Sons' sorrow

[Jordo1872]

The statements about how DFC aren't exposed to any risk and simply won't move if it isn't right or will all resign their directorships if Brabco upset them left me more concerned than appeased. I'm also somewhat perturbed by the chairman saying he's only ever met 4 of the 6 Brabco members over the years. I'd have thought that the majority shareholders would be more familiar with the club chairman.

I took the opposite view. There are inevitably going to be unanswered questions and one of the critical ones for me was quantifying the risk to be carried by DFC through this project. If we are saying that ALL the risk is to be carried by Brabco and that they would need to provide a fully functioning facility (albeit at phase 1 only) before we were required to vacate the Rock is a major comfort for me personally. I suspect the point Jardine made in relation to resignations was to highlight that Brabco would have much to lose themselves if this didn't succeed. So it's in everyone's interest to make it work and that's clearly a good starting point.

Many good points raised tonight and I'm glad I attended, shame the overall turnout was pretty poor.

[BallochSonsFan]

I'm happy to accept that the board are able to pull the plug before the deal goes ahead if the numbers don't stack up. Unfortunately I'm not buying that we're not exposed to any risk.

The development vehicle could buy the Youngs Farm land, start selling commercial property contracts for the 6 development plots, borrow against the value of the site etc. We only agree to proceed with the development when all of the finance is demonstrably in place. Unfortunately that's the first bit that worries me. Theres a massive difference between having commercial contracts in place and having money in the bank. So we go ahead with the development and we start seeing bricks laid. We see concrete poured an a stadium take shape.

What happens if some of the funding falls through? A commercial partner pulls out, goes bust or otherwise reneges on the deal? Or there's a development overspend and it take more money to complete phase 1? It's still the development vehicle who carry all of the risk and we can walk away?

Really? Brabco, who will own 100% of the development vehicle, won't step in with their 75% voting rights at A/EGM to force a deal?

Alternatively the developers could have a shiny new stadium waiting for us to collect the keys and some of the finance for the purchase falls through. What happens? Are the developers left with a completed phase 1 site that they can't sell to the club because our finance falls through? If it was a residential property deal and you were reliant on selling your own house in order to buy a new one then it's your job as the buyer to arrange bridging finance.

For me theres a massive degree of risk involved.

Turnberry Homes bought the old Newton site in 2007. Market conditions mean they haven't dug a foundation or laid a brick yet.

Brabco bought the majority shareholding in March and by September that year we were in the grip of a world-wide financial crash.

We can sign contracts and commence development with the best of intentions and the figures can stack up overwhelmingly in our favour when the first bit of earth is turned over but with the massive degree of volatility in the commercial and residential property markets, there's no guarantee that we're entirely protected from any unfavourable market changes beyond the assurances of a board of directors who, by their own admission, haven't met our majority shareholders.

I want to take the club at face value. I want to believe that it's a smooth road from paper proposal to a pie and a Bovril in our new ground. I want to believe that we can walk away at any point in the journey until the developers hand us the keys to a completed Youngs Farm and a cheque for the surplus raised from the sale of the Bet Butler site.

For a club that doesn't hold AGMs and owners who seem to have absolutely no relationship with the board? That's a hell of a lot of crossed fingers and some pretty big hopes and prayers.

[BallochSonsFan]

I took the opposite view. There are inevitably going to be unanswered questions and one of the critical ones for me was quantifying the risk to be carried by DFC through this project. If we are saying that ALL the risk is to be carried by Brabco and that they would need to provide a fully functioning facility (albeit at phase 1 only) before we were required to vacate the Rock is a major comfort for me personally. I suspect the point Jardine made in relation to resignations was to highlight that Brabco would have much to lose themselves if this didn't succeed. So it's in everyone's interest to make it work and that's clearly a good starting point.

Many good points raised tonight and I'm glad I attended, shame the overall turnout was pretty poor.

In fairness to the board, they could well walk out en mass.

A new board would be elected.

An EGM could be called.

A shareholder with 75% of the available voting rights can force the agenda at any such A/EGM.

I'm not for a minute saying that they would do this but whilst it would be a great gesture for the board to walk out and to seemingly put Brabco in a poor position, when you have a controlling say at AGM level, you have a massive amount of leverage over any board of directors.

