The site will only be a sporting site for as long as the club wants it to be one. It has no value to the public without the football club, unless the council fancies taking possession and fronting the exorbitant cost of turning it into an actual public space. Which it will not do. It’s Forest, or it’s flats.
The council can’t force Forest to stay there, so the land being publicly owned is irrelevant. The council is just a landlord. The public utility of the site in terms of it being home to a club of great value to the community is best served by trying to ensure it stays that way which, it seems likely, means selling the freehold. Absolutely they should try and do so in a way that maximises the likelihood of the club staying there.. but that does mean doing a deal that the club is happy with.
It all seems rather academic though. They have obviously come to something close to agreement on both price and what development will be permitted.
Yes it is correct that the club appears to want to change the use of some of the site. I didn’t mean to ignore that. One assumes that both NCC and Rushcliffe councils are broadly ok with what the club proposes, and that may have factored into the price. The principal use of the site will not change though.
FWIW I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow flats to be built on the site and I’m surprised that the club thinks it is financially worthwhile. Billionaire me would want as much open space around the stadium as possible.. partly on account of being spoiled for that sort of thing where he now lives, and seeing the huge benefits of it. However, it feels like the ship sailed on that a long time ago, as that was always a part of the development plan.. long before the kerruffle began.