Stadium Latest.

[Big Fez]

Just now, Garageflower said:

What ways do you believe we will get screwed over and why do you think that?

We're going back to not owning our own ground. Except this time, instead of a local businessman with scottish football connections it's going to be an anonymous venture capital fund who just want to make as much profit as they can. The existence of another team in the city means they can play us off against them (Utd could never have played at Dens, but a brand new stadium is different).

We gave up ownership of our club to the current owners based on promises they haven't kept, so we would be fools to trust any future promises they make. The best explanation for all their actions so far is that the main reason they want to own the club is to use it as leverage to get this new development built and financially secured. So why would they continue to own both the club and the development, or either, afterwards? If they can get their preferred price they will be off. So who knows who we will get next?

We did have some bargaining chips/leverage as a support but the owners have been steadily removing them one by one, each step 'justified' at the time. But the upshot is that we are now in a situation where we have no choice but to trust them to put the club's interests ahead of their own profit, even after it stops being useful for them. I'm just asking the question: what if they don't?

[Garageflower]

2 minutes ago, Big Fez said:

We're going back to not owning our own ground. Except this time, instead of a local businessman with scottish football connections it's going to be an anonymous venture capital fund who just want to make as much profit as they can. The existence of another team in the city means they can play us off against them (Utd could never have played at Dens, but a brand new stadium is different).

We gave up ownership of our club to the current owners based on promises they haven't kept, so we would be fools to trust any future promises they make. The best explanation for all their actions so far is that the main reason they want to own the club is to use it as leverage to get this new development built and financially secured. So why would they continue to own both the club and the development, or either, afterwards? If they can get their preferred price they will be off. So who knows who we will get next?

We did have some bargaining chips/leverage as a support but the owners have been steadily removing them one by one, each step 'justified' at the time. But the upshot is that we are now in a situation where we have no choice but to trust them to put the club's interests ahead of their own profit, even after it stops being useful for them. I'm just asking the question: what if they don't?

your whole theory relies on Utd moving into our stadium. That simply wont happen. It is in their best interests to keep their only viable tennent happy.

[Big Fez]

1 minute ago, Garageflower said:

your whole theory relies on Utd moving into our stadium. That simply wont happen. It is in their best interests to keep their only viable tennent happy.

It's not *very* likely. But it's possible. And that possibility removes our only remaining leverage over the landlords.

(In a city with one football team the fans still have the leverage of 'well they need us to keep coming through the turnstiles because that's the only way they can rent their stadium out' so ultimately it's not in the landlords interest to let their tenants go bust or have to start again from the fifth tier. But the fact there's another business just down the road who could potentially be tenants and who would *love* us to go under changes the equation)

[Big Fez]

Just now, Big Fez said:

It's not *very* likely. But it's possible. And that possibility removes our only remaining leverage over the landlords.

(In a city with one football team the fans still have the leverage of 'well they need us to keep coming through the turnstiles because that's the only way they can rent their stadium out' so ultimately it's not in the landlords interest to let their tenants go bust or have to start again from the fifth tier. But the fact there's another business just down the road who could potentially be tenants and who would *love* us to go under changes the equation)

Again, it doesn't have to *happen* to harm us. If the landlords have all the power, because we need them more than they need us, then the most likely outcome is just 'lots of rental rises and hostile actions and we just have to suck it up'

[Big Fez]

Just now, Big Fez said:

Again, it doesn't have to *happen* to harm us. If the landlords have all the power, because we need them more than they need us, then the most likely outcome is just 'lots of rental rises and hostile actions and we just have to suck it up'

And saying it could never happen is awfy confident when almost exactly this happened to Hamilton Accies just a few weeks ago.

[Garageflower]

Many things in this world are possible. What you are describing is highly unlikely and verging on the point of fear mongering. Why are you so scared of progress?

