The Infrastructure Projects

[Jacksbadhobbits]

I can't imagine how many businesses would suffer if we moved.

I suppose it depends where we moved to. The truth is if we are ever going to be competing in the top half of the premier league we are going to need a much larger stadium with all the corporate facilities. It isn’t going to happen though is it.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

New FFP rules are based on revenue.

Build a new stadium with 50K capacity that can be used for functions/business/recreation and generate a lot of non- match day revenue and #NFFC gets stronger.

Either the council say yes quickly, or we move on quickly and build a new City Ground.

Do you support Forest and go to watch Forest play football is the simple question to be asked or anyone saying we cannot move to a new ground.

Interesting quite a few people seem to be turning towards the new ground idea.

Another question to ask people is:

Do you want to support Forest in the Premier League in a new stadium or in the Championship (or lower) at an undeveloped City Ground?

[RedMW]

What about the land on the opposite side of Trent Bridge? Isn't the County Hall land up for sale?

[Sausage Roll]

New FFP rules are based on revenue.

Build a new stadium with 50K capacity that can be used for functions/business/recreation and generate a lot of non- match day revenue and #NFFC gets stronger.

Either the council say yes quickly, or we move on quickly and build a new City Ground.

Do you support Forest and go to watch Forest play football is the simple question to be asked or anyone saying we cannot move to a new ground.

Interesting quite a few people seem to be turning towards the new ground idea.

Another question to ask people is:

Do you want to support Forest in the Premier League in a new stadium or in the Championship (or lower) at an undeveloped City Ground?

It would be a shame to have to move but if we can't agree things with the Council then I don't see any other choice. Staying at the City Ground as it is now is unsustainable and, let's be honest. parts of it are barely fit for purpose now, let alone in a few years' time.

[stefanduma]

What about the land on the opposite side of Trent Bridge? Isn't the County Hall land up for sale?

Thats possibly the dream location.

[Trailer Park Tom]

People talk about the council playing hard ball (which they are to an extent) but they would make more money selling it off to developers. Not indefinitely but in the short and medium term future.

[Simon]

dont think they can do anything with it whilst we still have the lease....

for £250k a year i would be tempted to just keep it.

[wassy04]

dont think they can do anything with it whilst we still have the lease....

for £250k a year i would be tempted to just keep it.

I'm pretty sure from reading about the Derby situation that the council would not legally be able to knock down the ground unless we had somewhere else to play of at least similar standard.

I suspect that makes a purchase of the freehold more difficult as the council would then be giving up the right to sell the land if we did ever move.

With a bankrupt council desperate for cash though, a bid for the freehold of the stadium sounds worth a go at least.

[stirred]

If they think it’s worth £1m a year and we’re paying 250k for the next 30yrs, then they’re gonna have to pay us a lot of money to give up the lease.

[Tricky]

dont think they can do anything with it whilst we still have the lease....

for £250k a year i would be tempted to just keep it.

And then what in 33 years time when the lease has expired?

If we continue to remain in the status quo with the council there will be no development of the ground. Facilities will remain the same and the club will continue to haemorrhage money during the summer months and weeks were there isnt a game at home.

The club have to pay their full time staff 52 weeks of the year. They have to pay ground rents, leasehold, rates, gas, electric 52 weeks per year. The ground only raises revenue for a minimum of 19 weeks per year (cup games may be drawn away and we get knocked out in the first round!). This means for 33 weeks of the year, the City Ground earns absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, f**k all.

The club NEEDS the new Peter Taylor stand, or a new ground in order to have facilities in place to promote additional revenue and financial incomings. It cannot afford to do nothing. If it does, we could be facing into the abyss in the not too distant future, due to rising costs of running a football club. Off course, the other viable option would be to charge ridiculously sky high admission fees to the fans, but if that is the case, how many fans will be priced out of attending? Would that leave many empty seats in a stadium capacity of nearly 30,000, in which case what is the point? The City Council will know this. 

