Forum Topic

Re Lorne Griffith:"I understand Matthew Benham’s gamble on turning Brentford from loss making to break even or profit, so instead of ‘profit-at-any-cost’ we can say ‘hoping to make a profit….at-any-cost’.  The key part of course is at-any-cost, and the cost as we all know is tower blocks four times the height of neighbours, housing density four times higher, no social provisions, no green spaces, no additional infrastructure, schooling, etcetera. Not that schooling is relevant because all the housing is high rise and utterly unsuitable to families. The 'gamble' is trying to jam so much profit making development into a restricted and wholly unsuitable site on the hope it will be accepted because Brentford FC is a local institution that we all love.  This exactly fits the tyranny of capitalism label because it is Mr Benham gambling on solving a problem he has today with a solution that will blight Brentford for generations.  If the betting analysts at one of his companies were to work this one out they would probably advise it is a good bet; for him. Is that clear enough?"Thank you for your answer, it is clear what you believe. However, what you believe is misconceived, on two counts.First, like all successful Bookmakers, Mr. Benham is most definitely NOT a 'gambler'. (If you want to know the difference, ask yourself why Betting Shops always have three or four Paying-In Windows, and only one Paying-Out Window).Therefore he will have calculated the financial risk in this project, inescapably concluding that if BFC are going to get a new Stadium on this site, it will cost him milions of his own money. This conclusion is also borne out by the Planning Dept. of LBH, who are demanding as a condition of permission that he underwrite the project from his own resources.Consequently, the only question remaining is exactly how many millions it will end up costing him.Second, for all that you rail about "the tyranny of Capitalism" etc, this development is actually a product of Democracy, which through LBH has determined that the (acknowledged) drawbacks to the scheme in the immediate vicinity are outweighed by the greater overall benefits to be derived by the Borough as a whole. Of course, all this could be avoided if Mr. Benham were prepared to move BFC somewhere where land and development were much cheaper, indeed out of the Borough altogether. Such a move would give him a much greater chance of turning a profit. (A previous owner, Land Developer Ron Noades, sought to sell Griffin Park for a profit and move the club to Woking, but was thwarted by, ahem, the Planning Dept. of LBH!).Then again, if Mr. Benham were solely motivated by profit, he wouldn't be buying a consistent loss-maker like BFC in the first place, never mind buying it and moving it to a £71m stadium in Lionel Road.But you see, when it comes to BFC, Mr. Benham ceases to be a mere Businessman and instead becomes a Fan (albeit a very wealthy one). And I would venture that the reason he is a fan of that particular club is because it has represented since 1889 the town where he was born and raised.So whilst you and others may have very understandable fears for this development, imo you should take comfort from the fact that Mr. Benham is concerned for the best interests of Brentford - town AND football club - every bit as much as you are.

Richard Cathcart ● 4249d

Re Lorne Griffith:"I am the very first person to defend the profit motive, capitalism, as the very best way of progressing society.  However, there is a level of profit seeking beyond which you shouldn't go.  This development crosses that line.  It is greedy and shows the new tyranny (as denounced by Pope whats-his-name earlier this year) of the profit-at-any-cost approach taken by those unable to live within the rules"On what do you base your thesis that the LR Development is based upon the "tyranny of greed" and pursuit of excessive profit?When BFC originally bought into LR, they did so in partnership with Barratt Homes. This was on the basis that BFC would secure planning permission for the site from LBH by moving to a (community) Stadium, and BH would pay for this from the profit they hoped to make from the Housing Development etc.A couple of years later, Barratts pulled out, because they feared the development would not be profitable. (We may assume that as one of Britain's biggest house builders, they know a thing or two about such things).Subsequently, BFC's new owner, Mr. Benham, decided to go ahead himself. Upon making his first proposals to LBH, they required him to underwrite the scheme personally, to an 8 figure sum. When they subsequently advised that the residential plans were too big, and the number of flats etc should be reduced, they required him to increase his undertaking.At the Planning Meeting, it was disclosed that the new Stadium was going to cost £71m to build. It is hoped that the new Stadium will allow the football club, currently losing £5m p.a., to break even. However, not even with promotion to the Championship is it expected to break even on an operating basis AND repay the £71m stadium construction cost.Therefore for the whole scheme to be viable, BFC will need to recoup as much as possible from the Developers who will build the housing and hotel etc.Bear in mind that the stadium will be built first, with the enabling Development to follow afterwards, so Mr. Benham, will have to fund the scheme whilst waiting for his share of the development proceeds to return to him. Obviously he carries the whole of the Market Risk during this period.Remember, too, that Developers will not touch any such scheme unless they have secured their own projected profit margin, with the profits to be paid to them BEFORE BFC gets its share.Consequently, the chief concern of LBH's Planning Department was/is not that the scheme will make too much profit; rather it is that it may be dangerously unprofitable, so that if Mr. Benham/BFC cannot guarantee it until completion, the whole thing will collapse.Therefore it is not a question of how much profit BFC will make in building the Stadium, it is instead a question of how little they/Mr. Benham may lose. (On which point, it is reported that Mr. Benham has already sunk £30m+ of his own money into the club, the majority of which he can never get back, since it was invested on the playing side)However, if it is any consolation, BFC have agreed with LBH that if LR should somehow turn a profit for the club, this will be shared with the Council on an S.106 basis.Neither party is counting on this.

