| Just supposing... 19:49 - Jan 1 with 5276 views | D_Alien |
The Trust newsletter, which informs us of many things (we may not have otherwise known) includes the annual cost of finding training facilities, c. £500,000 plus the hassle of course
Now, we're on the lookout for an investor. Just supposing a significant business player on the lookout for advertising their community-minded credentials were to find the following attractive:
Working in tandem with the club and Rochdale Council, identify land which could be transformed into a bespoke training facility for Dale
Fund the purchase of the land, and the building of said facility, named after the company involved
Ensure its use as a community facility for when the club aren't using it, and an income generator with perhaps leisure and social facilities inbuilt
The investor would own the facility, but wouldn't own or part-own any of the COA
Build it in the right place and it could be hired out to other clubs, just as we hire other facilities now - the profits would be theirs. Both the club and the council could, however, take a share in the company to derive some income from the facility, if/when it becomes profitable. Such a share taken by the club would invert the relationship from an investor owning part of the club, to the club owning part of the investor-owned facility
Worst case scenario - the investor goes bust, and the training facility with it - but leaving the COA and all who sail in her intact. The council would still have dibs on the land
I'm sure this must have been part of the club's planning, either now or in the past. If the Dale could pull this off though, i see no downside. Dale save £500k per annum, meaning we'd still have to cover any other shortfall, but far more easily manageable. The facility would be an attraction for players to join us - perhaps a major point of not doing as it stands
[Post edited 1 Jan 2023 19:53]
|  |
| |  |
| Just supposing... on 20:05 - Jan 1 with 4158 views | judd |
No |  |
| |
| Just supposing... on 22:08 - Jan 1 with 3945 views | D_Alien |
| Just supposing... on 20:05 - Jan 1 by judd |
No |
And the reason is... | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 22:17 - Jan 1 with 3920 views | judd |
| Just supposing... on 22:08 - Jan 1 by D_Alien |
And the reason is... |
Astronauts | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 22:20 - Jan 1 with 3898 views | fourfourtwo |
I really can’t see it happening when the town is already fairly saturated with gyms/training facilities.
When the Soccer Village was originally opened it was an excellent facility with multiple 4G pitches, bars, function rooms etc.
That’s now been demolished and in the process of having houses built on. |  | | |
| Just supposing... on 22:28 - Jan 1 with 3865 views | 442Dale |
| Just supposing... on 22:20 - Jan 1 by fourfourtwo |
I really can’t see it happening when the town is already fairly saturated with gyms/training facilities.
When the Soccer Village was originally opened it was an excellent facility with multiple 4G pitches, bars, function rooms etc.
That’s now been demolished and in the process of having houses built on. |
Problem with Soccer Village was it was too far out of town.
Heywood sports centre and their 3G seems to have done well down the years, it’s about finding somewhere that’s feasible for both the club and the town with multiple use available. Obviously finances are the biggest factor, so pushing any genuinely interested investor on whether they would support such a project would be a good indicator of if they fit when it comes to guaranteeing the future sustainability of the club. |  |
| |
| Just supposing... on 22:29 - Jan 1 with 3869 views | D_Alien |
| Just supposing... on 22:20 - Jan 1 by fourfourtwo |
I really can’t see it happening when the town is already fairly saturated with gyms/training facilities.
When the Soccer Village was originally opened it was an excellent facility with multiple 4G pitches, bars, function rooms etc.
That’s now been demolished and in the process of having houses built on. |
In that case, any training facility the club might foresee as a community hub would have the same problem, with the expense of maintaining it
That was cited as part of the "medium/long term" positive outlook in the Trust newsletter:
"The need to secure some form of training facility has often been discussed with supporters, and whilst we tend to think of this from a footballing point of view, there is currently an annual cost of £500,000 to secure the pitches for the Club and its various teams to train on. Securing such a facility would not just alleviate those costs, but should more than pay for it itself with its community usage given the lack of similar of facilities throughout the borough."
So basically, that's a non-starter too...?
