Old World Luggy, New World Little

[RedRedRobin]

I think thats about the earliest he ever brought subs on, stfc

[RedRedRobin]

I agree Power to people if STFC doesn't get to own the new Stadium it is a real drawback.

I'm fairly sure Little said in his radio interview that Best Holdings would own it and the Club"would get the profits". Not the same thing at all though.
Little has this habit of sometimes talking very fast in interviews; maybe to blur unpalatable facts!

[herthab]

Surely the question of who owns the ground is a moot point anyway?

It only becomes relevent if Best Holdings sold the club, but retained the stadium.

But I think we should worry about now, to save time.

[pauld]

Surely the question of who owns the ground is a moot point anyway?

It only becomes relevent if Best Holdings sold the club, but retained the stadium.

But I think we should worry about now, to save time.

Which is exactly what Oxford fans did when Kassam promised them a shiny new stadium - only to realise too late they'd been kippered.

[herthab]

Surely the question of who owns the ground is a moot point anyway?

It only becomes relevent if Best Holdings sold the club, but retained the stadium.

But I think we should worry about now, to save time.

Which is exactly what Oxford fans did when Kassam promised them a shiny new stadium - only to realise too late they'd been kippered.

I understand what you're saying Paul, but surely as Best Holdings would own the club and the stadium, until they sell the club, we wouldn't know what they're going to do. If they are planning to retain the stadium after they relinquish control of the club they're hardly likely to tell anyone and if they aren't there's nothing to worry about.

[pauld]

Surely the question of who owns the ground is a moot point anyway?

It only becomes relevent if Best Holdings sold the club, but retained the stadium.

But I think we should worry about now, to save time.

Which is exactly what Oxford fans did when Kassam promised them a shiny new stadium - only to realise too late they'd been kippered.

I understand what you're saying Paul, but surely as Best Holdings would own the club and the stadium, until they sell the club, we wouldn't know what they're going to do. If they are planning to retain the stadium after they relinquish control of the club they're hardly likely to tell anyone and if they aren't there's nothing to worry about.

See where you're coming from, but it's stuff like this that will be key to how we should judge whether the deal on the stadium at least is going to be a good one for the club's long-term future - even if Best Holdings do retain ownership but, say, the club have a long-term lease at a capped rent set against inflation and written in share in revenue streams, then that would go a long way to providing stability for the club's future. Whereas if, a la Kassam, the club ends up with nothing and the owners can sell or keep the ground, associated development and the rights to all revenue streams, leaving the club only with the right to pay huge rents which can be inflated at a whim or buy "their" ground at a vast profit, then it don't look so good. No-one objects to the owners/investors making a decent wedge out of any such deal - that's how you attract investment - but it has to provide the club with long-term security and protection as well.

But certainly until we know what the proposal is, we can't start putting out the bunting/handing out the pitchforks. Suspect we'll start to see more coming out over the next few weeks once the takeover is actually done.

[flammableBen]

If the new people owned both the club and the ground as separate assets, would there be anything to stop them using that relationship to syphon money out as rent costs? Or is there legal issues about being your own landlord?

[RobertT]

no problems in law, Bristole City operate that way.

[flammableBen]

Though so Rob, I suppose that's always going to be one of the risks of any ground development. Once your in that situation you can get screwed big time. Unfortunately if we want a new shiney ground then we're probably going to have to leave the relative safety of having the council as landlords at some point.

[RedRedRobin]

No, as I see it the Club and Best Holdings are separate legal entities and the one could charge the other a full rent; unless as pauld has just said there are special arrangements legally restricting the rent charged. It all depends on the nature of the agreement/lease.
Obviously,there is the potential for STFC to get stuffed if Best offload the Club later. Would we ever be prior told what the arrangement was?

The question does need to be asked before a development then.

[jayohaitchenn]

I still don't see how we are worse off. Instead of an aging County Ground, which we don't own, we'll have a brand new (soulless bowl) of a stadium, which we don't own.

Sounds like an improvement to me...

[figgis]

cant see it working out myself. we had a debate at the big H last nite and conclude veiga fancies the job as manager with brevett as his front man.the management set up is continental cant see sturrock being able to work within this set up.

[pauld]

I still don't see how we are worse off. Instead of an aging County Ground, which we don't own, we'll have a brand new (soulless bowl) of a stadium, which we don't own.

The difference being

1) there would be no constraints on any future owners asset-stripping/raising the rent to unpayable levels to force a ground sale etc whereas at least the council as a public body are partially accountable
2) you only get one chance to do a ground redev in a generation, so you have to do it right
3) the position would be materially worse because the major point of a new stadium is not so much shiny new seats, as securing additional revenue streams which provide a stable base for the rest of the business. At the moment we are a (very badly) failing business but at least with the possibility of securing such a base; remove that and we do not have a long-term future

So if you look at the bigger picture in business terms rather than just the physical aspects, then we could be a lot worse off. However, all of the above can be dealt with quite simply, it just needs building into any new stadium deal is all.

[sheepshagger]

It's all a moot point anyway isn't it ?

The new owners will come out with the plans for a new stadium. They wont mention who will retain ownership if they leave the club - why should they ?

In the nicest possible way it is up to them - no-one else.

80% of the paying public will be happy with a new ground - and the other 20% of us will grumble about who owns it and what potential problems "may" materialise at some distant point in the future....

I know we will continue to pick at every little thing the club does until we "believe" they have done some good but we should already know from the last 2-3 months that the straight answers will not be forthcoming....

[herthab]

Great post Sheepshagger.

Very similar to one I made further up the page.

But in fairness, you did use more words :?