I agree in principle, although it could be protected still. A very long term lease seems like the best option, but the worst one is neither the council nor Forest owning it.
I’m not convinced the city council would really care. A lot of their voters won’t be down the ground and the benefits of it largely go to the Rushcliffe area. And they know this.
I feel like Russ is the guy who says something about it's just bricks and mortar and we'd be a more modern successful club with a new stadium out near the motorway and that memories are more to do with players and the games and that the stadium is pretty irrelevant. Is this actually your position Russ? I bet it is. Ha.
I don't recall having said that and I certainly don't feel that way today, the City Ground is integral to all of our Forest-supporting experiences and it would be horrible to move. That said, there are probably many commercial reasons why a case could be made for it and if we did end up moving I'd get over it, just as every fan of every club that's ever moved to a shiny new stadium has had to.
20 minutes to my flat n’all. A wonderful feature of the whole complex is the network of pedestrian walkways and bridges which mean that things like that 15 minute walk to Flinders Street, which is bang in the city centre, don’t require you to interact with traffic at all. We’re very lucky.
Anyhow.. I think pretty much everyone has realised that the old motorway-adjacent stadium idea was ALWAYS terrible. Grounds in well-served and active urban areas with multiple transport options (including multiple roads in and out) are better in every way. The WFCG has the best location of any ground in the country.. it would be a tragedy to leave.. but a great stadium even closer to the city would be a net upgrade, I guess.
Well then they're fucking idiots. The Boleyn Ground was a magnificent ground and by all accounts the Olympic Stadium is exponentially worse on multiple levels, but what kind of a weird fuckwit supports a stadium?