Those saying we would be better off relocating and sod the councils need to realise a few things.
Firstly, where do they think would now be an ideal location? The Eastside spot behind the BBC is now having plans submitted for other projects and that comes under Nottingham City Council, one of the three councils currently involved.
Holme Pierrepont is under the stewardship of Rushcliffe and County Councils and has money paid into it from Nottingham City Council. Any other location outside of the City will have the County Council as one of the authorities overlooking it.
The club would however be wise to threaten to look at alternative sites as all three Councils would know full well the implications that would have on them due to the backlash from Forest fans all over the world, but more importantly those within their voting wards and constituencies.
Remember back in the early 20's (somewhere like 05 or 06 i think) when the club refused to pay their instalment for the Trent End loan back to the City Council? I was on the City Council at the time and the Council didn't know what to do. They were worried on the one hand about tax payers money not being returned as part of the agreement, but equally, they knew they couldn't threaten to evict the club from the ground due to the negative backlash from around the world. They knew that that kind of backlash would cost them many many votes, which in turn could make them lose control of the Council. That they would not want to do.
I am sure the club would be required to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as all major developments require. This is quite possibly where the new school thing has come from as S106's can be used to further enhance an area directly being affected by new developments. They can be used towards recreational spaces, infrastructure, health, highways, education and affordable housing.
Firstly, where do they think would now be an ideal location? The Eastside spot behind the BBC is now having plans submitted for other projects and that comes under Nottingham City Council, one of the three councils currently involved.
Holme Pierrepont is under the stewardship of Rushcliffe and County Councils and has money paid into it from Nottingham City Council. Any other location outside of the City will have the County Council as one of the authorities overlooking it.
The club would however be wise to threaten to look at alternative sites as all three Councils would know full well the implications that would have on them due to the backlash from Forest fans all over the world, but more importantly those within their voting wards and constituencies.
Remember back in the early 20's (somewhere like 05 or 06 i think) when the club refused to pay their instalment for the Trent End loan back to the City Council? I was on the City Council at the time and the Council didn't know what to do. They were worried on the one hand about tax payers money not being returned as part of the agreement, but equally, they knew they couldn't threaten to evict the club from the ground due to the negative backlash from around the world. They knew that that kind of backlash would cost them many many votes, which in turn could make them lose control of the Council. That they would not want to do.
I am sure the club would be required to make a contribution under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as all major developments require. This is quite possibly where the new school thing has come from as S106's can be used to further enhance an area directly being affected by new developments. They can be used towards recreational spaces, infrastructure, health, highways, education and affordable housing.
"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time, it's Trickay, It's Tricky, Tricky, Tricky Tricky" - Run DMC