Kerrison Hotel ??

[The Polar Bears Made Me Do It 0]

In note 14 of the accounts, under Joint Venture. Kerrison hotel was placed into administration on 7 November 2013.

Does this relate to the white elephant in the Barclay/South Stand corner?

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="The Polar Bears Made Me Do It"]In note 14 of the accounts, under Joint Venture. Kerrison hotel was placed into administration on 7 November 2013.

Does this relate to the white elephant in the Barclay/South Stand corner?[/quote]if it does, Holiday Inn hold a 99 year lease.. are we going to have an empty shell that we cant pull down attached to the ground for the next century?

[Herman 11,136]

It''s still in use Jas.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

If you have an hour to spare Mr Bear herein lies the story concerning The Holiday Inn, Kew Green Hotels and administration.

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/2930762/ShowPost.aspx

[vos 176]

Without delving too deeply in to the previous post in 2013 it would appear to me that our involvement is basically providing the land on which the Hotel was built. Presumably the Company borrowed too much for the development work, as usual, and could not service the debt from the Holiday Inn rent. So we were the joint landlords but the ownership is now in the hands of the administrators. It is now their responsibility to find a new buyer to purchase the land and the Hotel to pay off some of the company debt. Money probably owed to someone like Northern Rock !!

It would not surprise me to learn that the Club are involved in complicated discussions to do a deal with the administrators and also buy out the Holiday Inn lease. Then knock down some of the Hotel and provide extra terracing. These negotiations will probably drag on for some time. On the other hand someone could come along and buy the freehold for a song and continue to take a nice income off the Holiday Inn.

An interesting question for Mr. Bowkett but I would not expect him to reply for "commercial reasons"

[vos 176]

Without delving too deeply in to the previous post in 2013 it would appear to me that our involvement is basically providing the land on which the Hotel was built. Presumably the Company borrowed too much for the development work, as usual, and could not service the debt from the Holiday Inn rent. So we were the joint landlords but the ownership is now in the hands of the administrators. It is now their responsibility to find a new buyer to purchase the land and the Hotel to pay off some of the company debt. Money probably owed to someone like Northern Rock !!

It would not surprise me to learn that the Club are involved in complicated discussions to do a deal with the administrators and also buy out the Holiday Inn lease. Then knock down some of the Hotel and provide extra terracing. At the right price this could turn out to be a good deal for the Club. These negotiations will probably drag on for some time. On the other hand someone could come along and buy the freehold for a song and continue to take a nice income off the Holiday Inn. However there is probably a covenant somewhere which states the Club has some control over who can buy the land and property.

An interesting question for Mr. Bowkett but I would not expect him to reply for "commercial reasons". Lots of ifs and buts.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

If you have an hour to spare Mr Bear herein lies the story concerning The Holiday Inn, Kew Green Hotels and administration.

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/2930762/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]A very insightful read, if only to see LDC in full rant mood completely oblivious to reality and anyone else''s comments  (plus ca change) it was June 2013For my part I made this rather silly comment in reply to LDC wish that we get onto more debt that could be serviced over 10 years" And where is your certainty that we will still be in the PL either over

the next ten years ? Building cost do not reduce if we get relegated,

income certainly does."

[lake district canary 4,831]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

If you have an hour to spare Mr Bear herein lies the story concerning The Holiday Inn, Kew Green Hotels and administration.

http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun/cs/forums/2930762/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]A very insightful read, if only to see LDC in full rant mood completely oblivious to reality and anyone else''s comments  (plus ca change) it was June 2013For my part I made this rather silly comment in reply to LDC wish that we get onto more debt that could be serviced over 10 years" And where is your certainty that we will still be in the PL either over

the next ten years ? Building cost do not reduce if we get relegated,

income certainly does."[/quote]

Yes.  It is an insightful read and do you know why?  Mainly because I wouldn''t let it rest. In your world I  was oblivious to other''s comments.  In my world I was trying to get to the bottom of what the situation was and  trying to understand something.   Plenty on that thread were ignoring the issue - what could be done with the hotel - and others were trying to say "it couldn''t be done".  I don''t like the word "can''t" and still believe that  there is an interest for all parties involved to do something with the wretched hotel.  We still don''t know all the facts behind it and that thread showed pretty well that there are those people amongst us that don''t like someone delving too deeply or coming up with their own ideas that could improve the stadium.    The multi million corporation that runs the franchise will refurbish the hotel, spending millions on it - as they have done at other of their hotels.  The club will be involved in those discussions.  The hidden business side of things beyond the franchise is still unclear to me, but the underlying fact is that whatever joint ventures there are, the hotel is big business.   I started off that thread thinking the hotel group owned the hotel outright, but then that the  club do have some limited involvement in it.  What became clear is that the people that franchise the hotel would finance a large part of any alterations, thus not affecting the club nearly as much as I had originally thought.   My main issue with people who dismissed my ''ranting'' is that they appeared to have closed their minds to the idea of possible change saying "we''re stuck with it".  My unwavering view is that we are not stuck with it and it will change, be refurbished in some way, at some time in the near future - five years, ten years - it will change.   Whether it evolves into something more suitable for the stadium reamins to be seen, but if the club are involved in any way, it would be foolish to think that they would not want it to develop into adding extra seating, improve the look and improve the atmosphere and the acoustics at matches.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Just a word of warning to City1st and Lakey that the thread was locked after 30 pages. [:P]

[Bill 1,788]

"it would be foolish to think that they would not want it to develop into

adding extra seating, improve the look and improve the atmosphere and

the acoustics at matches."

