• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Saudi PIF in talks with potential investors

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK said:
If they own them then the right to light isn't an issue if they expand the East Stand. They could use houses facing the East stand as offices for the employees for example. The only issue is that the value of the properties would be worth less.

They've got all but a few properties on the far side according this this.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
To answer myself, the obvious issue is that the value of the properties would be devalued but they won't be fussed about that.

Any bigger extension is going to affect the 'surrounding environment' with an old building and a massive structure towering over it. Given it's Grade I (2.5% of listed buildings are Grade I) then they may be able to expand to some degree but not like it is all the way around the other big stand.


Rocky77 said:
Could they incorporate that building into a new extended stand ?
Click to expand...
Nah, I wouldn't think so from what I've read

Harbour Boy said:
Could they build over them like Spurs did with Warmington House?
Click to expand...
That was Grade II, these are Grade I
 
Last edited:

Revenue they make will count towards PSR.


Firstly, forgetting about the stadium-future question for a moment, there is a financial dividend — especially on the UEFA SCR (squad-cost rules) front.

You must be logged on to see external links
, Newcastle confirmed that they were “in discussion with UEFA” in respect of compliance and a fine is anticipated. Newcastle believe UEFA’s financial rules are more challenging for their own compliance moving forward than the Premier League’s soon-to-be-introduced SCR rules, too, with the European squad-cost limit set at 70 per cent, while domestically it will be 85 per cent from next season.

UEFA excludes asset sales and therefore will discount the £176.2m intragroup sale Newcastle made of St James’ to a subsidiary company last season.

Yet the revenue gained from the rent of the Leazes Terrace properties — while Newcastle will own the buildings, the flats, student accommodation and offices will still be managed by the present property management companies — is expected to count towards their football income figure in UEFA’s calculations, potentially aiding compliance in future years. Interestingly, the actual capital outlay should not negatively affect where Newcastle stand in relation to meeting UEFA’s financial restrictions.

Secondly, whether Newcastle stay or build a new stadium nearby, the club believes this transaction has partly removed, or at least slightly diminished, some of the key barriers to either.

For example, were Newcastle to extend the East Stand, then what’s known as the legal “right to light” the property owners on Leazes Terrace hold would no longer be so much of an issue. Tenants would still have those rights, but Newcastle could opt to leave the buildings vacant or repurpose them, meaning that if the East Stand did increase in height and/or width and further block the sunlight, there would not be third-party objections citing “right to light”.

Alternatively, if Newcastle were to try to build a new stadium on Leazes Park, then the club feels that owning the western side of Leazes Terrace potentially offers them a greater say in what the reimagining of the present St James’ footprint would look like. Returning the site to parkland has been mooted, though Newcastle may look to explore whether redevelopment is possible (
You must be logged on to see external links
).
 
Rocky77 said:
Could they incorporate that building into a new extended stand ?
Click to expand...
Not without completely changing its historic context and harming its heritage significance. I think they are Grade I listed so effectively considered examples of our built heritage most worthy of protection.

I can only imagine they think they can come up with some sort of overriding public benefit case to justify any harm to heritage significance. This in the misguided hope that just owning the buildings will stop the beige cardigan brigade from objecting on heritage grounds.
 
cluffy said:
Kingston Park area probably the best bet
Click to expand...

Rumours they were looking at the racecourse site. Hugely problematic of course
Mackem2017 said:
Revenue they make will count towards PSR.


Firstly, forgetting about the stadium-future question for a moment, there is a financial dividend — especially on the UEFA SCR (squad-cost rules) front.

You must be logged on to see external links
, Newcastle confirmed that they were “in discussion with UEFA” in respect of compliance and a fine is anticipated. Newcastle believe UEFA’s financial rules are more challenging for their own compliance moving forward than the Premier League’s soon-to-be-introduced SCR rules, too, with the European squad-cost limit set at 70 per cent, while domestically it will be 85 per cent from next season.

UEFA excludes asset sales and therefore will discount the £176.2m intragroup sale Newcastle made of St James’ to a subsidiary company last season.

Yet the revenue gained from the rent of the Leazes Terrace properties — while Newcastle will own the buildings, the flats, student accommodation and offices will still be managed by the present property management companies — is expected to count towards their football income figure in UEFA’s calculations, potentially aiding compliance in future years. Interestingly, the actual capital outlay should not negatively affect where Newcastle stand in relation to meeting UEFA’s financial restrictions.

Secondly, whether Newcastle stay or build a new stadium nearby, the club believes this transaction has partly removed, or at least slightly diminished, some of the key barriers to either.

For example, were Newcastle to extend the East Stand, then what’s known as the legal “right to light” the property owners on Leazes Terrace hold would no longer be so much of an issue. Tenants would still have those rights, but Newcastle could opt to leave the buildings vacant or repurpose them, meaning that if the East Stand did increase in height and/or width and further block the sunlight, there would not be third-party objections citing “right to light”.

Alternatively, if Newcastle were to try to build a new stadium on Leazes Park, then the club feels that owning the western side of Leazes Terrace potentially offers them a greater say in what the reimagining of the present St James’ footprint would look like. Returning the site to parkland has been mooted, though Newcastle may look to explore whether redevelopment is possible (
You must be logged on to see external links
).
Click to expand...

