The World Famous City Ground - Home of the PROPER WORLD‘S OLDEST LEAGUE CLUB

[Masuka]

Reply from the council Pg1

Best value for money should look at the bigger picture of having a premier league football club providing for the local economy and not just the value of a lease.

 

[sammy the snake]

It’s strange the Citg Council now have a duty to taxpayers… long slow applause

wtf have they been doing to get bankrupt then? Democracy clearly not working

 

[YellowBelly Red]

The Council should be falling over themselves to help Forest. Do they not see the pull of the PL, the money that it brings in? The exposure that it gives to the City?

They should be in Forest's ear, asking what can be done, how it can help. Not waiting for the club to come begging.

 

[Lady Penelope]

That's a very clear response from Dave Mellen, and he puts the attention seeking bluenose MP's firmly in their place.

It doesn't do much to help Forest's cause right now though, but it does say that the negotiations continue (and it is a negotiation, and it is commercially confidential).

For the record, Toton would be very handy for me, but no. It would attract folks up and down the M1 for concerts, and would probably generate income from that, but as a base for Forest, no.

It takes us towards a dystopian vision, 50 years hence, where a merged Forest / Notts / Derby team playing in some form of super league, with 60,000 spectators throwing popcorn at one another American style, VAR reviews for every decision allowing time to sell more fizzy lager, music, cheerleaders, all of that ... just not football is it? Trent City Outlaws, based at Toton? I'll go and watch Ilkeston thank you.

 

[Lady Penelope]

The Council should be falling over themselves to help Forest. Do they not see the pull of the PL, the money that it brings in? The exposure that it gives to the City?

They should be in Forest's ear, asking what can be done, how it can help. Not waiting for the club to come begging.

The council know that, but 'best value' rules exist and now they have the Government appointed commissioners to contend with. Fiduciary duty has always been something that elected members have to deal with, now they have another level of scrutiny. Local democracy it isn't, but the ability of the City Council to do for Forest something similar to what Nottinghamshire did for the cricket club in the past is simply not possible now, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Redemption]

Best value for money should look at the bigger picture of having a premier league football club providing for the local economy and not just the value of a lease.

It does.

 

[Strummer]

It takes us towards a dystopian vision, 50 years hence, where a merged Forest / Notts / Derby team playing in some form of super league, with 60,000 spectators throwing popcorn at one another American style, VAR reviews for every decision allowing time to sell more fizzy lager, music, cheerleaders, all of that ... just not football is it? Trent City Outlaws, based at Toton? I'll go and watch Ilkeston thank you.

I am glad I will be dead By then.

 

[sammy the snake]

lol can we all accept the toton “idea” is nothing more than a dig at Forest from the council ie “we offered you alternatives but you said no”

Joke of a location and any Forest supporter knows this

 

[Mr. Blonde]

„Toton, Toton, Toton,
Rawhide!“

Tooooooton the waaaaaater
A fire in the sky!

 

[Strummer]

Joke of a location and any Forest supporter knows this

As, I suspect, does anyone who lives there, given its a bit of a tip.

 

[Shearstone]

Couldn't the County Council do a compulsory purchase on the City Ground land? Councils can for certain developments over private ownership so why not for council land in the wrong jurisdiction

 

[Redemption]

Couldn't the County Council do a compulsory purchase on the City Ground land? Councils can for certain developments over private ownership so why not for council land in the wrong jurisdiction

The City Council can own land anywhere it likes. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. Liverpool City Council, for example, owns land in North Wales.

Ironically, the only way a CPO could work on the CG site is if an acquiring authority wanted to knock it down for a strategic regeneration site.

 

[Louth Red]

Why were supporters led to believe that the lease renewal was not a problem?
Why were we led to believe that planning permission was the problem?

In local government the Treasurer has had a fiduciary relationship to local taxpayers since 1906 -
enshrined in law Attorney General v De Winton

There is nothing new in all this - the only difference is the parlous financial position of the City Council - this is a positive for the Club.

The Commissioners for the City Council are simply another barrier to be cleared.

Councils have powers to invest in local organisations/businesses if they can demonstrate benefit to local taxpayers - this has been a feature of support to the county cricket club (albeit it for more modest sums).

SO CUT THROUGH THE POLITICAL POSTURING

Leaving the lease renewal for five years has cost our Club and the City Council hugely financially.

Whilst we have failed to negotiate a lease renewal, the cost of our plans for WFCG have soared. Building cost inflation has been huge - for materials especially. In addition the capacity of the building industry cannot match the demand - hence further price inflation.

We have to break this cycle.

1. Ensure the football staff focus on staying up.
2. Get back around the table with the City Council and renegotiate the lease (or make an offer for the ground).
3. Address the planning issues for the Main Stand replacement and the associated developments to help finance the overall development - the three local authorities will still want their pound of flesh.
4. Accept that a new stadium would take many years to deliver, and is beyond our financial capacity.
5. Prepare a meaningful strategy to redevelop the rest of the ground.

