09-05-2024, 06:57 PM
“We’ve been very clear with Forest that the council is legally bound by the need to seek best value for taxpayers — no local authority can subsidise a Premier League football club. We’re seeking market rate for the site, nothing more, which is in line with our statutory requirements.
Forest are being offered sites that are bigger - with better infrastructure for much less. Yes forest want the free hold but the council are overpricing it by miles and judging it on the value of it as residential land for the whole plot having worked out what forest are calculating for the residential part of the development. They argue that is the market rate for prime waterfront property. However - without the vast proportion of it being the stadium this isn’t a fair market rate at all. Without the stadium is it really worth as much?
Trent bridge - brings in 1 or 2 big events a year.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle here.
Forest are being offered sites that are bigger - with better infrastructure for much less. Yes forest want the free hold but the council are overpricing it by miles and judging it on the value of it as residential land for the whole plot having worked out what forest are calculating for the residential part of the development. They argue that is the market rate for prime waterfront property. However - without the vast proportion of it being the stadium this isn’t a fair market rate at all. Without the stadium is it really worth as much?
Trent bridge - brings in 1 or 2 big events a year.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle here.