The Infrastructure Projects

[Tricky]

dont think they can do anything with it whilst we still have the lease....

for £250k a year i would be tempted to just keep it.

And then what in 33 years time when the lease has expired?

If we continue to remain in the status quo with the council there will be no development of the ground. Facilities will remain the same and the club will continue to haemorrhage money during the summer months and weeks were there isnt a game at home.

The club have to pay their full time staff 52 weeks of the year. They have to pay ground rents, leasehold, rates, gas, electric 52 weeks per year. The ground only raises revenue for a minimum of 19 weeks per year (cup games may be drawn away and we get knocked out in the first round!). This means for 33 weeks of the year, the City Ground earns absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, f**k all.

The club NEEDS the new Peter Taylor stand, or a new ground in order to have facilities in place to promote additional revenue and financial incomings. It cannot afford to do nothing. If it does, we could be facing into the abyss in the not too distant future, due to rising costs of running a football club. Off course, the other viable option would be to charge ridiculously sky high admission fees to the fans, but if that is the case, how many fans will be priced out of attending? Would that leave many empty seats in a stadium capacity of nearly 30,000, in which case what is the point? The City Council will know this. 

My main worry is over the fact that the City Council are now effectively being run by Government Commisioners who are more than likely not local people and will have no understanding or attachment to a football club. They will want the maximum amounts incoming to balance the Council books, that is their remit from this Tory Government. Unless somebody tells Sunak that there are illegal immigrants entering the country via the Trent, him and his bunch of reprobates wont give a f**k about our club.

IF the club feel they have no option but to move to a new purpose built ground, as much as my heart would break if we did so, it would have to be somewhere in the City. Somewhere local. I keep seeing Toton Sidings being bandied about. NOOOOO!! That is way out of the way with S**t transport links to it. The extra distance would put many people off attending, especially if admission costs go up as well. What point then is there having a 45.000-50,000 capacity ground if the attendances drop to below what we are already achieving?

With regards to the option of buying the lease from the council, bear this in mind...........just less than twenty years ago, the value of the land the City Ground sits on was estimated to be worth over £100,000,000 in development value. With the club paying £250,000 per year on the lease, should the Council grant them the 250 year lease, the Council would only be getting £62,000,000 over 250 years for it. From my perspective, the club would need to be doubling the lease fee to £500,000 per year just to allow the Council to break even on the land value.

It has nothing to do with aTory government, or any government of any shape or form, it's to do with council spending, full stop whether its labour (Birmingham) or conservative (Northampton) The commission has a statuary duty to correct the financial situation.

I know. My point was they wont give two f***s about our club. My point about this government was all they are interested in is 'stopping the boats', not helping to save famous, important community assets. I didnt word it right. My apologies. 

The point is, if it was just the City Council making the decision, then they will rightly be put under pressure by the electorate, who they will be desperate to want their votes. Government appointed Commissioners wont have that worry or pressure, which is bad for us.