Selling Seagrave

[Wink84]

What are the chances we have to end up selling Seagrave? Especially if we don't go straight back up from league one at the first attempt.

 

Do we think it's a serious possibility?

 

It seems to be a huge turning point for us. A lack of togetherness as a club, a lack of fight since we move into the fancy 5 star training facility. We lost out identity "Foxes Never Quit" used to mean something, now its a laughing matter for opposing fans. 

[Clogger_]

World class Folly

[Lionator]

Nobody is buying it. Marinakis is not an idiot. 

[JonnyZeroFox]

Training facility? You mean leisure centre 

[filbertway]

Nobody needs or wants it.

 

If used correctly its an excellent source of income in future. If king power csn afford it then we need to keep developing class youth players

[fox_favourite]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Nobody needs or wants it.

 

If used correctly its an excellent source of income in future. If king power csn afford it then we need to keep developing class youth players

This. But they won't be able to fund it and any prospective buyer in the future will see it as a money drain. 

 

It'll be mothballed slowly. It'll be then on those abandoned buildings videos showing the fall of Leicester city football club. 

Edited 19 April by fox_favourite

[Pliskin]

WE ARE NOT SELLING SEAGRAVE. 
 

They’re in the process of offloading Belvoir drive, but I understand there are some complications with selling it….

[SK3Blue]

Turn it into Centerparcs, that’s how the players have treated it. 
 

 

[foxinsox]

The rot started with Seagrave. 

 

Sure it looks on paper a great facility but the reality is that it is a white elephant and we lost all our fight and soul. The players got too pampered and comfortable, too entitled.

[Gamble92]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

WE ARE NOT SELLING SEAGRAVE. 
 

They’re in the process of offloading Belvoir drive, but I understand there are some complications with selling it….

Thanks CEO for clearing this up

 

I'll grab a hot chocolate and go back to bed 

[ClaphamFox]

Seagrave is clearly not going to be sold. Doing so would amount to a massive admission of defeat and loss of face, and Top will not sanction that. Moving the women there and selling Belvoir Drive, as suggested above, is far more plausible.

Edited 19 April by ClaphamFox

[ALC Fox]

If we don't go back up and can't afford to run it because the costs outweigh our income from L1 (apparently not relevant next season because we'll still have parachute payments regardless of division), then we're done aren't we?

 

The only solution I can see is that we sell to a lender such as Macquarie and lease it back. The income from the sale should sustain the running of the facility for a few seasons until such time that we can buy it again. (Was it approx £20m running costs that bloke on that podcast mentioned? Plus rent payable to the buyer.)

 

But how long does that actually give us to get out of L1. Three years, four years, maybe. Very risky considering the trajectory we're on and the wholesale changes to playing and coaching staff that are surely coming.

[ozvaldo]

I’ve heard both David Lloyd’s and Champneys are interested in it. 

[ClaphamFox]

45 minutes ago, foxinsox said:

The rot started with Seagrave. 

 

Sure it looks on paper a great facility but the reality is that it is a white elephant and we lost all our fight and soul. The players got too pampered and comfortable, too entitled.

Seagrave is just a building and some football pitches. It is not responsible for establishing the club’s culture and maintaining standards. That’s the job of the people who run the club, and they have comprehensively failed to do that. Blaming Seagrave is just as daft as blaming Belvoir Drive for the years of decline that led to the 2008 relegation to League One. We are where we are because we have a clueless chairman who has no idea how to run a football club. It’s got nothing to do with Seagrave.

 

[Pliskin]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Seagrave is just a building and some football pitches. It is not responsible for establishing the club’s culture and maintaining standards. That’s the job of the people who run the club, and they have comprehensively failed to do that. Blaming Seagrave is just as daft as blaming Belvoir Drive for the years of decline that led to the 2008 relegation to League One. We are where we are because we have a clueless chairman who has no idea how to run a football club. It’s got nothing to do with Seagrave.

 

Exactly. The idea that bricks and mortar can cause a decline is nuts. It’s the people that cause the decline. 

[Winstonthedog]

18 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Seagrave is clearly not going to be sold. Doing so would amount to a massive admission of defeat and loss of face, and Top will not sanction that. Moving the women there and selling Belvoir Drive, as suggested above, is far more plausible.

It's financial stupidly to have 2 training grounds, having spent a lot of time at both keeping Seagrave is the better option based on location and accessibility.. however Seagrave is a souless place, never been used in a way that takes the club forward

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

WE ARE NOT SELLING SEAGRAVE. 
 

They’re in the process of offloading Belvoir drive, but I understand there are some complications with selling it….

As I  posted elsewhere one of the major problems is that the site has pitches, yea I know, but you can’t just build on land where a football pitch has been in situ for the last three year’s without them being replaced near by.