[Howlin' Wilf]

I've watched this from afar and anyone who has watched most teams in Scottish football know that subterfuge and alleged corruption are wide spread.

Why is Dumbarton FC any different.

The PR at the Rock is disgusting ,and I would take the likes of Iain McFarlane back in a minute.

I was off sick on and off for over 2 years during his tenure, and my daily exercise was a walk down to the rock.

His door was always open and the kettle was on every morning

We had some ding dong arguments but the next day it was forgotten, and the coffee was on.

OK he had his faults but you could ask him questions and he would answer.

Since Brabco came, it has become very obvious that the board now see fans as an essential nuisance.

It was me who put sparse info on about the company ,I went as far as I could and ended up at a PO box number in Panama.

We're it not for the fact Alan Findlay and Simon Barrow are on their case, you would not even be getting a meeting tomorrow

I have no problem with any investor making a killing as long as the club is not deserted without a place to play.

Remember in the recent past the travels of Clyde, Hamilton and Clydebank I don't want to see one of the oldest football clubs in UK go to the wall

As an aside if anyone is talking to Mr Hosie, not Colin,ask him what team he supports and did from his days in 1st Dumbarton BB

I'm told that he supported the same team as you Auld Son

[Sweet Pete]

I'm told that he supported the same team as you Auld Son

St Mirren? ;-)

[johnny graham]

So to sum up. Dumbarton is owned basically by six men under the alias of brabco. The six men or women are not to be named because it is a big secret but the name of calum hosie has been put forward as the go between the secret men and the club.

These anonymous people put x amount into the club to save us from the ravages of Neil rankine and have patiently waited for seven years before any return on their investment. They are either very patient or very rich. However having paid x amount they will eventually want y amount in return . I imagine they will expect at least double what they invested as they will finally have to wait at least nine years on any return.

I hope it all turns out well but the alarm bells are ringing.

[lionel wickson]

I'm told that he supported the same team as you Auld Son

Dundee?

[DumbartonTerrace]

Little review of what happened is now on The Dumbarton Terrace: http://thedumbartonterrace.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/stadium-meeting/

[son of a bankie]

Jordo1872 I am with you. Was happier leaving the meeting than before. I think the questions asked seemed to get appropriate answers. Gilbert is superior public speaker than the others. I trust the board to do the correct things. The issue that other part time teams have such a greater income than us is a major concern.

[The Moonster]

I find it a bit frightening Alan Jardine has clear trust in people he's never met and isn't even sure how many of them there are. Again there was a lot of "we're all Sons fans, we love the club", I don't doubt for a second that they do but when thats followed with "trust us we'll have money in the bank", it's almost as if we've heard it all before. How many clubs have been sold something that looks great but when reality hits (as another poster on here said at the meeting) the club end up suffering. I'm happy that we're all cautious here though, that was evident from everyone asking questions and there is a lot that has to come under scrutiny. I get the distinct feeling this is happening whether we like it or not though.

[Howlin' Wilf]

The meeting was pretty informative. I will be interested to see if the criteria laid out for the stadium move by Gilbert last night is adhered to. If it is then it would seem that the risk to the club is minimal.

I'm still concerned about how things will proceed though. At the presentation recently the plan was for 180 houses at the Rock. Last night the planning consultant said that this was likely to be reduced by WDC.

In response to my question last night we were told that the loan to proceed with Phase 1 would be secured on the Dalmoak site itself. However to buy that site from Chivas will require borrowing too. Will Brabco guarantee that themselves or will there be a subsequent charge over BBS? I don't think Brabco have yet purchased the Dalmoak site as they have no assets.

On the plus side, as soon as permission is granted on the Dalmoak site, it will increase in value so maybe the trick will be that the security for the lender will be in that increased value rather than BBS. I would certainly hope so. According to Gilbert last night the purchase price of the Dalmoak site is fixed.

The whole project it would seem hinges on the expected increase in land values and housing demand over the next two years. I have a feeling that should that not happen, the project will be shelved not cancelled. Whilst it does seem there is a plan B for Brabco to recoup should the project not go ahead, that comprises the club staying at the stadium and a small number of houses being built. I can't really see that as a realistic option.

