All things Dundee FC

[Shadow Play]

2 hours ago, Pens_Dark said:

Do you mean that the city council would receive 1.9m rather than Birmingham FC receiving that money from the council itself?

Birmingham council were having to sell 750m worth of assets in order to balance their books. It looks like the owners bought the land off of them.

Anyway - why I raise that question is that, similar to the Brum council, Dundee is having to pull themselves out of a massive financial hole. I couldn't see grants or investment at local level but government grants happen all the time with sports developments. Spurs, Man utd looking to receive funding and of course this one that you point out. 

I would think that Nelms & Keyes are actually relying on this type of grant/funding to make it financially viable at all. I think they've even conceded that previously.

The article read, to me at least, that the council would give City the £1.9m.  I was a little surprised given the significant ongoing financial difficulties facing the council.  

I suppose in the context of the creation of 3,000 jobs £1.9m may seem reasonable particularly if the new facilities will have community access.

I wonder if there is anyone on here with more experience of similar projects  could chip in?

[Pens_Dark]

31 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

The article read, to me at least, that the council would give City the £1.9m.  I was a little surprised given the significant ongoing financial difficulties facing the council.  

I suppose in the context of the creation of 3,000 jobs £1.9m may seem reasonable particularly if the new facilities will have community access.

I wonder if there is anyone on here with more experience of similar projects  could chip in?

Local authorities will always come up with inventive ways to manipulate their perceived public purse I guess. You're right it might be the case that 1.9m is nothing compared to the money in turn they would receive in developer contributions, community facilities and creation of jobs. I wouldn't even begin to pretend to know how it all works but it just seemed strange to me that they would sell land to a developer only to give them money effectively straight back...offset gain and all that I suppose. 

[Arch Stanton]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/dundee-fc/4944004/dundee-announce-2-8-million-loss-for-season-2022-23/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The club’s expenditure on salary dropped from £3.2m in 2022 to just over £3m in 2023 but turnover fell from £4.9m to £3.2m.

That means Dee’s wages-to-turnover ratio rocketed from 65 per cent to 95 per cent.

[Wee jeemie]

3 hours ago, rambling syd rumpo said:

Smoke on the Water and a flip Sony Ericsson? Tell today's kids that once upon a time that was as cool as you could be at 13 and they'll just laugh at you.

10 out of 10 for Bowie. 0 out of 10 for being a total sook, but if it keeps the Mrs happy why should you worry about how it scores on social media?

I used used to play it and sing it to her when I first met her in June 74 , the dog goes mental when she phones , and totally ignores it when paranoid plays , he seems to realised  Paranoid could be anyone , but when prettiest star plays it usually means I  get up and take him with me to pick up the Mrs 

[Ludo*1]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/dundee-fc/4944004/dundee-announce-2-8-million-loss-for-season-2022-23/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

The club’s expenditure on salary dropped from £3.2m in 2022 to just over £3m in 2023 but turnover fell from £4.9m to £3.2m.

That means Dee’s wages-to-turnover ratio rocketed from 65 per cent to 95 per cent.

Makes sense considering we were relegated and had McPake's full squad of duds all still tied up for another year. Bowyer really was given a dud hand.

This was all expected tbh.

[realmadrid]

18 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Makes sense considering we were relegated and had McPake's full squad of duds all still tied up for another year. Bowyer really was given a dud hand.

This was all expected tbh.

The gamble paid off in that Bowyer got the team up, funded by a loan of 2 million at 1% per year from Dark Blue holdings. This makes sense as Keys needs the team to build a stadium for as part of the wider development and its the only way they can realistically ever make a profit on this.

Some interesting notes in the details as posted on the club website

In the going concern section there is mention of the losses for this season being similar but then an improving from 24/25

A supplier Mr G Strachan settled a £192,000 invoice by way of a share issue in February of this year . What has he been doing thats worth 192K?

 

Edited April 9 by realmadrid

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, realmadrid said:

The gamble paid off in that Bowyer got the team up, funded by a loan of 2 million at 1% per year from Dark Blue holdings. This makes sense as Keys needs the team to build a stadium for as part of the wider development and its the only way they can realistically ever make a profit on this.

Some interesting notes in the details as posted on the club website

In the going concern section there is mention of the losses for this season being similar but then an improving from 24/25

A supplier Mr G Strachan settled a £192,000 invoice by way of a share issue in February of this year . What has he been doing thats work 192K?

 

He's the one that overseen the appointments of Gary Bowyer and Tony Docherty. Our first two competent appointments in a long, long time.

He's also completely in charge of our youth development. It's his plans, it's his programme we follow, he was the only one we didn't need to furlough (since he wasn't an employee) during Covid and he was the one that developed the training and diet plans and kept in touch with the players and parents during this time. We don't follow the SFA plan and are in one of the lower tiers and this is purposefully because Strachan doesn't agree with some of it and we've been following his system instead. You can argue the pros and cons of this but I don't think we've noticeably suffered in any way when it comes to the youth plan.

Strachan gets a lot of flak and a lot of it is deserved as his role isn't really clearly defined but he's basically a sounding board for everyone at the club now from the manager, to the board, to the youth teams parents and available at all times to ensure they don't make a completely daft decision.