Football finance in England is at an all time high - don’t miss this opportunity.

Delays cost serious money; and they damage the relationship between club and supporters.

Five years have already been lost - to our detriment.

Please get on with it - hopefully the Club are now doing this now.

 

[Redemption]

Why were we led to believe that planning permission was the problem?

Were we lead to believe that?

 

[Otis Redding]

lol can we all accept the toton “idea” is nothing more than a dig at Forest from the council ie “we offered you alternatives but you said no”

Joke of a location and any Forest supporter knows this

Toton was 'offered' by a different council Sammy, Nottinghamshire County; the lease dispute is with Nottingham City, which owns the CG freehold.

 

[Notcher]

Were we lead to believe that?

Yes we were. IIRC we were told that the lease would be resolved as planning was attained. The supporters trust were also asked not to pursue the ACG because in doing so it would potentially put more barriers in the way of planning. The emails between the club and trust relating to this were released recently.

 

[Redemption]

The emails between the club and trust relating to this were released recently.

Yes, in was the one who posted them.

But Louth Red said "Why were we led to believe that planning permission was the problem?"

When we we lead to belive this was the cause of the hold up, as opposed to the lease extension?

 

[Shearstone]

The City Council can own land anywhere it likes. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it. Liverpool City Council, for example, owns land in North Wales.

Ironically, the only way a CPO could work on the CG site is if an acquiring authority wanted to knock it down for a strategic regeneration site.

Fair enough obviously I knew the city council could own land anywhere but it's still the jurisdiction of the council it's in. Hence my question about CPO

 

[Notcher]

Yes, in was the one who posted them.

But Louth Red said "Why were we led to believe that planning permission was the problem?"

When we we lead to belive this was the cause of the hold up, as opposed to the lease extension?

I see what you're saying.

I think it's more the inference in the emails that registering the ACV could cause issues and then because the ACV wasn't registered the assumption was that the lease had been resolved.

It's the lack of clarity from the club on the entire issue. Everyone assumed the long lease had been granted or that it was simply a matter of due process. The letter released from the council today states that they walked away nearly 5 years ago.

I think it's fair to say that the club have been less than open and forthcoming.

 

[Raymondo Ponte']

I think it's fair to say that the club have been less than open and forthcoming.

Surprise surprise.

 

[Redemption]

It's the lack of clarity from the club on the entire issue

I agree with this.

But, AFAIK, the club has only ever blamed 'complications' for the delay.

At the time they said this, almost everyone, was assuming the complication was the boat club.

But I don't ever recall the club saying planning permission was a cause of the delay.

 

[Otis Redding]

I see what you're saying.

I think it's more the inference in the emails that registering the ACV could cause issues and then because the ACV wasn't registered the assumption was that the lease had been resolved.

It's the lack of clarity from the club on the entire issue. Everyone assumed the long lease had been granted or that it was simply a matter of due process. The letter released from the council today states that they walked away nearly 5 years ago.

I think it's fair to say that the club have been less than open and forthcoming.

I'm not offering it as an excuse for not being more transparent, but I assume the club was hopeful, expectant even, that the issue could be resolved without calling-out the council and potentially antagonising the situation.

 

[Notcher]

I'm not offering it as an excuse for not being more transparent, but I assume the club was hopeful, expectant even, that the issue could be resolved without calling-out the council and potentially antagonising the situation.

That's fair, but it's the timescale between the council walking away in 2019 and the ACV not being registered again that makes it an aggravating factor for me.

 

[Flaggers]

That's a very clear response from Dave Mellen, and he puts the attention seeking bluenose MP's firmly in their place.

It doesn't do much to help Forest's cause right now though, but it does say that the negotiations continue (and it is a negotiation, and it is commercially confidential).

For the record, Toton would be very handy for me, but no. It would attract folks up and down the M1 for concerts, and would probably generate income from that, but as a base for Forest, no.

It takes us towards a dystopian vision, 50 years hence, where a merged Forest / Notts / Derby team playing in some form of super league, with 60,000 spectators throwing popcorn at one another American style, VAR reviews for every decision allowing time to sell more fizzy lager, music, cheerleaders, all of that ... just not football is it? Trent City Outlaws, based at Toton? I'll go and watch Ilkeston thank you.

Jon Collins and David Mellen.

The very literal embodiment of the phrase "shot or stabbed"

The city is well rid of one of them and will be well rid of the other.

 

[Redemption]

That's fair, but it's the timescale between the council walking away in 2019 and the ACV not being registered again that makes it an aggravating factor for me.

I think it's important not to over state this date.

While Mellen talks about the 2019 deal. He doesn't say collapsed in 2019.

I don't think the deal can have collapsed when the planning application went in. The application mentions the lease extension. And the City Council was a signatory to the agreement of the land use change, so they must have still been assuming a deal was possible.