Today’s report from the Inquiry is going to be a bit dull, I’m afraid. It’s full of facts and numbers. But the information is, I think, important and I hope that I can be forgiven for just telling it as it is. Normal service will be resumed soon, though, and I promise that an action packed account of the day’s proceedings will appear in the next day or two. Including how the Albion’s Chief Executive came to answer a question from Falmer Parish Council’s lawyer –

Mr Hopkins: You are familiar with Milton Keynes Dons?
Mr Perry: Yes. They’re rubbish.

Martin Perry was back in the witness box on day 6, presenting some very interesting information about the costs of building a stadium at eight of the sites that are being considered at the Inquiry. He had come up with an easy to understand way of comparing the different sites and, in particular, whether a stadium was affordable, once the associated infrastructure costs, like access roads, footbridges and so on, had been taken into account.

The key measure was the percentage of the Club’s annual turnover that would be needed to repay the loans that would finance the project. This was based on a firm commitment by the Club to keep within the newly developed Football League guideline that no more than 60 per cent of a Club’s turnover should be spent on wages. With 15 per cent of turnover required for other running costs, it means that 25 per cent of turnover is available to service debts.

In order of affordability, the debt repayment charges associated with building a stadium at each of the eight sites work out like this:-

Falmer – 20.70 % of turnover
Sheepcote Valley – 21.82 %
Shoreham Airport – 28.88 %
Withdean – 32.74 %
Toads Hole Valley – 34.16 %
Upper Beeding – 35.16 %
Waterhall – 42.36 %
Shoreham Harbour – 50.88 %

These costs are the costs of the borrowing that would be involved in each stadium project. Part of the stadium finance would come from capital grants, from sources like the South East England Development Agency, the Football Foundation and New Deal. Stadium sponsorship deals will also bring in funding and there would be a share issue to raise money from fans and other investors who want to commit their money to support the development of the Club in its new stadium.

But, even allowing for grants and other investment, there will always be a funding gap. It will be vital to keep that within a sensible limit. Hence the 25 per cent threshold that determines affordability. The cash figure that Martin Perry put forward as the maximum amount to be borrowed was £29 million. In effect, he was saying that only Falmer or Sheepcote Valley were affordable. If the Club stretched itself beyond the threshold, there would be no money available for general development – a vital part of running the Club once we are settled in our new home.

Other cost estimates are being put forward by other parties to the Inquiry, in particular Lewes District Council, who have commissioned a professional firm to come up with estimates for Falmer, Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley. Over the last few days, however, the Club has been working with Lewes DC’s consultant to assess how far apart the two sets of estimates are.

The conclusion, now set out in a joint paper presented by both parties to the Inquiry, is that there is no material variations between the costings worked out by the two organisations. The main significant difference is in the scale of infrastructure works that might be required at Toads Hole Valley – and that reflects different assessments of the traffic effects of a stadium at that site. The Albion say that over £10 million of non-stadium infrastructure will need to be paid for, while Lewes have made an estimate of £5.8 million.

The Albion are also assuming that an ‘iconic’ stadium is what is wanted at these three sites, whilst the District Council have prepared their costings for Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley on the basis of a ‘generic’ middle-of-the-range stadium.

But these differences are now explained to the Inspector in terms of the technicalities of costing a complex project, rather than as the outcome of two organisations being fundamentally at odds with each other. This should certainly help the Inspector write his report and Prescott take his decision.

The third party who are putting cost estimates forward to the Inquiry are Stiles Harold Williams, agents for the owners of Toads Hole Valley. They have yet to make a formal appearance at Brighton Town Hall. But Martin Perry has made it very clear that their agenda is driven by a clear wish to see a major commercial development on their site, despite the fact that there is no sign from the City Council that this would ever be permitted.

The terms on which Toads Hole Valley might host a football stadium have been spelt out to the Albion in terms which are far from attractive. Essentially, the football club would have to fund most of the access infrastructure and it would be prohibited from engaging in non-football related activity on the site, thereby significantly reducing the earning potential of the site. More of this will no doubt emerge as the Inquiry goes on, but what we have heard so far reinforces the view that Toads Hole Valley really looks like a non-starter.