So what's going on at Plymouth?
So what's going on at Plymouth?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/u ... n-15354187
Plymouth City Council will pay £1.6m for Home Park and rent it back to the club for £135,000 a year.
The council deal means Argyle would have an option to buy back the ground every five years for a sum equal to 12 times the then annual rent.
The rent would rise by 150% if the club reached the Championship and 300% if it reached the Premier League.
The deal also removes covenants preventing non-football development around the ground.
Council leader Vivien Pengelly called it a "hard-headed commercial deal".
-------------------------------------------------------------
So who owns the area around the ground, suddenly without covenants?
[edit] Plymouth, not Pompey [/edit]
Last edited by slappy on Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Puberty
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:34 am
-
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 3076
- Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm
Dunno what it all means, but they seem quite pleased about it round these parts.
I guess it's generally a good thing if football grounds are owned by their local authority rather than speculative businessmen. But if Home Park, with its city centre(ish) location and 18,000 capacity, with 4 sides in place and two filled-in corners, is worth £1.6m, why did Merry et al ever agree a price tag of 7.5 times that for the Kasstad?
I guess it's generally a good thing if football grounds are owned by their local authority rather than speculative businessmen. But if Home Park, with its city centre(ish) location and 18,000 capacity, with 4 sides in place and two filled-in corners, is worth £1.6m, why did Merry et al ever agree a price tag of 7.5 times that for the Kasstad?
I think it is possibly to help the development of the one un developed side.
They have just built/building a massive sports/swimming devlopement nearly touching one of the stands which would have made much more sense to build into the old stand instead.
Maybe they have a 2nd stage to that development which was previosuly blocked/prevented from a joint development.
Having said that there attendances have fell off a cliff so they dont need the space.
As above if the council are involved then at least it should not be to the determent of the club and I think they got a 30 year lease in the deal.
(btw my 2nd club as the wife is from Saltash and it is the inlaws team)
They have just built/building a massive sports/swimming devlopement nearly touching one of the stands which would have made much more sense to build into the old stand instead.
Maybe they have a 2nd stage to that development which was previosuly blocked/prevented from a joint development.
Having said that there attendances have fell off a cliff so they dont need the space.
As above if the council are involved then at least it should not be to the determent of the club and I think they got a 30 year lease in the deal.
(btw my 2nd club as the wife is from Saltash and it is the inlaws team)