[Post edited 1 Jan 2023 22:31]
| |
| |
| Just supposing... on 07:20 - Jan 2 with 3614 views | rkershaw |
| Just supposing... on 22:29 - Jan 1 by D_Alien |
In that case, any training facility the club might foresee as a community hub would have the same problem, with the expense of maintaining it
That was cited as part of the "medium/long term" positive outlook in the Trust newsletter:
"The need to secure some form of training facility has often been discussed with supporters, and whilst we tend to think of this from a footballing point of view, there is currently an annual cost of £500,000 to secure the pitches for the Club and its various teams to train on. Securing such a facility would not just alleviate those costs, but should more than pay for it itself with its community usage given the lack of similar of facilities throughout the borough."
So basically, that's a non-starter too...?
[Post edited 1 Jan 2023 22:31]
|
Kingsway Astro Turf pitch facing 'The Hornet' pub?? | | | |
| Just supposing... on 07:30 - Jan 2 with 3608 views | James1980 |
How 'local' does a training facility have to be? For example Brighton's training facility is situated in Lancing which is about 13 miles from their ground. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just supposing... on 09:05 - Jan 2 with 3518 views | EllDale |
Barrow are the classic example.
They train, or did do, at Hopwood Hall College at Slattocks basically because it was easier to attract players.
It would be interesting to know how many Dale players actually live in the town.
I don't think that a training facility has to be 'local' but rather accessible from the motorway network. The main thing is that it meets the necessary criteria and belongs to the club so that they always have first priority. | | | |
| Just supposing... on 09:22 - Jan 2 with 3473 views | D_Alien |
| Just supposing... on 09:05 - Jan 2 by EllDale |
Barrow are the classic example.
They train, or did do, at Hopwood Hall College at Slattocks basically because it was easier to attract players.
It would be interesting to know how many Dale players actually live in the town.
I don't think that a training facility has to be 'local' but rather accessible from the motorway network. The main thing is that it meets the necessary criteria and belongs to the club so that they always have first priority. |
Or priority could easily be built into the T&Cs of any such arrangement. I don't see why the club should be seeking to saddle itself with the debt when such a beneficial arrangement could be made. That's also why it would need to be built locally, under council jurisdiction
As things stand, people are talking about re-mortgaging the COA, for goodness sake! The advantage of not having the COA falling under potential ownership of an external investor is, to my mind, overwhelming. That's the biggest stumbling block we're faced with - this solution overcomes it, whilst removing a massive annual financial burden, and hassle
[Post edited 2 Jan 2023 9:38]
| |
| |
| Just supposing... on 10:28 - Jan 2 with 3373 views | kel |
| Just supposing... on 09:05 - Jan 2 by EllDale |
Barrow are the classic example.
They train, or did do, at Hopwood Hall College at Slattocks basically because it was easier to attract players.
It would be interesting to know how many Dale players actually live in the town.
I don't think that a training facility has to be 'local' but rather accessible from the motorway network. The main thing is that it meets the necessary criteria and belongs to the club so that they always have first priority. |
“It would be interesting to know how many Dale players actually live in the town.”
Well Cameron John doesn’t. |  | | |
| Just supposing... on 13:40 - Jan 2 with 3134 views | 49thseason |
The simplest solution is to build a spotland-sized 4g pitch on the land between St Clements and the Lacrosse club at Redbrook. When I raised this with the board, the problem was the RAFC's inability to fund the build ( £1m+ with changing rooms) This solution is still a possibility, everyone would benefit, tbe profits from community use supporting Clements and the Lacrosse club and paying RAFC to maintain the pitches they already use. Community bookings could be made via RAFCs offices.
Upgrading the Clements pitches would provide a venue for Academy games which currently take place out of the Borough for lack of a suitable pitch. The Sports club has most of what RAFC requires... kitchen, meeting spaces,etc. with the exception of perhaps a gym but if one of the adjacent units came available, that could be easily rectified.
Of course this whole finance probem could be solved by RMBC sorting out a loan and helping to access grant money or perhaps using some of the S106 money ( the sort of money they were proposing to spend on a new Hornets pitch at Balderstone) they are supposed to get from new build houses as a contribution to leisure facilities, unfortunately the Council seems to waive the charge more often than it collects it.
