10-05-2024, 02:37 PM
(09-05-2024, 06:57 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: “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.
Ozzy, the main reason the Council appear to be overpricing the land is because due to its riverside location, which does attract the top dollar I'm afraid. The Council could sell that land for absolute top money and there would be a queue of developers wanting to buy that land.
One point I have picked up on so far is the Council saying the site near Meadow lane is earmarked as industrial land and they wont be able to change the planning permission accordingly. That is a load of bollocks. If that is the case, then the City Council would also not be able to change the planning permission on the land the CG currently sits on as i believe it is classed as recreational land. The same as the academy currently is. The council. IMO are holding out for the Meadow Lane land to be snapped up for residential, as it could attract far more money. Planning permission would soon be sought if that is the case, you just see!
"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