Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium

[dc]

dc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes. They?ve withdrawn both the lease application

> and the planning application.

Sorry, this not quite correct. They have withdrawn the two linked planning applications and have notified both Southwark Planning and the Planning Inspectorate of this.

It is not clear if they have officially withdrawn from the lease case yet. I was working on the supposition that they have pulled out of the planning process because they do not intend to provide the ?150,000 ?security for costs? to which they refer in their statement. If this is the case - which I think one can reasonably infer - the lease hearing will not go ahead and the lease will automatically remain with Southwark.

[BrandNewGuy]

Having had their redevlopment plans scuppered, Meadow Residential are now playing hardball with the foobtall club. Utterly reprehensible behaviour. Here's the statement from the football committee released today:

"A Statement from The Football Committee

Monday, 6th November 2017

On the 26th of October 2017, the football committee were informed that Meadow Residential (current ground owners, and club management company as appointed by Nick McCormack) were to end their contractual obligations in regards to player payment and club finances.

We were told that as of November 1st 2017, all financial management and payments would revert back to DHFC Ltd?s majority shareholder and Director, Nick McCormack.

As a football committee, made up of fans of the club who volunteer 1000?s of hours a year to help run the club we love, we were asked to take on what we feel are untenable positions and responsibilities without detailed information on the health of the club in terms of its finances, or without a say in the management of what we see as club facilities.

We have been told that as per the terms of our license, we are entitled to net profit from match day activities (after costs have been deducted from the turnstiles and the bar). However we have no say in the management, pricing or efficiency of the match day operations, therefore our profit is dictated to us.

On the 2nd of November, we sent a large list of concerns, and urgent questions to be answered to try and make sense of the situation, that have yet to be fully addressed.

We hope that Meadow and it?s subsidiaries will be forthcoming with information ASAP, in an effort to rectify what has been a very worrying period for the football club since their planning appeal was pulled after the greendale lease appeal was lost and ending Meadow's development plans.

We want to assure the fans, players, and all those associated with the club we will do all in our power, along with our partners at DHST and at Aspire, to secure a future for the football club that puts the community and club first.

The Football Committee - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club

#DHFC

Updated 11:58 - 6 Nov 2017 by Liam Hickey"

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/club-statement-regarding-ongoing-developments-with-2065612.html

[Burbage]

If history is any guide, Meadow Residential LLP will cease to exist very shortly.

Although Hadley Property Group still soldiers on, I'm unsurprised to see that Hadley Development Management Ltd (the outfit that Hadley set up to make the pledges to DHST) is already dissolving itself. Some firms just aren't made to last.

[BrandNewGuy]

Here's Meadow's appalling statement yesterday, deliberately trying to strangle the club financially. A shameful document full of untruths. I don't want to say "I told you so" but I told you so... These predators have no interest whatsoever in the survival and future of the football club.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQOjkHcEDIG_HOykx2V2P4Tn2XXmVXL5VpUrwsqQ-CQ3orJzG4YDZLM_yTjHXfrbQXG89TG6J1pWYRh/pub

"Statement from Meadow Residential Re: Dulwich Hamlet Football Club

Following the recent Court hearing between Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC) and the London Borough of Southwark and the subsequent withdrawal of our planning appeal in respect of the Champion Hill site, there has been considerable public comment regarding the relationship between Meadow Residential and DHFC.

This statement clarifies our position and the main facts.

For many years, one of the main difficulties faced by DHFC is that the stadium and the football club are separated. This was the situation when Meadow Residential became involved with the Club, along with DHFC?s former partners, Hadley Property Group. We purchased the Champion Hill ground from the liquidators at a point when DHFC had no future and was potentially homeless.

Meadow did not buy and does not own Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC). As developers, clearly our intention was to work with DHFC, to successfully develop the site and in doing so build a new stadium and a secure financial future for the Club.

Since 2014, along with Hadley, we have managed the stadium, and with the agreement of the director of, and majority shareholder in, DHFC, provided funds on a monthly basis to meet the costs to run the football club. This funding has allowed DHFC to continue to operate, despite having a significant trading deficit.

We have pursued a solution that wipes out DHFC?s substantial debts and provides a new stadium that can sustain a growing club. As well as guaranteeing the future security of the club, we have insisted that as part of the deal, the club itself becomes owned by the community, using the model pioneered by experts Supporters Direct.

As the club has grown exponentially in this period, we have built a new bar in the corner of the stadium, and refurbished parts of the ground that were previously unusable. We have also paid the salary of an experienced venue manager to overhaul operations, to ensure that DHFC can provide as good a match day experience as possible. We have also provided financial support for fundraising events for important local and international causes that the supporters care about.