Another solution would be to compulsorily puchase the Turners site and dump 2 feet of top soil on top of 10 or 12 acres of it and build a mini St Georges Park with a hotel, half a dozen 4G pitches and 4 or 5 decent grass surfaces. But that would require government money.. maybe the Levelling Up funds? |  | | |
| Just supposing... on 13:42 - Jan 2 with 3131 views | nordenblue |
| Just supposing... on 09:05 - Jan 2 by EllDale |
Barrow are the classic example.
They train, or did do, at Hopwood Hall College at Slattocks basically because it was easier to attract players.
It would be interesting to know how many Dale players actually live in the town.
I don't think that a training facility has to be 'local' but rather accessible from the motorway network. The main thing is that it meets the necessary criteria and belongs to the club so that they always have first priority. |
Why would any players need to live in the town when I'm guessing all of them drive anyway, it's probably very rare over a handful of players live in the actual town they play. | | | |
| Just supposing... on 13:45 - Jan 2 with 3131 views | EllDale |
That was my point about the training facility being local. No need when most of the squad are commuting anyway. | | | |
| Just supposing... on 14:11 - Jan 2 with 3081 views | 49thseason |
| Just supposing... on 13:45 - Jan 2 by EllDale |
That was my point about the training facility being local. No need when most of the squad are commuting anyway. |
You can make that argument, but there still needs to be access for the marketing team, meetings with other staff, kit facilities etc, many of which are based at the Club. Clearly the closer the training facility is to the ground and offices, the easier all the other functions are. They reverted to Redbrook because the players didnt like battling the traffic to get to and from Platt Fields | | | |
| Just supposing... on 14:15 - Jan 2 with 3057 views | 442Dale |
| Just supposing... on 14:11 - Jan 2 by 49thseason |
You can make that argument, but there still needs to be access for the marketing team, meetings with other staff, kit facilities etc, many of which are based at the Club. Clearly the closer the training facility is to the ground and offices, the easier all the other functions are. They reverted to Redbrook because the players didnt like battling the traffic to get to and from Platt Fields |
Plus it needs to be a facility the community can use as well. | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 17:33 - Jan 2 with 2879 views | finberty |
| Just supposing... on 22:28 - Jan 1 by 442Dale |
Problem with Soccer Village was it was too far out of town.
Heywood sports centre and their 3G seems to have done well down the years, it’s about finding somewhere that’s feasible for both the club and the town with multiple use available. Obviously finances are the biggest factor, so pushing any genuinely interested investor on whether they would support such a project would be a good indicator of if they fit when it comes to guaranteeing the future sustainability of the club. |
Soccer Village was approximately 1.5 miles from junction 21 of the M62, so hardly inaccessible to car users.
However, it remains demolished. |  | | |
| Just supposing... on 18:43 - Jan 2 with 2767 views | Thacks_Rabbits |
| Just supposing... on 17:33 - Jan 2 by finberty |
Soccer Village was approximately 1.5 miles from junction 21 of the M62, so hardly inaccessible to car users.
However, it remains demolished. |
There’s unused training facilities just the other side of heywood we would probably be able to buy or lease cheap. Maybe offer to let a lower league club use it occasionally to help fund it. 😂 |  |
| |
| Just supposing... on 18:56 - Jan 2 with 2726 views | judd |
Didn't Andrew Kelly announce at a forum that a deal.had been done for a community based training facility to be built in the South Heywood development? | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 19:42 - Jan 2 with 2632 views | 49thseason |
| Just supposing... on 18:56 - Jan 2 by judd |
Didn't Andrew Kelly announce at a forum that a deal.had been done for a community based training facility to be built in the South Heywood development? |
That would be to go with the one at Birch that was never used because it was always waterlogged and the one that was intended to be shared with the Edgar Wood School nearby that never happened. There is a long history of proposed sites which never seem to get off the ground. There was a plan for an elite sports academy in Rochdale that never happened either, zero interest from RMBC. | | | |
| Just supposing... on 19:55 - Jan 2 with 2584 views | blackdogblue |
Why is it being said the soccer factory has been demolished by the way?