The two training grounds are in different councils areas and are some 20? miles apart so my guess is that Seagrave wasn’t considered “ close by”. The time to in effect to close down, mothball or abandon Belvoir was when Seagrave opened . Three years would have expired meaning Sports England wouldn’t need to be consulted in respect of planning application.At this point I would imagine it’s near enough certain that Sports England would object to any plans and that in itself would present a major hurdle.

As for covenants without knowledge of their restrictive nature it’s hard to comment but  add to that hurdle another namely the area plan as that  would present a major obstacle.

From memory the accounts suggest that Beloit has value of £10 ish million 

 

[fox_favourite]

1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

As I  posted elsewhere one of the major problems is that the site has pitches, yea I know, but you can’t just build on land where a football pitch has been in situ for the last three year’s without them being replaced near by.

The two training grounds are in different councils areas and are some 20? miles apart so my guess is that Seagrave wasn’t considered “ close by”. The time to in effect to close down, mothball or abandon Belvoir was when Seagrave opened . Three years would have expired meaning Sports England wouldn’t need to be consulted in respect of planning application.At this point I would imagine it’s near enough certain that Sports England would object to any plans and that in itself would present a major hurdle.

As for covenants without knowledge of their restrictive nature it’s hard to comment but  add to that hurdle another namely the area plan as that  would present a major obstacle.

From memory the accounts suggest that Beloit has value of £10 ish million 

 

So another mismanagement in the handling of our football club?! 

 

The list just goes on and on

[old koppite]

4 minutes ago, Winstonthedog said:

It's financial stupidly to have 2 training grounds, having spent a lot of time at both keeping Seagrave is the better option based on location and accessibility.. however Seagrave is a souless place, never been used in a way that takes the club forward

Enzo liked it. 

[Terraloon]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Seagrave is just a building and some football pitches. It is not responsible for establishing the club’s culture and maintaining standards. That’s the job of the people who run the club, and they have comprehensively failed to do that. Blaming Seagrave is just as daft as blaming Belvoir Drive for the years of decline that led to the 2008 relegation to League One. We are where we are because we have a clueless chairman who has no idea how to run a football club. It’s got nothing to do with Seagrave.

 

It is just a building but ironically it was supposed to send a positive message be it in terms of giving an impression to the youngsters that they were being treated as elite or ensuring the first team that LCFC were the club that handled them as top players but alas that mindset has backfired massively.

Top is out of his depth and has to carry the can of that’s there is no doubt 

[MC Prussian]

Champions League training facility for a League One club.

 

You have to applaud the people that made this sports complex possible. 

 

Theoretically, they could sell Seagrave with an option to re-buy at favourable conditions.

[Pliskin]

7 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

As I  posted elsewhere one of the major problems is that the site has pitches, yea I know, but you can’t just build on land where a football pitch has been in situ for the last three year’s without them being replaced near by.

The two training grounds are in different councils areas and are some 20? miles apart so my guess is that Seagrave wasn’t considered “ close by”. The time to in effect to close down, mothball or abandon Belvoir was when Seagrave opened . Three years would have expired meaning Sports England wouldn’t need to be consulted in respect of planning application.At this point I would imagine it’s near enough certain that Sports England would object to any plans and that in itself would present a major hurdle.

As for covenants without knowledge of their restrictive nature it’s hard to comment but  add to that hurdle another namely the area plan as that  would present a major obstacle.

From memory the accounts suggest that Beloit has value of £10 ish million 

 

What they may do it look to sell it to a sporting venture, or rent it out to someone for a grass roots project. I know they’ve made enquiries into selling it, as a job lot, so that would suggest it will probably remain as it is.

[Terraloon]

5 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

So another mismanagement in the handling of our football club?! 

 

The list just goes on and on

From the outside looking in and yes with my limited knowledge it’s hard to fathom out on what planet a club of LCs finances ever thought that two training sites was feasible presents a major question in my mind.

Ambition is one thing but Seagrave should have been the only location that was in use but yes on the face of it I would agree this seems a classic case of mismanagement 

[Terraloon]

2 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

What they may do it look to sell it to a sporting venture, or rent it out to someone for a grass roots project. I know they’ve made enquiries into selling it, as a job lot, so that would suggest it will probably remain as it is.

In the current climate it’s hard to see many options other than to mothball and rely on fingers crossed!
 

I have just posted that the time to consider was when Seagrave opened I for the life of me can’t work out why they kept two working sites.

 

Seagrave is a White Elephant and Belvoir is yet another financial black hole

 

 

[Pliskin]

Just now, Terraloon said:

In the current climate it’s hard to see many options other than to mothball and rely on fingers crossed!
 

I have just posted that the time to consider was when Seagrave opened I for the life of me can’t work out why they kept two working sites.

 

Seagrave is a White Elephant and Belvoir is yet another financial black hole

 

 

It just shows the scattergun approach to operating the club have….. they want it all without the proper means to do it.