He's done pretty well in the role. To earn £192,000 in shares after the best part of 5-6 years in the role isn't the worst money spent.

[RossBFaeDundee]

30 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

He's the one that overseen the appointments of Gary Bowyer and Tony Docherty. Our first two competent appointments in a long, long time.

And Mark McGhee.

[Wee jeemie]

54 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

He's the one that overseen the appointments of Gary Bowyer and Tony Docherty. Our first two competent appointments in a long, long time.

He's also completely in charge of our youth development. It's his plans, it's his programme we follow, he was the only one we didn't need to furlough (since he wasn't an employee) during Covid and he was the one that developed the training and diet plans and kept in touch with the players and parents during this time. We don't follow the SFA plan and are in one of the lower tiers and this is purposefully because Strachan doesn't agree with some of it and we've been following his system instead. You can argue the pros and cons of this but I don't think we've noticeably suffered in any way when it comes to the youth plan.

Strachan gets a lot of flak and a lot of it is deserved as his role isn't really clearly defined but he's basically a sounding board for everyone at the club now from the manager, to the board, to the youth teams parents and available at all times to ensure they don't make a completely daft decision.

He's done pretty well in the role. To earn £192,000 in shares after the best part of 5-6 years in the role isn't the worst money spent.

Well said Ludo , I just don’t get the Strachan knockers , I remember him coming through the ranks , and sold purely to keep the club alive at time , I think he’s done well in his two stays at the club , okay cock  up with McGhee but he was never gonna be a full time manager , Bowyer did the job , and Doc in his first management appointment is doing a grand job , in as he always likes to remind us in every press conference the newly promoted club ha 

[Ludo*1]

39 minutes ago, Wee jeemie said:

Well said Ludo , I just don’t get the Strachan knockers , I remember him coming through the ranks , and sold purely to keep the club alive at time , I think he’s done well in his two stays at the club , okay cock  up with McGhee but he was never gonna be a full time manager , Bowyer did the job , and Doc in his first management appointment is doing a grand job , in as he always likes to remind us in every press conference the newly promoted club ha 

I'll be honest, I was the first to lose my shit at Strachan when he appointed McGhee and then appointed Bowyer but over the period, he's been a net positive.

[Sonam]

Good luck guys, peace

[rhumbaclub]

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.

 

[Pens_Dark]

1 hour ago, rhumbaclub said:

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.

 

They're not an elected or statutory body. Nor are they a notified consultee on planning applications. They are a voluntary led organisation that 'encourage' good design in the city - whatever that means and clearly by their own standards. They are no more than a nosy community council for example who may have some influence in determining planning applications, Broughty Ferry community council for example.

Basically, if the people who's actual job it is to consult or be involved with the planning determination are in support of it, there is nothing much the Civic Trust can do. 

There's plenty of examples within their response that you can point to but the main ones for me are:

- Traffic congestion and increase in RTA as a result of the stadium. There has been consultants employed on this to produce detailed models to prove that it wouldn't be an issue - are we to just disregard that as false because the Civic trust says so?

- 'Poor design of many aspects of the building' - by who's standards? What gives them that right to decide this? Have they cross-referenced that against the Local Development plan? 

- Encroaching on to green, public open spaces - This was in the tully a few weeks ago in which some daft old duffer was moaning about the fact the stadium would be built on 'green space' that people regularly enjoyed walking on....What? As opposed to the wonderful green open space of the ACTUAL park at Camperdown? The area the stadium is to be built on has been overgrown and mis-used by neds on scramblers for years now.

Long rant, sorry, but this sort of negativity and stubborn attempting of blocking development that is what I deal with every day in my job with planning applications I submit. There has been an extremely detailed PPiP put in by Dundee that has taken years of modelling and strategy and it's always more easy to do the simple thing of going 'nah this is shit, I don't support it'.

I bet they haven't even looked through all the documents.

ETA - Oh...and their stance is that Dundee should sell off their land at Dens and groundshare with United at Tannadice. I think that tells you everything you need to know ..

Edited April 10 by Pens_Dark

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

File this 'civic trust' shite in the bin where it belongs.

Thank you.

[Boo Khaki]

Clearly no Derry'd oot their nuts.

Sounds like a bunch of cardi-wearing pensioners from east of Dobbies tbh.

[Pens_Dark]

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

Clearly no Derry'd oot their nuts.

Sounds like a bunch of cardi-wearing pensioners from east of Dobbies tbh.

Correct.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, Pens_Dark said:

Correct.

Surely there is a Provost or a couple of Councillors we can chuck a brown envelope at to make this all go away?

[Wee jeemie]

1 hour ago, rhumbaclub said:

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.

 

Can’t be bothered reading it all , but to say another crematorium isn’t needed is complete shit , years ago when someone died they would get Cremated within a week , sometimes people are waiting as much as 3 weeks to say goodbye to relatives, which is awful having to wait that amount of time 

[Pens_Dark]

4 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Surely there is a Provost or a couple of Councillors we can chuck a brown envelope at to make this all go away?

In all seriousness, although I am not involved in the project at all, I know that Nelms has spent years building relationships whilst the development has been ongoing to drum up support.

[Girth]

1 hour ago, rhumbaclub said:

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.