Here is the NFFC news

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.

So if someone raises valid concerns about something they become a caricature to be ridiculed on every news release whether they comment or not? Odd.

Anyway, it's definitely a good thing to be bringing them to the City Ground, pushing women's teams to separate locations is a barrier for developing them. The full time pro thing could probably be argued either way but makes sense given the big investment in a new netball team (which I'm less convinced about personally but hey ho) and it suggests a determination to get them into a higher tier. If we are going to have a women's team wearing the Forest badge and kit, it should have weight behind it and provide good local opportunities for sustainable careers in the game.

No, but in descending to the seventh level of tabloid/webmong with "Moronakis", the caricature is all his own work.

AFAIK, a Rushcliffe Planning Committee recommended full planning permission be granted for the new Main Stand and outline permission be granted for the neighbouring apartment block.

These permissions were subject to Forest agreeing to the S106 agreement (payment made to the council by Forest to offset things like school places, health services and transport improvements needed to service the developments), and these have not yet been signed off by NFFC.

Since then, according to Daniel Taylor and alluded to by Tom Cartlidge yesterday, plans have advanced to include reshaping the Bridgford End (and further enabling commercial development?). That would require a whole new permission.

So we're unlikely to buy unless and until we have full permission to do everything we want to.

But thankfully Labour want to unleash a programme of building and redevelopment, and Labour now has a Rushcliffe MP. So hopefully the timing is great and will happen.

I'd defo want lots of open space so there was more room for statues of me.

Conservatives still hold power on Rushcliffe Borough Council although Planning Committee decisions tend to be non-party political and governed by local plans and policies and national guidance.

Ken Clarke would have sorted this shit out months ago.

Well the press statement did make me smile, given he was name-checked in the first paragraph and again soon after. Ego much?
(By contrast, when Newcastle made the same move last year, there was a single sentence buried in one quote quite far down saying "thanks to the owners", without actually naming them).

Probably didn’t want to be named as they are busy murdering people.

But glad you could pick something out.

Also impressive that they plan to spend money on facilities in the city for girls to play football.

Thanks.
I’m firmly of the belief that owners should not be seen and seldom heard. Be in football for business or for community, not for ego and adulation.

Some of the best sports team owners I can think of are high profile egomaniacs. Mark Cuban. Tony Bloom. Al Davis. Steve Ballmer. Dietrich Mateshchitz.

So ignoring Al Davis, whose last win was in 1983 (which is a completely different era) how many championships have this lot won? Cuban has 1, Bloom none, Steve Balmer none, and Redbull Salzburg aren’t really in a top level league. I’m not entirely sure they prove your theory out.

Good ownership does not just mean Championships, as plenty on this board will tell you.

Mateschitz built one of the most successful race teams ever.