and the pavilion. The idea seems to be that once blocks 2 & 3 are done there will be enough money to redevelop the pavilion area. After that block 4, will be developed.
Questions were asked but there didn't seem anyone, including me, with enough appropriate expertise to follow them through.

I'd thought that everything, contract-wise, was done and dusted, but apparently it isn't.

[nat]

The development was discussed at the Forum this evening. I have to say I wasn't entirely happy with the way things went, although I'm no expert in these things and would appreciate a face-to-face (or at least a 'phone chat with someone who is).

My understanding from this evening is that, while the plans are decided upon and agreed, there is still discussion with contractors concerning the building of blocks 2 and 3, and the pavilion. The idea seems to be that once blocks 2 & 3 are done there will be enough money to redevelop the pavilion area. After that block 4, will be developed.
Questions were asked but there didn't seem anyone, including me, with enough appropriate expertise to follow them through.

I'd thought that everything, contract-wise, was done and dusted, but apparently it isn't.

Thanks for the update. Not that surprising...I'd expect the contract has been drawn up to balance the risk for both sides, the developer and the club. If blocks 1-3 are successful then the club gets a sparkly new pavillon. If block 4 is successful then the club get the remainder of the ground improvements - whatever they are!

[vim]

I have done a search and the apartments, 300 of them are being advertised with a number of estate agents. There is an artist impression of what they will look like when they are finished.

They are competing with the new apartments at the old Marconi site, which have at least been built.

[Blocky]

The development was discussed at the Forum this evening. I have to say I wasn't entirely happy with the way things went, although I'm no expert in these things and would appreciate a face-to-face (or at least a 'phone chat with someone who is).

My understanding from this evening is that, while the plans are decided upon and agreed, there is still discussion with contractors concerning the building of blocks 2 and 3, and the pavilion. The idea seems to be that once blocks 2 & 3 are done there will be enough money to redevelop the pavilion area. After that block 4, will be developed.
Questions were asked but there didn't seem anyone, including me, with enough appropriate expertise to follow them through.

I'd thought that everything, contract-wise, was done and dusted, but apparently it isn't.

i'm no expert either, but from what you are saying, we've given the developer a lump oof our ground and they are going to build a couple of blocks of flats.  If the flats don't sell, the developer walks away?  and we have two blocks of flats and the same shitty ground?
If they sell and the third block sells, then we get a pavillion, and then if they build a 4th block, they build the rest?

that is a f***ing terrible deal.  what happens if the developer goes pop before the 3rd block gets built.finished? 

I strongly suggest that somebody has a chat with Mog, who seems to have a very good understanding of the construction industry.

[squarelegumpire]

TBH Blocky, I'm pretty sure it's not as bad as that. I think it's the hard-hats who are laying bricks who are the issue. As I said, it's not my scene, but I gather that while firm A will do the work on the first part, film B on the second and C on the third.A, B, and C may or may not be the same form.

[Mog]

To be clear, I'm an architect, but I am familiar with deals such as the one ECCC appear to have got into.

It's too complicated to go into here, but my understanding is that the Club sold their land; the Club car park to the developers who then use that to build 'apartment' block(s). This project is now so old it predates the 2008 economic crisis, but that's another story.
The development has (I believe) been scaled back, so that now one block is built in isolation, if that sells, they gauge interest in the construction of the second and third - if they attract sufficient interest/demand they are constructed.
ECCC and their original announcement back in '07/'08 was based upon their assumption that the whole residential development would be built. Then, they could redevelop the ground, around 50% of as far as I can ascertain, but that was based upon the 'best' outcome. I should add that MCD, their property development partners, worked with Warwickshire at Edgbaston. A development that has actually been delivered.

In the meantime, the Club had their development called in by the DoE due to massing - i.e. overdevelopment on a constrained site as well as the issues of flooding.
Throughout the whole episode the Club in their usual non-collaborative way, failed to issue and to my knowledge, have only issued one dimensional overview drawings, that provide very little of the design and a sense of how it will work and enhance. For example, it is alleged by several on here that the River End replacement stand is actually a single tier structure to allow more space for the 'fourth' apartment block. The Club have since provided no real updates and refuse to issue any artists impression of the redevelopment.

