Amalgamation?

[Wackyjim]

10 hours ago, rossbatchelor9 said:

Stupid thread, the only people who bring it up are trolls.

Off you pop then.... If you actually read the post rather than immediately suggest I'm a troll then you will see that I haven't said anything about a one club city I'm suggesting combined resources ie ground sharing etc... I think there will be many other clubs thinking the same thing to reduce costs but even ground sharing is hugely contentious... Would hearts be happy with Easter road as their new home and would we be happy having Tannadice.. I'm not trying to create a bun fight on here but I've no doubt in my mind that once this horrible time is over the financial implications will be a huge problem for most if not all clubs in Scotland and some difficult decisions will have to be made 

Edited 7 April 2020 by Wackyjim

[Prince Buster]

1 hour ago, Wackyjim said:

Off you pop then.... If you actually read the post rather than immediately suggest I'm a troll then you will see that I haven't said anything about a one club city I'm suggesting combined resources ie ground sharing etc... I think there will be many other clubs thinking the same thing to reduce costs but even ground sharing is hugely contentious... Would hearts be happy with Easter road as their new home and would we be happy having Tannadice.. I'm not trying to create a bun fight on here but I've no doubt in my mind that once this horrible time is over the financial implications will be a huge problem for most if not all clubs in Scotland and some difficult decisions will have to be made 

To be fair titling the thread 'Amalgamation?' is going to elicit emotive responses as that is essentially suggesting two entities becoming one entity. Many will see the word and make assumptions - I did initially but as you say the body of the OP reads as sharing resources.

You shouldn't really be surprised at people kicking back on the very suggestion of amalgamation.

[Wackyjim]

54 minutes ago, Prince Buster said:

To be fair titling the thread 'Amalgamation?' is going to elicit emotive responses as that is essentially suggesting two entities becoming one entity. Many will see the word and make assumptions - I did initially but as you say the body of the OP reads as sharing resources.

You shouldn't really be surprised at people kicking back on the very suggestion of amalgamation.

Perhaps PB it all depends on one's interpretion...just irked at the unnecessary comment from Ross 

[barkblue]

5 hours ago, Wackyjim said:

Off you pop then.... If you actually read the post rather than immediately suggest I'm a troll then you will see that I haven't said anything about a one club city I'm suggesting combined resources ie ground sharing etc... I think there will be many other clubs thinking the same thing to reduce costs but even ground sharing is hugely contentious... Would hearts be happy with Easter road as their new home and would we be happy having Tannadice.. I'm not trying to create a bun fight on here but I've no doubt in my mind that once this horrible time is over the financial implications will be a huge problem for most if not all clubs in Scotland and some difficult decisions will have to be made 

Ground sharing only makes sense if which ever of the 'displaced' two had a plan of what to do with their old ground. Otherwise rents/upkeeps continue to pile up and there would be pressure from the council and locals to improve/remove any potential eye sore from the area.

If we moved into Tannadice and somehow managed to sell Dens (to who and for what?) would we then just keep the proceeds and expect United to charge a paltry rent? Is there enough gain for them? Would we happily sit in tangy seats?

In so many ways I can never square this circle. It's even like if we build New Campy and ask United to share and pay rent. Exactly what happens to the grounds? The landlords/existing rental agreements and loans secured to 'whoever' that are possibly guaranteed against these grounds?

Maybe it would all be much easier than that but I think it's guaranteed to bring as many issues as it would solve.

[Prince Buster]

1 hour ago, barkblue said:

Ground sharing only makes sense if which ever of the 'displaced' two had a plan of what to do with their old ground. Otherwise rents/upkeeps continue to pile up and there would be pressure from the council and locals to improve/remove any potential eye sore from the area.

If we moved into Tannadice and somehow managed to sell Dens (to who and for what?) would we then just keep the proceeds and expect United to charge a paltry rent? Is there enough gain for them? Would we happily sit in tangy seats?

In so many ways I can never square this circle. It's even like if we build New Campy and ask United to share and pay rent. Exactly what happens to the grounds? The landlords/existing rental agreements and loans secured to 'whoever' that are possibly guaranteed against these grounds?

Maybe it would all be much easier than that but I think it's guaranteed to bring as many issues as it would solve.

We couldn't sell Dens because we don't own it so the things you mention wouldn't be our issue. We'd just be paying rent to United instead of current landlord who seems to be doing very well by us at the moment.

I wouldn't watch Dundee at home at Tannadice - didn't when we played home games there last time and never will. I would watch Dundee at our stadium if they were renting from us, but I bet United fans wouldn't watch them at our ground That particular circle is completely unsquarable for most fans I reckon.

[barkblue]

14 minutes ago, Prince Buster said:

We couldn't sell Dens because we don't own it so the things you mention wouldn't be our issue. We'd just be paying rent to United instead of current landlord who seems to be doing very well by us at the moment.

I wouldn't watch Dundee at home at Tannadice - didn't when we played home games there last time and never will. I would watch Dundee at our stadium if they were renting from us, but I bet United fans wouldn't watch them at our ground That particular circle is completely unsquarable for most fans I reckon.

Can we just walk from the rental agreement though, or is there a minimum notice period and does anyone know how long that is?

Agreed on every other point though.

[Prince Buster]

16 minutes ago, barkblue said:

Can we just walk from the rental agreement though, or is there a minimum notice period and does anyone know how long that is?

Agreed on every other point though.

Honestly don't know but as someone that lets out a house I know I don't just give out a contract that allows someone to walk away when they please - works both ways of course.

[chomp my root]

15 minutes ago, Prince Buster said:

Honestly don't know but as someone that lets out a house I know I don't just give out a contract that allows someone to walk away when they please - works both ways of course.

You do now mate, the Short Assured Tenancy ain't what it was, tenants aren't tied in for 6 months anymore.

As for a potential ground share at Campy Nou, while it might please Dundee fans to pretend that its 'our' ground, it wouldn't be, at least we have history with Dens even if its not 'ours' or even FPS's. If FPS (DBH or whatever they want to call themselves) could get United in as tenants from the start, it would be just as much United's ground as well as Dundee's. Might be too much of a mind phuq for some but when DFC start paying FPS(DBH) rent it won't be DFC's ground just as your tenant can invite people round to 'his', its still your house (if you follow me). The Campy would be a sort of HMO in this scenario.

[HK Blues]

14 hours ago, Prince Buster said:

We couldn't sell Dens because we don't own it so the things you mention wouldn't be our issue. We'd just be paying rent to United instead of current landlord who seems to be doing very well by us at the moment.

I wouldn't watch Dundee at home at Tannadice - didn't when we played home games there last time and never will. I would watch Dundee at our stadium if they were renting from us, but I bet United fans wouldn't watch them at our ground That particular circle is completely unsquarable for most fans I reckon.

That's why a new stadium might be the catalyst for ground-sharing.  It's neither's ground so could remove some of the hurdles mentioned.

It would all depend on being able to dispense with both grounds - we obviously have a plan for that as we are progressing a new home but I'm not sure Utd's commitment to Tannadice. 

If we were starting from scratch I'm pretty sure we'd be developing 1 ground for the 2 clubs.  Of course, we're not but that might be a sensible goal.