My main worry is over the fact that the City Council are now effectively being run by Government Commisioners who are more than likely not local people and will have no understanding or attachment to a football club. They will want the maximum amounts incoming to balance the Council books, that is their remit from this Tory Government. Unless somebody tells Sunak that there are illegal immigrants entering the country via the Trent, him and his bunch of reprobates wont give a f**k about our club.

IF the club feel they have no option but to move to a new purpose built ground, as much as my heart would break if we did so, it would have to be somewhere in the City. Somewhere local. I keep seeing Toton Sidings being bandied about. NOOOOO!! That is way out of the way with shit transport links to it. The extra distance would put many people off attending, especially if admission costs go up as well. What point then is there having a 45.000-50,000 capacity ground if the attendances drop to below what we are already achieving?

With regards to the option of buying the lease from the council, bear this in mind...........just less than twenty years ago, the value of the land the City Ground sits on was estimated to be worth over £100,000,000 in development value. With the club paying £250,000 per year on the lease, should the Council grant them the 250 year lease, the Council would only be getting £62,000,000 over 250 years for it. From my perspective, the club would need to be doubling the lease fee to £500,000 per year just to allow the Council to break even on the land value.

[Simon]

Apologies i was making a flippant remark that if we were to relocate to a new stadium we should just retain the City ground lease for £250k per annum - Ladies and academy could use it. Council would need to offer us a significant lump sum to vacate or we see out the lease.

[stefanduma]

dont think they can do anything with it whilst we still have the lease....

for £250k a year i would be tempted to just keep it.

And then what in 33 years time when the lease has expired?

If we continue to remain in the status quo with the council there will be no development of the ground. Facilities will remain the same and the club will continue to haemorrhage money during the summer months and weeks were there isnt a game at home.

The club have to pay their full time staff 52 weeks of the year. They have to pay ground rents, leasehold, rates, gas, electric 52 weeks per year. The ground only raises revenue for a minimum of 19 weeks per year (cup games may be drawn away and we get knocked out in the first round!). This means for 33 weeks of the year, the City Ground earns absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, f**k all.

The club NEEDS the new Peter Taylor stand, or a new ground in order to have facilities in place to promote additional revenue and financial incomings. It cannot afford to do nothing. If it does, we could be facing into the abyss in the not too distant future, due to rising costs of running a football club. Off course, the other viable option would be to charge ridiculously sky high admission fees to the fans, but if that is the case, how many fans will be priced out of attending? Would that leave many empty seats in a stadium capacity of nearly 30,000, in which case what is the point? The City Council will know this. 

My main worry is over the fact that the City Council are now effectively being run by Government Commisioners who are more than likely not local people and will have no understanding or attachment to a football club. They will want the maximum amounts incoming to balance the Council books, that is their remit from this Tory Government. Unless somebody tells Sunak that there are illegal immigrants entering the country via the Trent, him and his bunch of reprobates wont give a f**k about our club.

IF the club feel they have no option but to move to a new purpose built ground, as much as my heart would break if we did so, it would have to be somewhere in the City. Somewhere local. I keep seeing Toton Sidings being bandied about. NOOOOO!! That is way out of the way with S**t transport links to it. The extra distance would put many people off attending, especially if admission costs go up as well. What point then is there having a 45.000-50,000 capacity ground if the attendances drop to below what we are already achieving?

With regards to the option of buying the lease from the council, bear this in mind...........just less than twenty years ago, the value of the land the City Ground sits on was estimated to be worth over £100,000,000 in development value. With the club paying £250,000 per year on the lease, should the Council grant them the 250 year lease, the Council would only be getting £62,000,000 over 250 years for it. From my perspective, the club would need to be doubling the lease fee to £500,000 per year just to allow the Council to break even on the land value.

It has nothing to do with aTory government, or any government of any shape or form, it's to do with council spending, full stop whether its labour (Birmingham) or conservative (Northampton) The commission has a statuary duty to correct the financial situation.