Moving On
Richard Pitts takes a personal tour around the Straiton debate

The Straiton debate continues, and it looks likely to do so for some time. That is understandable as this is undoubtedly the biggest thing to hit the club since the proposed merger. It strikes me that most supporters haven’t made up their minds yet, and there is still a lot to talk about. My real concern about the debate at the moment is that it’s going around in circles because we don’t know the full facts. After the initial discussions, the debate must move on. The question is how and I believe it to be the duty of this forum to move the debate along on an agenda set by the fans of the club. The rest of this article will try and outline some of the points I would like to see on that agenda.

Item One: Kill the merger talk

The historical context of these talks mean that as Hibernian supporters we need reassuring that any shared stadium is not the first step on the road to a merger. That requires a clear and unequivocal denunciation of the idea from the Boards of both Hearts and Hibs. If it doesn’t occur that nagging doubt will always be there, and people will oppose any move on principle.

Item Two: Financial analysis

If we are going to be consulted, we need to know just what we are up against. That requires Hibs to be as open and honest about the financial position of the club as possible. Ideally I would like to see the full figures published and analysed somewhere in plain English so that everyone is aware of the financial position of the club. In fairness, the majority of the Hibs support realise that the Club’s financial position is precarious, but if we are to play a part in deciding the future of the Club, we must be aware of all the facts.

Item Three: Full details about the Straiton scenario

The most important thing that has to be done next is to outline clear strategic options for supporters to consider. What is holding the debate back at the moment is that very little is known about the options open to the club, and not much is coming from the club. That is particularly true of the Straiton project.

Ensuring fair play?  Pat Stanton - trusted by all, or at least he should be (hibs.net)

At the moment, the clearest indication of what happens next has come from Edinburgh City Council with the announcement at the weekend that they are considering the idea of developing a new sporting complex based around the proposed joint stadium to replace Meadow Bank. That was floated at the initial talks, and seems to be the most feasible option because it will make a lot of public money available that otherwise wouldn’t have been. The cost of a major capital building project such as this, together with the amount of green belt land being built on and the transport links needed mean that Ministerial approval will be required, making the project a political football. Clear justification for the project will be needed, particularly for eradicating a large amount of green belt land, not to mention the economic  impact on the Gorgie / Dalry and Easter Road / Leith areas of Edinburgh in uprooting their traditional football clubs: a number of local business who depend on match trade to survive will probably go out of business, and the local councillors will not be happy. Given that Labour has a majority of one on Edinburgh City Council, this factor could yet prove significant 

The inevitable pressures on costs mean that we are probably looking at a joint athletics and football stadium with a running track and other facilities. To that end I cannot understand the Hearts Chairman Geoffrey Robinson’s negative comments about that idea in the Evening News on Saturday. Financial reality makes the above look like the logical conclusion of the proposed move, and I am coming to the conclusion that the Hearts board haven’t perhaps given the ramifications of the proposed move as much consideration as they ought to have. The idea that politicians will just throw money at Hearts and Hibs for no return is ludicrous and that reality has to be grasped. The details of the proposal need to be worked out quickly, particularly the transport links: if rail or trams are involved that may require further legislation, something often prone to delay e.g. concerns have been expressed in Holyrood recently regarding the delay in introducing a Bill to permit the relaying of the northern section of the old Borders rail link. We must be aware of all the potential positives and pitfalls of the move before we can decide on it.

Item Four: If we don’t move, what do we do?

If the club decides against moving, what are the alternative options? It’s a simple enough question and David Forsyth was at pains to reassure me that Hibs have a viable business plan for remaining at Easter Road. However, if we are going to decide on the merits or otherwise of the move, we must understand what else is open to the club and what we are opting for if we decide against the proposed move. That requires answers to some of the questions that have dogged the message board for the past few weeks, such as land values, who actually owns the land, and how selling the land would impact on the long-term debt of the Club etc. The critical thing about debt is the ability to meet the interest payments, or to service the debt. In short, we want to know how the club intends to get out of the mess it currently finds itself in if we don’t move in with Hearts. Also, what’s wrong with developing a new sporting complex based on Easter Road with the ground leased to the Council? After all there’s lots of land nearby and a functioning railway line with an old station is only a few hundred yards away.