We have supported the manager, Gavin Rose, ensuring that he has the resources to operate the playing side. We have not sought to ?run? the footballing side of the Club. We do not own DHFC and our interest has been focused on the planning opportunity, rather than tackling the many operational issues that give rise to DHFC?s unstable finances. We have always taken the view that as much as possible we want DHFC to be able to operate without our direct involvement, aside from providing the financial support and resources for it to meet what is required and expected of it, with agreement from the major shareholder.

Whilst acting in the best of intentions at the time, with the benefit of hindsight we might have been unwise in not intervening to address the substantial playing budget of over ?8,000 a week gross, including a generous bonus structure for the players. It may also have been unwise to have agreed to pay the fines of players.

We have, perhaps belatedly, attempted to address these issues and our recent attempts to try to improve cost management and increase revenue at the stadium have caused some upheaval.

Our investors provided the funding for us to support DHFC, because it was part of a wider development project. We are currently funding in excess of ?170,000 a year to keep DHFC afloat and to meet the shortfall in income. However, the recent Court case and the fact that the Club has lost its lease on the Green Dale astroturf site, means we have had to fundamentally review our position. We have withdrawn our planning appeal and we are now considering our legal and commercial positions. Our investors will not allow us to continue providing the financial support without a viable development solution for the site and some prospect of our recovering the very substantial funds that have been invested.

We accept that all parties: Meadow, London Borough of Southwark and above all DHFC, are now in a very difficult situation. Without Meadow?s funding DHFC will be forced to close in the near future. Without the support of Southwark Council we will not be able to develop the site and recover our investment.

We are now actively seeking to work with DHFC and to talk to Southwark Council, to see if a way forward can be found to build a spirit of cooperation and allow DHFC and the stadium project to continue."

[mikeb]

The problem is their investment was predicated on a mistake: that the land could be redeveloped, despite all evidence to the contrary. Their investors? funds are sadly irrecoverable.

The best they can hope for us to sell or let the ground for a price that reflects that it can only be used for sports & social purposes.

The sooner Meadow is straight with its investors that this is the only viable course, the sooner everyone can get on with their lives, including the management of Meadow.

[ruffers]

So from that it may well turn out they took a gamble leaning on the goodwill that noone would want the club to go bust (as we are continually told it isn't viable) and lost,, fair enough.

I'm still left wondering about the not viable issue. Can someone explain it to me please as from where I sit the club looks pretty successful in terms of income.. so where does the money go?

Apologies if I've missed an explanation elsewhere.

[mikeb]

Ruffers - I'm with you. I've asked DHST, Hadley, Southwark but have got nowhere.

I'm happy to run some numbers on net matchday income. As a starter, you need to model the following:

* attendance and average ticket price paid. I think probably 1500 and ?7

* average beers and food per person. Let's say 1 beer and 1/2 a piece of food at ?3 each and 50% gross margin

* number of staff. Let's say 50 for 3 hours each @ ?10/hr

Working that through produces ?13,500 per match or about ?9/ spectator. Hadley suggest they've been paying ?7,000 for players (not sure that is a good investment) and I'm sure there are a lot of other costs.

[Loz]

Newbie question: do players get paid in the off-season?

[BrandNewGuy]

No, nearly all will be on a 40-week contract.

[Cardelia]

ruffers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm still left wondering about the not viable

> issue. Can someone explain it to me please as from

> where I sit the club looks pretty successful in

> terms of income.. so where does the money go?

>

> Apologies if I've missed an explanation elsewhere.

The explanation is ?8k per WEEK on players' wages! There are clubs in the National League that operate on smaller budgets than that! For the level of football DHFC are playing at, that's some serious bankrolling. I mean, apart from Billericay and Hereford, how many other clubs at Step 3 can even get close to that level of playing budget?

I know Meadow are coming across as the bad guys in this situation, but if they've funded an ?8k per week playing budget for the past few seasons then as an investor they've actually been pretty nice to DHFC.

[ruffers]

I'm not trying to go good guy bad guy, just work out if the drip feeding of the belief the club is untenable is correct, and if so what would need to change for it to be a going concern.

(When Hadley bought it we were told it was all about bad commercial deals with the car wash for instance)

[BrandNewGuy]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The explanation is ?8k per WEEK on players' wages!

> There are clubs in the National League that

> operate on smaller budgets than that! For the

> level of football DHFC are playing at, that's some

> serious bankrolling. I mean, apart from Billericay

> and Hereford, how many other clubs at Step 3 can

> even get close to that level of playing budget?

