Opposition councillors in Swansea want the city's football club to pay more rent for their home ground. Swansea City moved to the £27m Liberty Stadium in 2005 after the council paid most of the money to build it. The new Premier League club pay a peppercorn rent to a loss-making management company running the stadium but the council has received nothing. But Swansea council said it is "sad" that such a demand is being made when the club is "at the peak of its glory."Swansea City declined to comment. The Liberty Stadium is run by Swansea Stadium Management Company (SSMC), an arms-length body which is a partnership between the council, Swansea City and the Ospreys rugby team. The sports teams contribute to the running costs of the stadium, with any profit made being returned to the teams and the local authority. So far, SSMC has failed to ever return a profit which means no money has been paid back to the Liberal Democrat-run council. But now with the Swans in the Premier League and netting a £90m fortune, David Phillips, leader of the Labour group on Swansea council, said that in a time of financial difficulty, that has to change, "We've had the lifting of the spirit - now let's have the lifting of the bank balance” stated David Phillips, Labour Swansea council, "There's no doubt the city has been lifted by the club being in the Premier Division", he said. "I think the financial aspect of this is the one that now needs to be addressed. "Let the council tax payer see the club is actually paying its way." Council leader, Chris Holley, said he was disappointed by what the opposition's demands. "We're on the verge of the city going into the top flight of football", he said. "To turn round at the peak of their glory and say: 'right, we want some of that now' - I think that's quite sad. "I'm happy that the Liberty Stadium is generating jobs, and not just one or two, but hundreds." The council has also said a new business plan for the stadium is being worked out. Mr Holley said it was "very close" to being completed. - Tom Singleton/BBC If I was Huw Jenkins, I would use this opportunity, to highlight the issues of seating capacity or the lack of it, that was ignored by the city council against the better advice at the time, and while we agree that the rent should be reviewed, we should press the council as to what they are going to do about the short sightedness that is costing the club tens of thousands of pounds each week, that could well be going towards paying the rent. I know we had a debate on this not so long ago, when Jager raised the issue, but it needs further debate considering this new development from the Labour side of the council, who were probably responsible for the lack of planned in seating expansion in the first place, hope Huw Jenkins throws this into the debate on rent review as it is a legitimate grievance which was down to the Local authority in the first place, they should never have yielded to the dictates of the Welsh sports council. Let's have your thoughts please Jacks!
Thing is Phil yes it should be looked at which it probably is, but the council agreed this to begin with, their legal and business experts rubber stamped this, these people are probably still employed at the council, there is no buck stops at them as there is nothing like that councils! And let's face it, currently there is no facility that places the swans or ospreys to pay anything to the council beyond legal binding contracts that there is there now. Also the stadium is not fit for purpose as I said 4 years ago on BBC 606, I knew this would come about should promotion come about, and a number of fans ridiculed me on that, you know you are they built us a great stadium which is not up to the job without huge investment, and the blame can be placed at the council and WAG
My thoughts are the less publicity non-stories like this get the better! "****-stirring", as it would be called in the playground.
I agree whole heartedly with you Jager, what I do see also is this is an opportunity to throw the ball back into Swansea City council's court, and see what happens, the seating issue is a legitimate grievance, and we should throw this in the mix of this rent review, just my opinion!................... please log in to view this image
Phill, how come all your articles get 5 stars within two minutes of being posted. I know! You immediately log in under your second username. So what is your other username?
You can rate your own articles. I rumbled him on this one because it was 5 stars with 0 replies and 1 view. ...I waited until I had some replies on the match thread until I rated mine 5 stars...
The Swans obviously have a legally binding contract regarding the rent they pay, so they council can't just go demanding more because they got promoted. That's like charging someone £2k/month to rent out a shop and then demanding £5k when you find out their making a big profit. So the council are stuck with the current agreement. If anyone thinks the stadium isn't fit for purpose then the obvious answer is that the Swans should pay for and build their own stadium. Millions of taxpayers money has gone into a stadium which is helping to fund extravagant player wages. It is grossly unfair to taxpayers in general that they have had to pay for this stadium. I don't think any council should be allowed to waste money in this way. There is enough money in football for clubs to build their own stadiums. Just cut the players wages if there isn't enough. But if the Swans want to increase the capacity of they stadium then they will need to pay for it themselves. The council would then be in their rights to re-negotiate the rent. But it all depends on the exact legal agreement between everyone. It's ridiculous that the Swans have millions in revenue but the Stadium company is making a loss. Yes, jobs have been created, but if that's so good, then why isn't the council building lots of shops and other things and renting them out at a peppercorn rent. I'm pretty sure that would create jobs as well. This is one reason why the Swans finances are looking so good. If they paid for their own stadium or paid a fair rent, then things would look much worse. I don't think the council should be giving special financial treatment to sports teams, especially when they have enough to pay for these things themselves. There are much more pressing issues than a football stadium.