I also note that there was an acknowledgement from the platform of the validity of the 100 C shares (the golden share) last night.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Howlin' Wilf

[O'Kelly Isley III]

The meeting was pretty informative. I will be interested to see if the criteria laid out for the stadium move by Gilbert last night is adhered to. If it is then it would seem that the risk to the club is minimal.

I'm still concerned about how things will proceed though. At the presentation recently the plan was for 180 houses at the Rock. Last night the planning consultant said that this was likely to be reduced by WDC.

In response to my question last night we were told that the loan to proceed with Phase 1 would be secured on the Dalmoak site itself. However to buy that site from Chivas will require borrowing too. Will Brabco guarantee that themselves or will there be a subsequent charge over BBS? I don't think Brabco have yet purchased the Dalmoak site as they have no assets.

On the plus side, as soon as permission is granted on the Dalmoak site, it will increase in value so maybe the trick will be that the security for the lender will be in that increased value rather than BBS. I would certainly hope so. According to Gilbert last night the purchase price of the Dalmoak site is fixed.

The whole project it would seem hinges on the expected increase in land values and housing demand over the next two years. I have a feeling that should that not happen, the project will be shelved not cancelled. Whilst it does seem there is a plan B for Brabco to recoup should the project not go ahead, that comprises the club staying at the stadium and a small number of houses being built. I can't really see that as a realistic option.

I also note that there was an acknowledgement from the platform of the validity of the 100 C shares (the golden share) last night.

The meeting was certainly helpful in many respects but there are still things that unclear and undefined. One thing that does give me comfort is the fact that Gilbert has direct experience in seeing thro turnkey projects like this proposal, maybe not on this scale, but I would expect considerably in excess of anyone in the Brabco consortium.

I remain concerned however by his assertion that DFC has very little exposure to risk, how can that be when the proposers own 75% of the football club and should their plans be thwarted could presumably press the nuclear button and cash in their chips on the existing site, the name Hosie in the mix or not ? Could the Golden Share survive that in a court of law ?

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Still can't work out whether I left the meeting feeling more cautious or not. I appreciate there is a Hosie involved but I find it a bit strange that our chairman doesn't even fully know how many people are involved with Brabco, and that he's only met a few of them a handful of times. Yet he feels he's in a position to preach that they aren't 'bogeymen'. It will take more than that to convince me but perhaps I'm naturally more sceptical than others.

I'm no construction expert but to me the site seems like it could be problematic. Flood plains, burns, environmental restrictions and a shit load of road and footpath development (will Brabco have to foot the full bill for this?) required. There is huge potential there for construction to run over cost and snags to be hit. I just can't get my head around how we are completely risk free in all of this.

As for the panel themselves I felt like Jardine seemed quite defensive but I did appreciate his honesty. Gilbert actually came across quite well and out of the two gave far better answers. The guy Roddy gave an informative presentation and seemed open to ideas and suggestions but he's simply a planning consultant.

There's a long way to go on this and our wonderful cooncil will have a big part to play. It will be interesting to see how it starts to pan out come January.

Well done to the Trust for organising the meeting last night, hopefully there's more fan involvement to come as the project picks up pace.

[Jordo1872]

I remain concerned however by his assertion that DFC has very little exposure to risk, how can that be when the proposers own 75% of the football club and should their plans be thwarted could presumably press the nuclear button and cash in their chips on the existing site, the name Hosie in the mix or not ?

Isn't that a risk regardless of a proposed stadium move? I'd have thought that scenario would be more likely if we chose to stay where we are.

Brabco could cash in their chips by selling the current site and leaving us homeless but I always thought the golden share issue prevented that. The legal validity of these shares is open to debate but as a community football club up against a property developer we'd be fighting that issue from a strong position.

[Jordo1872]

I'm no construction expert but to me the site seems like it could be problematic. Flood plains, burns, environmental restrictions and a shit load of road and footpath development (will Brabco have to foot the full bill for this?) required. There is huge potential there for construction to run over cost and snags to be hit. I just can't get my head around how we are completely risk free in all of this.

Gilbert Lawrie was clear last night when he said the cost of purchasing Young's farm was a fixed price with no limit of time. So if that's the case, and we have no reason to doubt him, it removes that particular risk.

The construction costs won't be known until planning consent has been granted and detailed design can commence. Even then, the build cost will be subject to tender returns from interested contractors. I would imagine the form if contract would be a fixed price design & build meaning most of the risk associated with overruns and cost escalation would sit with the contractor rather than Brabco as the client. Of course this risk would be quantified and built in to the winning tender.