Leazes park won’t happen. It’s simply not big enough for a modern stadium footprint. Of course it’s also hugely challenging in terms of planning.
 
Last edited:
Mackem2017 said:
Revenue they make will count towards PSR.


Firstly, forgetting about the stadium-future question for a moment, there is a financial dividend — especially on the UEFA SCR (squad-cost rules) front.

You must be logged on to see external links
, Newcastle confirmed that they were “in discussion with UEFA” in respect of compliance and a fine is anticipated. Newcastle believe UEFA’s financial rules are more challenging for their own compliance moving forward than the Premier League’s soon-to-be-introduced SCR rules, too, with the European squad-cost limit set at 70 per cent, while domestically it will be 85 per cent from next season.

UEFA excludes asset sales and therefore will discount the £176.2m intragroup sale Newcastle made of St James’ to a subsidiary company last season.

Yet the revenue gained from the rent of the Leazes Terrace properties — while Newcastle will own the buildings, the flats, student accommodation and offices will still be managed by the present property management companies — is expected to count towards their football income figure in UEFA’s calculations, potentially aiding compliance in future years. Interestingly, the actual capital outlay should not negatively affect where Newcastle stand in relation to meeting UEFA’s financial restrictions.

Secondly, whether Newcastle stay or build a new stadium nearby, the club believes this transaction has partly removed, or at least slightly diminished, some of the key barriers to either.

For example, were Newcastle to extend the East Stand, then what’s known as the legal “right to light” the property owners on Leazes Terrace hold would no longer be so much of an issue. Tenants would still have those rights, but Newcastle could opt to leave the buildings vacant or repurpose them, meaning that if the East Stand did increase in height and/or width and further block the sunlight, there would not be third-party objections citing “right to light”.

Alternatively, if Newcastle were to try to build a new stadium on Leazes Park, then the club feels that owning the western side of Leazes Terrace potentially offers them a greater say in what the reimagining of the present St James’ footprint would look like. Returning the site to parkland has been mooted, though Newcastle may look to explore whether redevelopment is possible (
You must be logged on to see external links
).
Click to expand...
There are so many things about this that feel bad. RE: being able to declare income from rent (that isn't anything to do with football) whilst not having to worry about the cost of it just seems to defeat the whole point of making the actually running of a football club sustainable. Instead, clubs are just encouraged to shell out loads of capital on any old venture that may generate them money, even if it is nothing to do with football or the club itself.

Secondly, I'm not sure NUFC can just decide to redevelop or repurpose the terrace themselves just because they own it—they'd need consent and I'm not sure it's a given that would happen. I also don't think it solves their issues about a right to light either as I beleive that goes with the property not individual occupancy of the building. It may be if NUFC try get the Council on their side then maybe those problems go away but otherwise I don't think their ownership of the properties massively changes things. If they start trying to blackmail the Council by threatening to leave all these properties vacant I'd certainly not respond well to it....

For what it's worth, I do think everything points to them intending to stay at SJP and trying to redevelop. This seems like quite a bit of effort to go to in order to keep options open. As Biffo said above, if they were serious about moving then there are much more obvious things they could/should have done by now. It would have been far easier to acquire an out of City site than sort out the purchase and all the issues above with the terrace. Yet, for some reason, they haven't...
 
not spavin said:
That's student accommodation, isn't it?

Maybe they're just trying to double down on being the world's most evil club by becoming landlords.
Click to expand...
They already are the landlords
They bought up leazes terrace years ago with the issues relating to the east stand extension being foreseen
However leaving them empty therefore not triggering the right to light argument seems a bit tenuous
 
Thought they'd be able to use it as an enterance but AI reckons to build close to a grade one building "Your design must not dominate, obscure, or clash with the listed building".
 
ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK said:
It's by KSS architects and I think they've done other stuff as they're involved in the proposed Brighton women's stadium. When reverse image googling it, I ended up on the Skyscraper City forum and I see they've just bought some of the houses behind the East stand. Below is just a snippet but I'm not sure if you'll be able to see the full article.

You must be logged on to see external links

Newcastle United have bought the majority of Grade 1-listed Leazes Terrace for a figure believed to be in the region of £20million-£25million ($26.8m-$33.5m).

The enclosed, ring-shaped Georgian crescent, is adjacent to St James’ Park and its western elevation is directly opposite the East Stand, which has long restricted the expansion of Newcastle’s current ground.

While the obvious and understandable assumption will be that Newcastle are now prioritising remaining at and enlarging St James’ over moving to a new state-of-the-art stadium next door, club sources insist that is not the case.

Insiders are adamant that a final decision has not been made and that both remain live possibilities. However, as The Athletic has long reported, over the past few years several senior figures at Newcastle have expressed internally that the preference would be to move. This purchase has not materially altered that.
Click to expand...

can own them all they want but they're never getting rid of Grade I listed buildings
 
Do they also own the buildings in St James terrace, which are grade II listed buildings? Surely these would be the biggest blocker to them extending that side as they are right up against the stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top