What I find most frustrating about this latest turn of events is that it was Box who started us on this sorry path almost 10 years ago.
Although we were still dealing with the mess that Pearman left the club in, plans were being formed to move to a purpose built stadium on land that would be granted to the club by WMDC. Having got to a position where a shortlist of sites had been identified (if not a site chosen) and outline plans being prepared, our good friend Mr Box suggested to the club that they shelve the plans they had been preparing for a couple of years as WMDC would be creating a sports village at Thornes Park and Box would love trinity to be key tenants in the new stadium.
As the club wouldn't have to find anything like the level of funding needed to build their own stadium it was a no-brainer to accept Mr Box's invitation. From that point all efforts went on creating the plans for TP.
As we all know, the proposals for TP were flawed because of both the lease held by the college until 2012 (which Box should have known about) and the impact on the credit crunch (which although I would love to blame on Box I can't). I don't think we'll ever know exactly when Box knew that TP wouldn't come to fruition, but it certainly benefitted the club that the news didn't break until after the franchise for 2009-2011 was secure. By that time the contracts had been signed to sell BV and we had already received money to repay the bank loan.
The price Box tried (and failed) to extract for helping us get a franchise was to suggest to Joanne Roney (the newly appointed CEO of the council) that the club were at fault for not having other plans as a contingency and that the council bore no responsibility (moral or otherwise) in helping Trinity secure a new ground. It was only thanks to the club being sensible enough to take minutes of the various meetings that we were able to prove to Ms Roney that WMDC had at the very least a moral responsibility to help the club in securing a new ground. Had we simply taken Box at his word our future would already be signed, sealed & delivered as a club to be destined forever in the lower leagues.
The club then worked tirelessly to identify a new site & commercial partners (with bank support) for a new ground, as well as making great efforts through the creation of the Community Trust to obtain grants (or at the very least commitments that the grants would be made) from various bodies to help finance the CT's contribution to the development. Despite not providing any funding to the development WMDC would benefit from the development through new sports facilities that could be used by any number of schools & clubs in the area (with the exception of guaranteeing a comparatively small loan to the CT to cover the cost of the plans - even then the guarantee would only be called if the plans fell through, so it was still in the council's hands).
As the council had said that neither club would be given land for a new stadium, they decided that plots of land would be made available to help secure the financing of the respective plans given the more conservative approach being taken by the banks following the credit crunch. Any loan documents would almost certainly be set out in such a way that the council land would be released within a couple of years rather than waiting for everything to be repaid. In other words the risk of financial loss to the council would be minimal to say the very least.
We now have another about-turn from Box forcing both clubs to share if they wanted council support in the form of additional land. Box has certainly been given a convenient excuse because of the cuts necessary across the public sector, but although I am stunned by this latest twist I can't say that I'm entirely surprised.
Whatever happens, the feasibility study needs to be done by a firm that has a strong reputation (the likes of KPMG spring to mind).
It isn't clear at this stage (at least to me it isn't) whether Box is saying that WMDC will only give planning permission to just one stadium. If the withdrawal of support is simply in respect of the land they were going to contribute then it isn't necessarily the end of the world for either club.
Why is this???? Well, any bank who is financing the development will discount the value of any security supporting the deal. For normal commercial property this might mean that a building worth (let's say) £2m would only be considered to be worth abouth £1.2m for what it actually represents. Although we don't know exactly what land has been offered to either club, I think it's likely to be land that is in need of development. Given that property companies are still considered to have a surplus of land, it's likely that the land being offered by the council would be discounted more severely - perhaps to only about 40% of it's market value. This means that the additional finance being raised with this land would only be £800k, which is the sort of difference that means we might find that a new stadium at Newmarket has a greater proportion of standing areas rather than seats and/or maybe one stand might not have a roof to start with.
The issue of whether we will end up sharing is a long way from being decided, let alone where we would be sharing, and that means that talk of a merger will be further off.
There are plenty of twists & turns along the path before the final outcome will be known. Until we get definite news about whether we will be sharing or not we should all do whatever we can to support the benefits of both clubs having a new ground of their own.
