Is a New Stadium Always a great Idea?

[Maxross]

Interesting piece regarding new stadiums and foccusing on our neighbours at Lincoln.  Seems the common consensus is that a new stadium generates ore revenue etc, but not always the case.  I know we need a new stadium due to the lease expiring etc, but will it be the answer to our financial problems, or just the begining od a whole load of new ones?  Will be really interested to hear peoples views if you have any.  Personally I'm undecided so far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16746272.stm

[Bostonshire]

Yes a no.

Some of the activities the club was hopping to do in the club are currently been held away due to the facilities not been correct, (This is income going elswhere and not to us)

Also While the club have done a fantastic job on the Sponsors Lounge this area is very small and most clubs would easily double the income here given more area.

Added to that the possibility of renting out pitches by the hour, The club looking better and smarter making it more appealing for buisneses to use the 100,s of way football can advertise there company i can see a lot of extra income coming in.

The no part is mainly because where the heck do we get the money from for a new ground with comercial develpment. Lets not forget these commercial buildings will have to be payed for to be built first.

[Old yellow]

Was it not suggested that we link up with a hotel chain to ease some of the cost and some will come from various sporting grants etc... The point being that we have little choice but to either build a new ground or ground share as the exsisting premises will no longer be available to us at as a realistic option. Unless one of our supporters comes up with sevsral million to buy the exsisiting ground from the malkinsons.

[Richie..p]

On the subject of staying. We have been told (well actually its common knowledge) that the ground lease is up (anywhere from 4 to 9 years) depending what source you listen to.


I put it to you that the party holding all the cards is the council planning!!!

 Hasn't the york street football ground got a clause in the contract/deeds where only sport can be played on the land meaning to change the nature of the use for the land ie. Housing or shops the owners must apply for a planning change. If this is the case then if the council told the owners (Malkinson's) that in no certain terms will they change the use of the ground, then the whole area becomes useless to them barring what rent the club pay to them. If the council said in no to the change then it would be the club holding all the cards because without the club paying rent the land wouldn't give the owners any income.

Also wouldn't it be funny if we did move to a new site and the council blocked the change of use and the owners were stuck with no income for the land.

If I am right in thinking this then the council holds all the cards in the future of B.U.F.C

[Pilger]

The people really holding the cards are the Malkinsons. They could choose to sell the ground to the club at any time, but they want to get as much as they can for it, assuming (rightly) that the ground would be worth more redeveloped for housing or retail than as a football ground.

However, for it to be viable for a developer, the council would have to indicate that they would rezone the land to allow a change of use which they can refuse to do. When Sotnick put forward his grand plans to move the club, the council made it clear that they would not allow any redevelopment of York Street unless a suitable alternative ground was available for the club. I’d hazard a guess that building a new ground near Boston with associated development is not exactly an enticing commercial prospect in this current economic climate, especially when the club can't contribute the profits from selling York Street as part of a deal. So if the club made it clear that a new stadium is not going to be easy and there’s no guarantee it will even happen, and the council made it clear to the Malkinsons that they will not allow redevelopment until there is an alternative ground, then the Malkinsons may realise that it’s in their best interests to sell the ground to the club while the club is still a going concern (or at the very least agree a new lease with them). Otherwise in the worst case scenario they’ll have an asset which provides no income as the club has gone bust, they can’t redevelop the ground as the council won’t allow them to still, and there are hundreds of irate United fans happy to tell them to their faces how angry they are.

After all their years owning the club, you’d hope that the Malkinsons might still have sufficient feelings for it that they would consider doing a deal that would secure its future rather than try and hold out on the assumption they can sell to a developer while putting the existence of the club at risk as a result. Max Griggs even gave Nene Park away to the fans after having rebuilt it (although this still wasn’t sufficient to stop Rushden & Diamonds going bust).