>

> I know Meadow are coming across as the bad guys in

> this situation, but if they've funded an ?8k per

> week playing budget for the past few seasons then

> as an investor they've actually been pretty nice

> to DHFC.

I wouldn't believe a word Meadow say. In this article in the Independent from just a few weeks ago, the figure was ?5K a week. Who knows if they have been nice to DHFC, given that they won't reveal any of the finances to the club, the supporters trust or anyone else? Their 'niceness' as I see it consisted in betting on a ?5.7million freehold with the hope that they could swing an ?80million development. They've lost the bet and are now taking it out on the club.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/dulwich-hamlet-future-southwark-council-developers-champion-hill-green-dale-meadow-partners-gavin-a7994291.html

[Cardelia]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't believe a word Meadow say. In this

> article in the Independent from just a few weeks

> ago, the figure was ?5K a week. Who knows if they

> have been nice to DHFC, given that they won't

> reveal any of the finances to the club, the

> supporters trust or anyone else? Their 'niceness'

> as I see it consisted in betting on a ?5.7million

> freehold with the hope that they could swing an

> ?80million development. They've lost the bet and

> are now taking it out on the club.

> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/footba

> ll-league/dulwich-hamlet-future-southwark-council-

> developers-champion-hill-green-dale-meadow-partner

> s-gavin-a7994291.html

?5k per week is still a huge amount of money for Step 3 football: it would be a pretty decent budget for the level above, let alone where DHFC are actually at now. Whether you believe Meadow or other club sources, there's no doubt that the wage bill is responsible for a huge portion of the outgoings of DHFC.

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, the wage bill is a huge part of the outgoings of any football club. But no-one else in the Isthmian Prem is pulling in an average gate of 1,400. Meadow are in the business of ramping up club-related costs ? look how they unceremoniously got rid of all the volunteer stewards at the first home game of last season and replaced them with security company goons. And ask them how much they spend on cleaning...

[intexasatthe moment]

Posted twice !

[intexasatthe moment]

Regarding the wage bill - I know nothing about this type of thing so could someone tell me how many players that is for ? I'm assuming more than 11 ,reserves ? second teamm ( is that a thing ? ) Does it include other people apart from players ?

And how much of it would be NI etc ?

I'm assuming that Gavin Rose isn't able to comment on whether the figures are accurate ?

Cardelia what would a normal type wages bill be for another club playing at this level ?

[BrandNewGuy]

Gavin spoke to The Independent and said that, over the summer break, Meadow wanted to reduce the wage bill from ?5,000 to ?4,000 a week, but he managed to negotiate them back up to ?5,000, although I've also heard that the player budget is slightly less this season than last.

Attached are the average attendances in DHFC's league and the one above from towards the end of last season. The revenue from those differences will be significant.

[Clifton]

Meadow do not own DHFC, but they do own the ground. This presumably means that they can represent DHFC's trading position in whatever way suits them, by defining the amount charged for the ground and related services accordingly. Unless they add information on those charges to their statement, readers cannot verify the claim of insolvency which that statement contains.

Re the comments on Dulwich's high gate income relative to other non-league clubs, note that many of those clubs have benefactors, though the funding provided is not on the scale of Billericay's cash mountain. Very few indeed fit the normal model of "going concerns". Also, very few if any play on a site with the potential development value of Champion Hill (if planning concerns can be resolved, of course).

[mikeb]

Clifton - I agree Meadow's charges (especially rent) should be disclosed.

Re Champion Hill's "development value", based on the facts at the moment, there is _no_ development value, as by law the land must remain for sporting & social use only. There is a reason for this restriction - the Sainsbury's development was intended to be a "once and only" reduction in open land, and the covenant was the means to enforce this.

You could just as easily say "Alleyn's school fields represent a great development opportunity".

This is different to a site that that does not have those restrictions and could be developed if only an scheme could be formulated that is acceptable to the planning authorities.

[Clifton]

Yes, agree entirely. My last sentence was meant to get across that it's hardly surprising that Hamlet find themselves in this kind of struggle, when a club at the same level playing in a small country town would not.

[Cardelia]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, the wage bill is a huge part of the

> outgoings of any football club. But no-one else in

> the Isthmian Prem is pulling in an average gate of

> 1,400. Meadow are in the business of ramping up

> club-related costs ? look how they unceremoniously

> got rid of all the volunteer stewards at the first

> home game of last season and replaced them with

> security company goons. And ask them how much they

> spend on cleaning...

