Glad you're sure on that, I'm not.
Cartledge makes a lot more from a brand new ground.
-
JRC is becoming Donny 2.0, like Donny but literate.
-
You're going to lose a lot of match day revenue, and potential events income, if the venue is a car park in long eaton. I know. I've been to a car park in long eaton.
You can build it there, no doubt...but it's definitely not a viable location....infrastructure and attraction wise.
-
I'd be shocked if Toton was anything more than a lever to get some movement from the Council. If we did move, then the area around the cattle market up to Bink's Yard (Eastcroft?) would be a much more suitable location. Still expect and hope that we'll stay at the CG though.
-
Toton would seem to be a more plausible location for our attempt to replicate Six Hills. I know that article talks about a "campus" including the ground but take the ground out of the plans and it probably makes much more sense.
-
What is Six Hills?
-
The Fosse training ground: mclarengroup.com/projects/leicesterfc/
-
Listening to Radio 5 interviewing Henry Normal. Has a season ticket at Forest.
-
He can spend as much as he likes developing the stadium, just needs to crack on spending that money, doesn't break any rules, spend away.
As it is he's already mortgaged the club up to the hilt spending what we have so far, so his spending appetite might not be as big as you think.
As for the City Council's finances being the block to his fabulous plans, they are asking for £1M a year. I know Forest have tried to bill that as a massive £250M over 250 years, but even at a small inflationary discount rate that is only £50M at current prices over 250 years, which is only a third of one year's income, so doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm sure we can negotiate some relegation clauses into that too if need be.
-
Presumably the £1m isn't fixed for 250 years. I assume there are reviews and increases?
-
Doesn't seem like the negotiations got much further than "How much?", "1 million", "fuck off".
-
Yes, you'd hope so, at least if you're a resident of Nottingham. It's just the way the argument is being played in public, throwing "shock" numbers around that makes me laugh. The rent has traditionally been kept very low, almost notional given the asset involved, and even this rise doesn't feel like it deserves the outcry it is getting from the club, unless there is another motive for that outcry.
-
Everton issues were to do with stadium spend weren't they (at least interest on borrowings for it), so is it that clear cut?
It would make sense for the PSR rules to not allow for stadium stuff as bigger stadium increases the risk of competition to the Big 6.
-
Wasn't the club's original plan also to build and sell flats on the council's land to fund the new stand? If so, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the council to leverage some income from the lease for that land given the returns the club expected from it.
-
It's no longer a community based sporting club, it's now a foreign owned commercial operation. The financial turnover is radically different from the pre-commercialisation era. It is entirely reasonable for the council to seek a (still very low) return on (our) asset. Nothing personal. Only business.
If I was the club I'd definitely pay £1 million a year to be adjacent to the infrastructure hub of the city, and in ideal (recreational and with complimentary services) location. In an entirely theoretical sense. As an inhabitant of Nottingham, I support a fair and reasonable rental.
-
I think they were more to do with what the loans were used for - if used to cover wages not allowable - if used to fund the stadium allowable.
There appears to be some disagreement as to the use of the loans in some instances.
