Very sad indeed. Seems to be related to costs associated with the stadium which owned by Arden Tigress who buy and sell real estate?? Is ground suitable for housing, supermarket or other redevelopment?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Non-League Football Thread
- Thread starter ob
- Start date
roman totale
Well-Known Member
This was mentioned in the Non-League thread too.
What a mess and very sad, one of the former big names of non-league. I went a couple of times to their old ground, Manor Park and it was a great set-up. Funny how them and Coventry, just down the road, have had such ground-ownership clusterfucks this last 10-15 years.
What a mess and very sad, one of the former big names of non-league. I went a couple of times to their old ground, Manor Park and it was a great set-up. Funny how them and Coventry, just down the road, have had such ground-ownership clusterfucks this last 10-15 years.
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Most likely.....Very sad indeed. Seems to be related to costs associated with the stadium which owned by Arden Tigress who buy and sell real estate?? Is ground suitable for housing, supermarket or other redevelopment?
Yes there were investors apparently interested but the owners of the ground didn't want to play ball so the prospective group interested back out.
There has to be a law where any sporting club has to own their own ground - or like City have a 99 year lease.
We've seen it time and time again where once you separate the club from the stadium it is trouble.
Coventry (though I hoped they'd go under), Rotherham, Oxford....
Rotherham's Mill Moor ground is still there standing! Ridiculous! The greedy twat wanted more amd got nothing.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,644
Football clubs shouldn’t be allowed to sell their stadium, unless they are moving to a new one that they own.
Not sure how many clubs own their own grounds. Until recently City did not. Commercially/financially it appears to make sense to sell and lease back. Accountants could advise better. Some of the owners are linked companies so it is just a money juggling exercise. Seem to recall a few years ago Walsall owner sold club but transferred stadium ownership to his pension fund. And pension fund leased stadium back to new owners . Well dodgy
tregyblue61
Well-Known Member
This was mentioned in the Non-League thread too.
What a mess and very sad, one of the former big names of non-league. I went a couple of times to their old ground, Manor Park and it was a great set-up. Funny how them and Coventry, just down the road, have had such ground-ownership clusterfucks this last 10-15 years.
i followed Tamworth when I lived there, and still do the odd game very season. Always a big game against the "Borough."
Went to many clubs and grounds that don't exist exist any more. Non league football is a great day out. Sad to see so many disappear.
roman totale
Well-Known Member
Very true that some formerly big clubs have been struggling, but in general, non-league has been doing well this last 4 or 5 years and crowds are well up all over the place.i followed Tamworth when I lived there, and still do the odd game very season. Always a big game against the "Borough."
Went to many clubs and grounds that don't exist exist any more. Non league football is a great day out. Sad to see so many disappear.
Over 150 teams pull in an average of over 500 a game nowadays. Back in the 70s through to the 2000s only teams in the Conference were doing that, plus a select handful from each of the Northern, Southern and Isthmian Premier. https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/global/attendances/
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
They shouldn't need to own the new ground, just have guaranteed access for the length of time it would take to build a replacement, which would be based on size and availability of land. - This would be on a rolling basis and would be extended to allow for any planning objections.Football clubs shouldn’t be allowed to sell their stadium, unless they are moving to a new one that they own.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,644
That’s fair. What can’t happen is the owner transfer the stadium to another of their companies and lease the stadium to the club yearly.They shouldn't need to own the new ground, just have guaranteed access for the length of time it would take to build a replacement, which would be based on size and availability of land. - This would be on a rolling basis and would be extended to allow for any planning objections.
It killed Bury and nearly bankrupted Oldham.
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I agree in principle but many clubs sell their grounds to the council, the owners, or a third party to generate cash for the short-term. It bites them on the arse in the long-term but can prevent them going bust initially.That’s fair. What can’t happen is the owner transfer the stadium to another of their companies and lease the stadium to the club yearly.
It killed Bury and nearly bankrupted Oldham.
Just stopping clubs selling to another company owned by the owners would be a step forward though, and would certainly mean any sale might be more transparent.
There are a few stories online suggesting Nuneaton were living beyond their means and paying players similar amounts to those playing a division or two higher.
Perhaps Fuc 'M are the only non-league club to benefit from a very generous local council.