My mate works on the industrial units in between the new houses & it, he said it was still there last week & google of their website / Facebook page says it’s still open 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
https://m.facebook.com/100063812431635/ [Post edited 2 Jan 2023 19:57]
|  |
| |
| Just supposing... on 19:59 - Jan 2 with 2573 views | RAFCBLUE |
Just to come back to the OP, there are three main themes to this which the Trust's newsletter puts neatly into the public domain.
1. Current cost of doing business
The quoted £500,000 to rent / hire facilities is an astronomical figure when you reference it to the recent Chairman's Christmas message which stated that the club loses £18,750 a week.
That means that a large part of that weekly loss - say £10,000 per week - is attributed to not having the facilities in place for being a professional football club. That £10,000 of cost is eradicated by having an owned facility of some sort.
Ignoring the numbers for a minute - that means that RAFC is subsidising a good number of sporting facilities both in Rochdale and across the North West with rental rather than owning / having access to a facility which is free at the point of use.
£500,000 is 2,000 £250 season tickets.
If RAFC was not subsidising those facilities then they would have to find that money too from somewhere. This highlights the significant inter-connectivity of sport driving by a professional football club across the wider borough. If something bad happens to the football club then those facilities suffer an equivalent downturn in fortunes and equally success for the club is good for those organisations too.
2. Sourcing land and having that land allocated for sports use not housing.
The issue we have had as a club for years is the sourcing of land. Numerous sites have been promised, earmarked, reviewed and identified and none have ever come to fruition. Bowlee, land off the M62 and various other sites have been touted over the years with no actual progression of land.
The obvious reason for that is that if you are a seller of land it is far more lucrative to build houses on available land rather than any other form of commercial facility. Equally, if you are seller of land you want the best price now that you can get for that land.
The demolition of the former Church Inn pub and creation of housing is the best example I can think off for that.
To resolve this the only party who can help is the Council. This is by making delivery of a training ground / community facility / sports pitches part of a local plan led commitment, possibly funded by Section 106 contributions from other developers in the borough.
3. The role of the investor in speculative development
Put harshly there is not a serious enough economic return for an individual investor to take a punt on the speculative development of any facility without a guaranteed return. If you had £1m sitting doing nothing and could get 5% (£50,000) per annum on that in a savings account then what chance are you going to risk that £1m in a scheme that does not have a guaranteed outcome and / or is tied to the sporting fortunes of another commercial organisation that you are not involved in.
Thats before all of the problems of sourcing the land and delivering a successful development.
4. What does that mean for us in practice?
For RAFC the support of the Council will be crucial if this training ground dream is to be ever developed out. Not only does the land need to be found but the priority of the football club, for the benefit of the wider town, is something that only local and possibly even central government can solve. Local and central government have access to funding that smaller organisations don't.
Here's a live example, going on under 10 miles from Spotland:
https://www.manchesterworld.uk/news/new-football-pitch-and-pavilion-to-be-built-
If we look across the road at Bury, their council is doing exactly this - the link above is showing - Bury council has been working with Radcliffe FC, the Football Foundation and Lancashire County FA on funding the project.
The proposed 3G pitch and pavilion will be managed by the Radcliffe Football Foundation under a long term management lease from Bury Council.
And from a Council that don't have a League team to support following the shenanigans of Messers Day and Dale at Gigg Lane. |  |
| |
| Just supposing... on 20:00 - Jan 2 with 2568 views | 442Dale |
| Just supposing... on 19:55 - Jan 2 by blackdogblue |
Why is it being said the soccer factory has been demolished by the way?
My mate works on the industrial units in between the new houses & it, he said it was still there last week & google of their website / Facebook page says it’s still open 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
https://m.facebook.com/100063812431635/ [Post edited 2 Jan 2023 19:57]
|
Soccer Village. It was in Milnrow. | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 20:08 - Jan 2 with 2531 views | judd |
| Just supposing... on 19:42 - Jan 2 by 49thseason |
That would be to go with the one at Birch that was never used because it was always waterlogged and the one that was intended to be shared with the Edgar Wood School nearby that never happened. There is a long history of proposed sites which never seem to get off the ground. There was a plan for an elite sports academy in Rochdale that never happened either, zero interest from RMBC. |
AK on external investment and training ground ðŸ—£ï¸ "The council have come up with a suggestion for a site in Heywood. We'll probably have a plan in place within the next 3-4 weeks. It's early stage but it's been a long haul trying to get land in Rochdale."