Every site will have difficulties and Young's Farm would be no different. One of the biggest risks would be poor ground conditions. I specifically asked the planning consultant if ground investigation works had been undertaken already and he confirmed they had with favourable results. So again that reduces risk.

I said from the start that if the club are not required to leave BBS until we have a new stadium ready to move to is be more supportive of the project and that appears to be the case.

[Sweet Pete]

From the chairman's comments:

“People ask why get bigger when the ground is only half full. Alloa and Cowdenbeath will make £180,000 more than Dumbarton will this season because of the games they have.

“It’s not about the size of the stadium – it’s about the facilities. We need more than season ticket money and gate money and right now we don’t have more than that."

Surely he's contradicting himself there? It either is about the stadium attendances for this very rare season, or it isn't. So which is it? He also never answered me when I asked him that.

“To turn the key in our current stadium, and keep it running, is costing £75,000 to £100,000 a year, and it will get worse before it gets better."

He made this fairly bombastic statement about running costs for the current stadium, but never answered me when I asked him about this either.

As for his statements about the club going full time (or quasi full-time, as he corrected himself to), where has the number of "within 4 seasons" come from? Also, based on the information we were given last night, full time status would only be achievable by staying in the Championship and big clubs with big away supports being in there with us every season plus constant use of the additional income stream facilities at the new ground. If we have a rough year and don't get much use out of the gyms, hotels etc and there are no "big" clubs in the Championship one season then our own crowds would not sustain full time football, so that's a concern. Additionally, he stated that we already pay more than double the season ticket and gate receipts on the wage bill currently, but that players are complaining that Alloa and Cowdenbeath pay bigger bonuses and bigger basic salaries. Now, to be honest, I don't really believe that, but taking it as true, my response would be to tell the players to find employment elsewhere and replace them with others who'd be happy to play for our wages, which are more than ample. I asked him about this and said that we, as supporters, are more likely to be satisfied with a team playing at a lower level (if need be) and a secure future than to stay in a higher league paying wages which he himself says we can't really afford, but again he never really answered that.

He said repeatedly that we need to move or we will slip down the leagues. I just don't really believe it, nor does the concept really concern me, because leagues work two ways, not just up and no club can stay up forever just by throwing money at the wage bill and building new commercial facilities to sustain full time football on part time crowds.

[Sweet Pete]

Another, smaller, point which I'm not sold on is the idea of a supporters bar at the new ground which is open 7 days a week and will generate income. The fact is that the new stadium is away from housing and transport and the town centre and is therefore unlikely to be used except for match days. If the idea is to increase revenue by keeping the bar open all the time then it'll quickly be a case of costing money to keep the lights on and the staff on shift when there's no-one using it. But that's for years down the line and not nearly as important as the bigger issues.

In terms of populating all of the new "land parcels" that generate commercial revenue on the new stadium site prior to the club making a move, that could literally take years to achieve as we have seen with the Artizan, Lomondgate and St James' Retail Park. If, as Gilbert Lawrie suggests, the club will not move at all until every single commercial contract is signed to fill these units then the club could be waiting a very long time.

[TheFarPost]

Thanks to the 70+ people who turned up last night and took part in a lively Q&A. There's a short report on the trust site here (http://sonstrust.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/lively-stadium-plans-discussion/), with more to follow.

[Sweet Pete]

Another thing I've just remembered, the chairman seemed to contradict himself when saying that Alloa and Cowden pay better wages / bonuses than us, but then saying that we have offered players more than full time wages but they've preferred to stay full time for less. Additionally, Cowden offered Scott Linton and Colin Nish contracts when we signed them, so if Cowden's wages / bonuses are better, how come those two play for us?

[The Moonster]

What I'm not quite getting is that we're told we need to move because Brabco are due a return on their profit, fair enough. We were then told that if it can't be afforded the club doesn't move (and that would be the boards final decision). Where does that leave Brabco? Sitting with a club which has been the stumbling block to their profit. If I'm them, do I sit for another 5-10 years and wait for another chance or do I sell the ground I currently have, hopefully make some profit, walk away and tell the club "sorry, that's business"? The Golden share issue seems sketchy at best to me.