Richard Cathcart ● 4249d

Theres very little if any, opposition to the actual stadium apart from the fact that it is simply untrue that all Brentford supporters are happy about moving from Griffin Park. There's been a lot of soft soaping fans and there is an inclination to view the proposal as a utopia that will see everything come out rosy.The real issues that are concerning people living from The Half Acre all the way to Kew and beyond, is how the stadium and it's proposed use will flourish when encapsulated by a huge residential development, How the already dire road system in the vicinity will cope with just the influx of new residents, let alone 8,000 spectators. If 25.000 turn up then what?None of these have been adequately addressed.It matters not what the development is. Shopping centre, giant mosque, or 100% residential, the infrastucture issues remain unsolved.Now this has opened up the flood gates to all all manner of hi rise development all over West London, QPR have now lodged an even bigger development in Wormwood Scrubs and it is the Croydonisation of not just Brentford but all of West London.Nearly 4000 local jobs are in the firing line of developments in Brentford alone most in commerce road, reynard mills, and Lionel road.The figure at risk in Old Oak is similar so that's 8000 local jobs that won't be replaced at threat. Most of these are proper full time jobs as well.None of this is being taken seriously or even discussed.Just because planners recommend does not mean they are right. Architects and developers don't have a great record of consistent success either.- Except for making money. There is plenty evidence of this blighting whole rafts of this country. It's debatable as to whether its the rules, or the planners intepretation of such but with such a deplorable legacy in this country's post war developments. It's not ideal to for those voting on such schemes to take what they recommend without picking it apart first.

Anthony Waller ● 4255d

Lorne,Qualified engineer you may be, but with the greatest of respect, your knowledge of ancient pathogens and archaeological process is clearly limited.Firstly, there is virtually no risk from contact with any corpse more than a day old. The plague bacteria (or Yersinia pestis) can last for up to one hour depending upon conditions whilst the smallpox virus dies within 24 hours. In fact, Scientists have recently actively sought to sequence the entire genome of the bubonic plague in an attempt to better understand the spread of infectious diseases. The genomic data uncovered (which involved the extraction of tiny degraded DNA fragments of the causative agent of the Black Death showed that a specific variant of the Yersinia pestis bacterium which was responsible for the plague which killed 30 million people across Europe in four years between 1347 and 1351 was also the ancestor of all modern plagues which still exist worldwide today. As regards simply sinking piled foundations into plague pits – that just won’t happen will it ? Firstly, if you’d checked the planning documentation, you’d have noted that a raft of initial geotechnical investigations have already been undertaken and that there’s a recommendation for further geotechnical investigations down to far greater depths in respect of both the stadium and the tower blocks.Secondly, and again if you’d cared to check the planning documentation which accompanied the planning application, you’d have noted that an archaeological desktop study has already been carried out (as is normal in such cases) which has noted the potential for below ground archaeological remains (although no mention is made of any potential for plague burials). As is usual, the Report recommends an intrusive archaeological investigation of the site to evaluate and mitigate the archaeological potential before construction commences. This will no doubt be conditioned under any formal planning permission as a pre-commencement condition (should that be forthcoming) so a pile won’t enter the ground without the site having been the subject of thorough archaeological evaluation and any finds (including burials) removed.Whilst I realise that an application of this magnitude is bound to divide opinion, I do find it incredibly irksome, and no less ill-informed when some of those who oppose the scheme suggest that the Club or its Professional Team have been in some way haphazard in their approach to the planning submission. In actual fact, nothing could be further from the truth and having had extensive experience of major applications, I can say with some surety that the documentation submitted in support of this application is as comprehensive as I’ve seen. I’m not expecting everyone to agree with the proposals but to suggest the scheme – or any facet of it – hasn’t been thoroughly considered is just baseless nonsense quite honestly.

Chris Tate ● 4255d