[Wesley chop chop]

1 hour ago, GSD said:

I think it will happen,especially if Scot Gov get involved,who spends £3.5 mill and walks away,gotta get passed. I know it sweetie money for Keyes company but I think this will be boiling his pish and he will persevere through to completion just to give a giruy to the regulatory bodies involved.

they have spent a hell of a lot more than 3 million if you include our debts for the last 12 years and purchasing dens.

[Big Fez]

15 minutes ago, Garageflower said:

Many things in this world are possible. What you are describing is highly unlikely and verging on the point of fear mongering. Why are you so scared of progress?

Again, it's possible to disagree without adding in the unnecessary personal insults.  I'm not 'scared of progress'. I have set out in great detail the reasons why I came to my opinion. If you have reasons for thinking it's all gonna be fine then I'm happy to hear them. I truly hope I'm wrong about all of this! But I am long past the point of 'taking it on trust'.

The thing that makes it unlikely at the moment is that united fans would never accept playing at dens. But if you offered them the opportunity to move to a nice newish stadium, maybe we've only been in it for a few years, and the chance to stick the knife into their biggest rivals, they absolutely are not gonna rule it out.

If the owners give DFC a 30 or 40 year lease on preferential terms then this worry would go away. But as I said, if all their profit comes from 'selling the retail park at highest price they can get' then why would they do anything that would reduce the value of that investment to future buyers? They probably need 5 or 10 years to get it all up and running. But I would be astonished if they signed up for longer than that, without a bunch of break clauses.

Edited 20 August 2025 by Big Fez
typos

[Big Fez]

7 minutes ago, Wesley chop chop said:

they have spent a hell of a lot more than 3 million if you include our debts for the last 12 years and purchasing dens.

Yeah that's part of why I am worried they don't have the margin to be able to be magnanimous, even if they wanted to. Potentially going to have to wring every penny out just to break even, given all the delays.

[Garageflower]

5 minutes ago, Big Fez said:

Again, it's possible to disagree without adding in the unnecessary personal insults.  I'm not 'scared of progress'. I have set out in great detail the reasons why I came to my opinion. If you have reasons for thinking it's all gonna be fine then I'm happy to hear them. I truly hope I'm wrong about all of this! But I am long past the point of 'taking it on trust'.

The thing that makes it unlikely at the moment is that united fans would never accept playing at dens. But if you offered them the opportunity to move to a nice newish stadium, maybe we've only been in it for a few years, and the chance to stick the knife into their biggest rivals, they absolutely are not gonna rule it out.

If the owners give DFC a 30 or 40 year lease on preferential terms then this worry would go away. But as I said, if all their profit comes from 'selling the retail park at highest price they can get' then why would they do anything that would reduce the value of that investment to future buyers? They probably need 5 or 10 years to get it all up and running. But I would be astonished if they signed up for longer than that, without a bunch of break clauses.

personal insults? What personal insults? Your fears are based on your predictions and I don't think those predictions merit such fear. To me it sounds like they are causing you to fear, what I believe is the progress of the club.

The length of the lease will obviously be a telling factor. I can't imagine it will be short.

[Valentke]

52 minutes ago, Garageflower said:

your whole theory relies on Utd moving into our stadium. That simply wont happen. It is in their best interests to keep their only viable tennent happy.

I’m not nearly as confident as you and JN has had interviews where he wasn’t as categoric on the matter either. 
First we need the stadium delivered, if it is I’ll be absolutely delighted but also not hugely surprised if they join us at some later date. 

[Garageflower]

8 minutes ago, Valentke said:

I’m not nearly as confident as you and JN has had interviews where he wasn’t as categoric on the matter either. 
First we need the stadium delivered, if it is I’ll be absolutely delighted but also not hugely surprised if they join us at some later date. 

I mean, the "world famous" couldn't possibly move to a stadium that has a smaller capacity than the sticklebrick. Their pride and entitlement would be a massive barrier. JN did kinda float the idea in the past and it was met with opposition from both sets of fans and the Utd owners did not seem keen at all. I'm sure more audacious avenues have been explored up til this point too.