My fundamental question, one I can only humbly refer you to earlier on this very thread, asks the Club to communicate the scope for consultation. If the plans have already been agreed and signed off, pending Blocks two, three and four of course, then what excatly are they consulting members about? It's time for Essex County Cricket Club to be honest and open!

I would suggest the Club have made one almighty mess of this project, through outside conditions, as identified above, but also because this is generally the modus operandi ECCC have practiced since circa 2000!

If I were advising them on this, I would strongly suggest they (ECCC and their stakeholders) issue a statement, very soon, in advance of the 'consultation' meeting date. In that statement they should be identifying where this project currently sits. What has been agreed. A set of accurate design drawings...not an opaque view from 2007. Then, set out the terms of the consultation. For once can we actually have some honesty!? People can then form their own opinions. Otherwise, I would recommend it would be a waste of any members' time to go to this 'consultation'.

[firehazard]

On their Twitter feed, ECCC have announced the changing of the date of the previously announced "consultation" meeting on the ground development: it's now to be held on 28th January 2015 (still on a weekday evening).

http://www.essexcricket.org.uk/2014/11/03/members-consultation-event-january-28/

[Postman]

Mog rightly wonders what the scope for consultation is if the scheme is not in any sense within the remit of members to alter. In one fundamental sense I think he's right: the club rules don't require the committee to put this kind of project to a vote. This is in contrast, for example, to Kent, where their rules did require members to vote on the initial stage of their plan which involved selling some land for housing and thence funding for the next stage (which still hasn't happened). If we had similar rules we would have had a vote on whether to grant long leases over the apartment block sites, which I presume have already been granted at least on the old car park area, and possibly over the other sites as well via some kind of option deal.

As things stand, I fear all we will be asked about is what kind of spectator accommodation and facilities we would like in the new pavilion area, should the finances of the scheme ever allow it to be built.  But as others have observed, that is a big "if". When we first saw this scheme back in the day, the assumption was that it would all go ahead and at the other end out would pop a shiny new pavilion and other facilities. Clearly what we now have is something much less certain and we could easily end up-if there's another economic downturn-with one or two apartment blocks, no new facilities and incidentally (sorry to raise this again) almost no parking spaces.

I couldn't go to last night's forum but I did ask a question on those lines several years ago and got a "of course that wouldn't happen" type of answer. Nobody has explained what would prevent it happening however, and if it did I believe we would have written off at least half a million quid. That would buy you several decent players.

The other issue is that nobody has explained the business case for the whole thing in the current piecemeal scenario. If we never get the pavilion element, where is the enhanced banqueting and conference space which was supposed to be the point of the exercise?

I doubt if anyone in the club will be able to deal with this kind of question at the consultation evening, so if not there, where, and when? How about an EGM??

[vim]

This development is something that required a EGM. Years ago I was Secretary of a club (non sport) with around 80-100 members and we were approached by another organisation with a business venture. This was put to a EGM and the other organisation attended to answer questions and at the end of the evening we had a vote.

There is always an EGM to discuss whether this development will bring the whole club crashing down and must be stopped.

Would it be cheaper to pay the developers off and forget about the whole thing?

[squarelegumpire]

To be fair, a significant of work has already been done, with the concurrent disruption, both to our club and to our neighbours.

It's a pity the meeting has been delayed, but unless there's something which wasn't reported last night, I can see no great harm in waiting until then, although if those with more experience of these things than myself can debate and advise in the interim that would wold be most helpful.

[Postman]

To be fair, a significant of work has already been done, with the concurrent disruption, both to our club and to our neighbours.

It's a pity the meeting has been delayed, but unless there's something which wasn't reported last night, I can see no great harm in waiting until then, although if those with more experience of these things than myself can debate and advise in the interim that would wold be most helpful.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting some kind of revolution to overthrow the scheme, which would clearly be mad now that work has started. But I do think the fundamentals of what may happen need to be explained afresh, and also how the club is protected, if it is, against the whole thing turning sour.