-

New Stadium Update

Wycombe Wanderers ‘The New Stadium ‘

The key players in the decision making process at the present time are Wycombe District Council (WDC) and Wycombe Sports Developments Limited (WSDL), a company understood to be owned 100% by Steve Hayes.

Up until 2007/2008 the Rugby Premiership had imposed a minimum ground capacity of 12,000 for Premiership clubs and a time limit for compliance. Adams Park has a current limit of 10,000 imposed on health & safety grounds due to the lack of an alternative vehicular access/egress route to Hillbottom Road on match days in the event of an incident requiring emergency vehicles to attend the stadium. As WDC wanted to retain Wasps within the District, it was amenable to considering proposals for an alternative stadium that could meet these requirements and cater for perceived increase in demand for both rugby and football attendances.

This minimum ground capacity regulation was dropped in May 2008.

In April 2008 Adams Park was taken out of Green Belt to reflect it’s already built up nature.

The Wycombe District Sports Facility Strategy – Headline Needs Assessment document identifies the need for:

1. Wycombe Wanderers Football Club • Plan to develop a new 20,000 seat stadium with ancillary facilities, shared with London Wasps • Need outdoor training facilities – 6 football pitches and 3x3G covered pitches and changing fitness suite etc

2. London Wasps Rugby Football Club • Need a 20,000 seat stadium with ancillary facilities shared with WWFC • Need outdoor training– 6 rugby pitches and 1 3G STP and ancillary facilities including changing, fitness suite running track (indoor and outdoor), access to 25m pool.

At the meeting of WDC Cabinet on the 2nd November 2009 Minute 68 read:

“68. STADIUM The report before Cabinet sought to confirm the Council’s commitment to the relocation of the current Adams Park football ground in order to trigger the progression of the planning, site assembly and financial aspects of the new Stadium proposals The following decision was made as extensive discussions over the past two years (including a slow-down thereof over the past 12 months as a result of the recession), had now reached a fresh momentum, such that a Council commitment to the principle of financially supporting a new Community Stadium was now required, prior to formalising an Agreement with WSDL and to enable commencement of the planning process required to identify and seek reallocation of a relocation site.

RESOLVED: That in principle approval be given to the Council:

(i) entering into formal negotiations with Wycombe Sports Development Limited (‘WSDL’) to agree Heads of Terms for a new Community Stadium, based on;

(ii) cross-financing most of the cost of a new stadium and associated infrastructure up to the sum referred to in paragraph 13.11 to 13.13 inclusive;

(iii) procuring the works required under (ii), requiring

(iv) identifying an appropriate site and securing control of it, subject to planning considerations and processes, to enable the target programme to be achieved.”

Reference to the Major Projects Programme 2009/2010 – 2013/2014 shows the setting aside of allowances for a Stadium Commercial Feasibility Evaluation as follows: £80,000 in 2009/2010 £140,000 in 2010/2011 Previous reports had shown WDC budgeted expenditure under Stadium Review of Core Strategy (reference EDBC 45) of: £50,000 in 2008/2009, £250,000 in 2009/10 £200,000 in 2010/11, Stadium Planning Feasibility (reference EDBC 54) of: £41,000 in 2008/09 Stadium Commercial Feasibility (reference EDBC 55) of: £250,000 in 2008/09.

Although the latter expenditure may never have been incurred the figures reflect that WDC is taking the Stadium project very seriously.

A further consideration of the Stadium by WDC cabinet was due to be discussed on the 8th February 2010 when Planning and Feasibility Reports were to be considered, but the Stadium Report was withdrawn before the meeting. Further updates will appear on this website as and when we learn of any developments in the process.

22nd February 2010

posted in new-stadium-update | 22.02.2010. 12:00

Comments:

#1 awanderersfan 23.02.2010. 10:12

Very interesting and concurs with an Stadium Project Status report issued to the Council in 2009. Notice how WASPs are focused as the primary consideration. It states in full:

"During the first half of 2008, the working-up of a scheme for a proposed new stadium was driven by a Council desire to retain WASPs against a backcloth of rumoured relocation offers and RFU capacity rules. This resulted in a proposed Exclusivity Agreement with WASPs (and Wanderers) - to 'lock-out' competing (relocation bids) - with WSDL as the Clubs' 'agent'. The proposed Exclusivity Agreement was drafted so as to 'lock-in' the Clubs - by committing them to reimburse feasibility study costs of up to £0.25m in the event that the feasibility outcome was positive but the Club(s) opted not to proceed with a subsequent pre-let agreement. The proposed pre-let agreement was to have been based on the proposed new Stadium being cross-financed by the Council from the sale of 'enabling development' land, with the new stadium then being let to Stadco, a new stadium management company, owned jointly by the Clubs.

In mid 2008, it became apparent that any competing developer-led stadium schemes were likely to stall. In addition, enquiries to the RFU resulted in their disclosure that rules requiring Premier Clubs to expand their Stadia had in fact been dropped in May 2008 (which appeared to come as news to WSDL [Hayes]). Counpounding the downturn was WASPs early season lack of succes, with RFU stating that were WASPs to fall out of the Premiership, they would not be allowed back if they relied on groundshare.

Late in 2008, the Council informed WSDL [Hayes], that it could not commit to developing a new stadium based on cross-financing because of the collapse of the propert market and the recession. At the same time, WSDL [Hayes], informed the Council that the Clubs were unwilling to commit to the underwriting sought in the Exclusivity Agreement. Subsequently, the Council learned that Mr Steve Hayes had aquired controlling ownership of WASPs. WSDL has since had two meeting with the Council's Stadium project lead officers (23/12/08 and 10/02/09).

In these meetings, WSDL have made it clear that they wish to press-on with the new stadium proposals with a determination to implement them as soon as possible. This is driven by WSDL's aim of refinancing WASPs/Wanderers, by means of an external investor. The attraction to WSDL (and their potential investor) being a larger 'sports village' project along with the enabling development land. This amounts to a change from the original proposal, which raises the question: can the Council get into 'partnership' with WSDL, as against the Clubs and if so, on what basis. The concern being governance (Standing Orders/Best Consideration/State Aid/OJEU).

Each of these hurdles need to be addressed at the outset otherwise there is a risk of whatever 'partnership' is progressed,crashing in due course (due to failure to adhere to process). They amount, in practise to risk management. For example, we have sough legal advice on one of the hurdles - State Aide, which indicates that there may be a way though this particular maze.

However there is a more fundamental issue: we still have to satisfy ourselves that we would not be subject to an audit challenge, if we are to 'partner' with WSDL for WSDL has not 'special purchaser' status (eg as an adjoining landowner). WSDL is on the face of it, a non-expert in terms of property - and specifically stadium - on the face of it, a "non-expert' in terms of property development. WSDL is a private limited Company [limited to £100 liability], not a transparent corporate vehicle (eg a quoted PLC). WSDL's relationship with Wanderers - in particular its Supports [sic] Club at 50% shareholders - is not entirely clear.

The bottom line is that the Council has to be able to demonstrate why it intends to relinquish any control over its [the electorates] asset(s), were it to decide to do so.

A possible added complication is the project work-up costs - specifically the cost of the proposed alteration to the WDF. If WSDL are to share in these costs, the Council needs to know that this will not prejudice the Council's position as planning authority.

Write a comment

* = required field

:

:

:

:

Click to reload captcha image