Looks like we can rule out one potential option to move to that's has been rumoured before
http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk...-county-s-fa-move-to-higham-ferrers-1-7421089
You would have thought it would be less with family rates.A charity that spend 30K of its money on lawyers on a single agreement has either really shitty lawyers or a poorly organised business.
What sort of state do you expect the stadium to be in when the 250 year lease expires?The freehold has never been for sale.
Would a new owner want to take on a 20 year agreement to rent somebody else's stadium?
Thats is a very interesting point , If we did have a 20 yr plan in place at least it would give them something to work with .
Or something they are stuck with.
Depends who ( if) the interested party was , Somebody mega rich , possibly no , but to a consortium who love the club........ a start
So wasps say "£10 million a year" and the FL say take it or leave it - ok and drop any court actions involving other unrelated parties?
There is zero chance the Fl will force the club to take any deal from a third party.
Rubbish an organisation that makes you proud is 100% supportive of.
Brighton took 10 years to build one and were allowed to move.
Unlike you I can think the council did the right thing in one area and criticise them in others.
always amuses me when when everyone beats Italia with the "car park stick" when
There's not a poster on here who wouldn't do exactly the same
As for a 20 year deal - first I've heard this mentioned? If true it would be a great deal depending on the type of deal it was? A sub lease of sorts that was assignable? That would give the club an 'asset' to move on with the football club and a route for SISU to exit.
That didn't answer my question
There are many caveats to a lease agreement and types of lease. I've had businesses that were leasehold and that certainly becomes an asset in your negotiations when you re assign that lease which Stupot does not seem to agree with?Would a new owner want to take on a 20 year agreement to rent somebody else's stadium?
So the £1.3m pa, 23-26 days per annum use of the bowl no access to additonal/matchday revenues, 50 year rental agreement with no breakout clause was an asset?There are many caveats to a lease agreement and types of lease. I've had businesses that were leasehold and that certainly becomes an asset in your negotiations when you re assign that lease which Stupot does not seem to agree with?
As the freehold is not held by WASP any lease agreement would have to involve the council as owners of the bricks and mortar as it were. But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves on this one as I doubt it very likely.
Its more of a long standing joke between me and Italia, we don't always agree but certainly respect each others views. He knows its not serious as I have praised his entrepreneurship on this matter on several occasions. He is a wily old fox.
Not quite:So the FL let them leave Brighton for ten years, whilst their new stadium was built?
Not quite:
The Goldstone Ground was sold by the board in 1997 to property developers, with no alternative ground lined up and without consulting the fans. A ground share with Portsmouth never materialised and they eventually arranged a ground-share with Gillingham over 70 miles away.
They moved back to Brighton in 1997, at the Withdean on a temporary basis despite much opposition from local residents.
Wasn't until 2008 that they built their new ground.
Ah right so they stayed in Brighton for the ten years whilst their ground was built.
Nothing like our Northampton scenario
Ah right so they stayed in Brighton for the ten years whilst their ground was built.
Nothing like our Northampton scenario
Now I *know* you're taking the piss.
Disagree.
Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.
With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.
That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!
Exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if the council walked right into it by trying to block it..Disagree.
Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.
With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.
That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!
Disagree.
Sub Gillingham for Northampton, and sub the Withdean for the Butts and you have a pretty similar situation.
With the elephant in the room being that the Butts appears to have been blocked by CCC, after the Football League had a look and were happy with it.
That's the argument that'll see us bog off. We can spend an eternity arguing the 'truth' of that or otherwise but... that's the argument!
Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.
Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.
Vested interest = funding it...The owner of said lease had a vested interest in rugby and its promotion in the city.
It's just another thing to add to the list of attempts to punish the club - which they will use in any dialogue with FL.
The owner of said lease had a vested interest in rugby and its promotion in the city.
It's just another thing to add to the list of attempts to punish the club - which they will use in any dialogue with FL.
yes, and it's fact they tried to stop it and all parties are linked..I know what you are saying but they will need to deal with facts
I know what you are saying but they will need to deal with facts
Problem is it doesn't hold up. The council said they would look at planning permission like any other planning job.
The owner of lease said no to CCFC coming.
I appreciate you can read behind the lines but the council have not blocked the butts.
We all take it for granted they have but factually they haven't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?