#RAFC
From Fans Forum, 17th February 2020. | |
| |
| Just supposing... on 20:22 - Jan 2 with 2462 views | D_Alien |
| Just supposing... on 19:59 - Jan 2 by RAFCBLUE |
Just to come back to the OP, there are three main themes to this which the Trust's newsletter puts neatly into the public domain.
1. Current cost of doing business
The quoted £500,000 to rent / hire facilities is an astronomical figure when you reference it to the recent Chairman's Christmas message which stated that the club loses £18,750 a week.
That means that a large part of that weekly loss - say £10,000 per week - is attributed to not having the facilities in place for being a professional football club. That £10,000 of cost is eradicated by having an owned facility of some sort.
Ignoring the numbers for a minute - that means that RAFC is subsidising a good number of sporting facilities both in Rochdale and across the North West with rental rather than owning / having access to a facility which is free at the point of use.
£500,000 is 2,000 £250 season tickets.
If RAFC was not subsidising those facilities then they would have to find that money too from somewhere. This highlights the significant inter-connectivity of sport driving by a professional football club across the wider borough. If something bad happens to the football club then those facilities suffer an equivalent downturn in fortunes and equally success for the club is good for those organisations too.
2. Sourcing land and having that land allocated for sports use not housing.
The issue we have had as a club for years is the sourcing of land. Numerous sites have been promised, earmarked, reviewed and identified and none have ever come to fruition. Bowlee, land off the M62 and various other sites have been touted over the years with no actual progression of land.
The obvious reason for that is that if you are a seller of land it is far more lucrative to build houses on available land rather than any other form of commercial facility. Equally, if you are seller of land you want the best price now that you can get for that land.
The demolition of the former Church Inn pub and creation of housing is the best example I can think off for that.
To resolve this the only party who can help is the Council. This is by making delivery of a training ground / community facility / sports pitches part of a local plan led commitment, possibly funded by Section 106 contributions from other developers in the borough.
3. The role of the investor in speculative development
Put harshly there is not a serious enough economic return for an individual investor to take a punt on the speculative development of any facility without a guaranteed return. If you had £1m sitting doing nothing and could get 5% (£50,000) per annum on that in a savings account then what chance are you going to risk that £1m in a scheme that does not have a guaranteed outcome and / or is tied to the sporting fortunes of another commercial organisation that you are not involved in.
Thats before all of the problems of sourcing the land and delivering a successful development.
4. What does that mean for us in practice?
For RAFC the support of the Council will be crucial if this training ground dream is to be ever developed out. Not only does the land need to be found but the priority of the football club, for the benefit of the wider town, is something that only local and possibly even central government can solve. Local and central government have access to funding that smaller organisations don't.
Here's a live example, going on under 10 miles from Spotland:
https://www.manchesterworld.uk/news/new-football-pitch-and-pavilion-to-be-built-
If we look across the road at Bury, their council is doing exactly this - the link above is showing - Bury council has been working with Radcliffe FC, the Football Foundation and Lancashire County FA on funding the project.
The proposed 3G pitch and pavilion will be managed by the Radcliffe Football Foundation under a long term management lease from Bury Council.
And from a Council that don't have a League team to support following the shenanigans of Messers Day and Dale at Gigg Lane. |
Re: section 3
Wouldn't the theoretical return of £50,000pa be subject to tax, and therefore the return on their investment rather less?
If a major company were involved (i.e. such as the Co-op but any company of similar stature), what would their advertising budget be pa? In the OP, i factored in the good will that might arise from such an investment, especially tied into a community-friendly facility. It could even be tied into warehousing alongside the facility, for instance at Kingsway. There are plenty of factors that might be considered other than those you've listed, although it's a good analysis in its own right
[Post edited 2 Jan 2023 20:25]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