And that ablely demonstrates my point. LDC making up something so he can then knock it down and so claim some kind of victory.As with his nonsense in the thread about fanciful plans that were based on his not having a clue about the hotel''s ownersip, this claim is based on misinformation.As was stated by numerous posts, no one is happy with the hotel. I doubt very much the board are either. But it doesn''t mean that because they can see through absurd suggestions they are happy.Just as with Tom Ovendishe''s guff about the new Bristol Rovers stadium (still unbuilt) being a model for us, maybe some of these cranks might wish to check their facts BEFORE posting on here.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Herman "]It''s still in use Jas.
[/quote]

 

it''s like Wonka''s factory... nobody ever goes in, no body ever comes out!

[lake district canary 4,831]

[quote user="City1st"]"it would be foolish to think that they would not want it to develop into

adding extra seating, improve the look and improve the atmosphere and

the acoustics at matches."And that ablely demonstrates my point. LDC making up something so he can then knock it down and so claim some kind of victory.As with his nonsense in the thread about fanciful plans that were based on his not having a clue about the hotel''s ownersip, this claim is based on misinformation.As was stated by numerous posts, no one is happy with the hotel. I doubt very much the board are either. But it doesn''t mean that because they can see through absurd suggestions they are happy.Just as with Tom Ovendishe''s guff about the new Bristol Rovers stadium (still unbuilt) being a model for us, maybe some of these cranks might wish to check their facts BEFORE posting on here.[/quote]In what way does having "fanciful plans" have anything to do with who would do/be responsible for the work and finances?  The ideas put forward were simply ideas reflecting what other stadiums around the world  have done and to dismiss ideas out of hand is just closed mindedness. As for who would finance or be responsible for such changes, that is a different story completely.  I readily admitted to not knowing the ins and outs of it, once it was clear the situation was far more complicated than I had imagined.  The leasing and ownership of the land,  involving Kerrison/Kew Green/Holiday Inn/NCFC etc etc  is something that I cannot fathom, nor partcularly want to.  Plainly people at City would want to protect the finances of the club and that is important, but at the end of the day, the hotel is there and it will need refurbishing at some stage.  The sooner the better - and I hope it is integrated into the stadium somehow to enhance match experience.   Three things stand out - It is an eyesoreIt reduces ground capacityThe quality of the acoustics due there being a gap between the stands is affected considerably - more than some people realise.

[Bill 1,788]

As these fanciful plans would require to be funded then it is basic requirement that the ownership of the hotel is understood.  That is what much of those 30 pages were taken up with - your refusal to grasp the implications of that ownership, and your continual castigation of those who did, for not being able to grasp your ''vision''. Now stop putting up accepted understanding as if it was somehow peculiar to you - and so backs your argument. No one wants the hotel there, especially on match days (except those in it). If a magic wand could be waived and it was replaced with seating then I cannot imagine there is one City supporter who would not jump for joy, just as with redeveloping the Main Stand.But to put up fanciful and totally impractical schemes, then deride those who point out the obvious flaws does no one any favours .... least of all yourself LDC.That''s my lot on the subject.

[lake district canary 4,831]

[quote user="City1st"]As these fanciful plans would require to be funded then it is basic requirement that the ownership of the hotel is understood.  That is what much of those 30 pages were taken up with - your refusal to grasp the implications of that ownership, and your continual castigation of those who did, for not being able to grasp your ''vision''. Now stop putting up accepted understanding as if it was somehow peculiar to you - and so backs your argument. No one wants the hotel there, especially on match days (except those in it). If a magic wand could be waived and it was replaced with seating then I cannot imagine there is one City supporter who would not jump for joy, just as with redeveloping the Main Stand.But to put up fanciful and totally impractical schemes, then deride those who point out the obvious flaws does no one any favours .... least of all yourself LDC.That''s my lot on the subject.[/quote]

I think if you look at the thread, most of the derision was pointed in my direction - and fundamentally, there are two issues - what the project actually is - and who finances it.    The ideas I and others put forward are in place at other grounds around the world in one form or other.  It is not fanciful in the least - to me its common sense to consider alternatives to what we have.It seems as if no-one has all the answers regarding who owns what, but it seems reasonable to me that the franchisees will have the money to refurbish their hotel and that they would do it in conjunction with the football club taking in to account the implications for the football stadiumNot rocket science, no need for derision on anybody''s behalf.   We all agree its an eyesore and is detrimental to the stadium. The sooner someone does something about it the better.