Technically Billericay are only a hundred or so below DHFC's average, although for obvious reasons they don't really count for this sort of discussion. But for many clubs, ground-related expenditure is just as much of a burden as the wage bill. DHFC haven't had to directly bear this cost for several years because they don't own Champion Hill. It's likely that Meadow absorbed this cost (or a good chunk of it) as part of their business plan to get the bigger redevelopment past Southwark Council. Lets face it, on an ?80 million development, ground maintenance of ?150k per annum (see below) won't even be a line on the balance sheet. But now the council have said no to the development, maybe Meadow are not willing to subsidise ground maintenance any more and are passing on more of the true costs of running a football club to DHFC?

http://ecfcst.org.uk/yourclub/club-finances/

To give everyone an idea, this is a broad overview of Exeter City's annual income/outgoings from 2012/13. That year they were in League 2 and averaged 4142 from 23 matches with adult admission prices of ?17 (terrace) and ?21/?24 (standing). From that, they got ?865k of net income from tickets. If you scale down to DHFC's current average attendance (about 1/3rd of ECFC) and current ticket prices (about 2/3rds of ECFC's terrace price), that gives you an anticipated net ticket income of ?200k for DHFC. Roughly. Stuff like advertising and Trust contributions can also be estimated by scaling down ECFC's numbers to provide a rough income for DHFC. Some of the outgoings can also be scaled down, like travel costs and league fees.

The first problem comes with ECFC's ?659k of football league income (TV rights, effectively) which DHFC doesn't have. That was 30% of ECFC's total income and massively boosted their spending ability. Without that TV money, their wage bill would have been much, much smaller.

The second problem is that ground maintenance costs don't scale down so well. The capacity of St James' Park is about three times as big as Champion Hill, but that doesn't mean their ground maintenance costs were three times as big as DHFC's costs. For example, the pitches are roughly the same size so they need roughly the same amount of maintenance. I know ECFC had League 2 ground regulations to comply with, but that year they spent ?170k on the pitch and general maintenance with a further ?250k on fixed stadium costs. If you use a crude 1/3rd scaling factor then that gives ?140k of estimated ground maintenance costs for DHFC, but as I said above this scale factor isn't so accurate so the true figure is likely to be higher.

Now, if we take ?5k per week as DHFC's wage bill, that equates to ?200k over a 40 week season. At this point it should be obvious that if wages = gate income for DHFC, that doesn't leave enough other income to cover all the other outgoings associated with running a football club. Hence DHFC is in trouble unless someone is willing to put their hand in their pocket to bridge the gap. Meadow claim they have been doing this to the tune of ?170k per annum. I think that figure is too high, but equally I have no doubt they have been putting substantial sums into DHFC in order to balance the books.

[BrandNewGuy]

"Mayor of London Sadiq Khan reveals 'deep concerns' over the perilous future of Dulwich Hamlet

The club has been left with obligations it cannot meet, leaving fans resorting to helping out with the wage bill through PayPal for the foreseeable future

Now Dulwich manager Gavin Rose is furious at Meadow?s claims in their own statement that the wage bill was running as high as ?8,000 per week, when the correct figure is just under ?5,000. ?The club?s playing budget has never been ?8,000 per week, not once,? Rose said. ?Even with bonuses it has not got close to it. These kind of numbers are thrown around without consequence but cannot be backed up at all.? "

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/dulwich-hamlet-southwark-council-meadow-residential-champion-hill-crowdfunding-paypal-a8043731.html

[Siduhe]

The most interesting bit of that article for me is this:

I urge the current owners to do the right thing and revisit their application to protect Dulwich Hamlet and deliver more affordable homes, or find an alternative that ensures the future of a football club that means so much to its supporters and local community.

(my emphasis)

That reads to me as an invitation to come back with a development proposal that meets more of Southwark's needs at a slightly lower profit for the developer, and to stop using the future of Dulwich Hamlet as a bargaining chip in the development discussions. I suspect we haven't heard the last of this.

[BrandNewGuy]

... but that 'revisiting' will not include Green Dale, because Southwark have taken back the lease.

[BrandNewGuy]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now, if we take ?5k per week as DHFC's wage bill,

> that equates to ?200k over a 40 week season. At

> this point it should be obvious that if wages =

> gate income for DHFC, that doesn't leave enough

> other income to cover all the other outgoings

> associated with running a football club. Hence

> DHFC is in trouble unless someone is willing to

> put their hand in their pocket to bridge the gap.

> Meadow claim they have been doing this to the tune

> of ?170k per annum. I think that figure is too

> high, but equally I have no doubt they have been

> putting substantial sums into DHFC in order to

> balance the books.

And Meadow are withholding full information about bar profits, which is a huge moneyspinner ? never mind taking into account the monies that could be earned from a properly-run gym, venue hire, astroturf pitch etc etc.