I think you are confusing things here, the swans do not pay rent! What happens is that any profit made from stadco goes to the council, as they have never made a profit and the clubs are actually propping the management company up not the council, there has been no payment made from this non profit making organisation! Also stadco has two members of the council as directors one of whom is a lib Dem councillor I believe, and as a contract negotiated with legal and business experts, who is exactly to blame here? The club is abiding by the current contract to the word! And as for council money being spent, that is complete rubbish , the council have not provided anything but the land which was largely disused, and which they make a huge amount of money from the use of it now, they also gotthe vetch freehold for less than £50k, so don't tell me they have invested anything, they haven't! In regards to being fit for purpose, the reason the larger stadium was not built was because of WAG withholding grant money to move the athletics stadium if it was built, the council did not argue the case at all
Jager - if I'm wrong, the please enlighten me. Who paid for the stadium? You also say the council gave the land, but that land was valuable, so that is a cost to the council because they could have sold it. If WAG gave money then it is still taxpayers money. Finally, why isn't the council paying rent? It's no wonder STADCO is making a loss if their main asset is a stadium that they don't get any rent for. It's like me buying a shop and then giving it to someone rent-free and wondering why I'm making a loss. Football makes massive amounts of money in the UK, yet it still seems to get lots of freebies from taxpayers. I think taxpayers money would be better spent on better schools and hospitals, not on building stadiums for rich football clubs.
Casual, With respects, the council did sell the land to retailers they used that to build the stadium, so no direct funding from the tax payer happened, the land was not used apart from morfa stadium, and that was costing them a fortune to upkeep. Also they get a hell of a lot from the current retailers in taxes, their staff having jobs, thereby not claiming stuff like housing benefit and other associate benefits that they fund, they got tens of millions for the copper quarter I believe , that would not have happened unless the morfa shopping centre was put in place, and when they sell the land with the vetch they will make millions for something they got for a pittance! And the swans don't pay rent to stadco at all, they get a percentage of income from seats sold, so if they hit 16k or so that ensures a profit after all other costs have been paid, how often have we been up above that figure over the years? If its below that sum the stadco makes a loss, which the clubs pay and make up the shortfall. So your scenario is flawed, as that is what happens at the club or stadco, and again I point out, the council agreed to this, stadco has four directors two of which come from the council, the other two from both clubs, now is it the clubs fault that the council agreed the terms? Is it the clubs fault that stadco makes a loss? Really the point is the council ****ed up, and they have masses of egg on their faces, the fact that the swans are in the premier league has nothing to do with it, if I won the lottery would I be obligated to pay double the amount of my mortgage because of it?
aber, I have a job mate, and have never ever claimed a benefit in all my working life! when I ran a business and had properties under lease, would I be obligated to pay more if I won the lottery? Thought not! Point is the clubs and the council and WAG had all their finance people in on this, is it now the clubs fault that the council ****ed up? And the stadium was built for the clubs as a community project, its for the whole populace , and yes it helped the club to go on with things, but it also helped the council in a whole lot of other ways, its not a ll a one way street!
last season we only paid a nominal rent when the attendance was above 16,000, this was agreed by the then council, this money dont actually go to the council it remains with stadco who represents and runs the stadium on behalf of the swans,ospreys and the council.....this money is used to run the whole stadium for everyone...... this season we will obviously pay more but the opposition want us to pay a lot more, it will never happen as the stadium is a three way split and the opposition are trying to cash in on our success, because of our rise to the top companies are clambering to bring their buisiness to swansea and the local economy is growing with extra trade being generated because of our premiership status, these opposition councilors are talking out of their arse like Mr holly says, the whole of wales will benefit from Swansea's rise to the premiership,.....we will be paying more as our attendance will be over the set 16,000 that stadco set in 2005 ....
...says the guy with drug addled soup for brains and who supports a club in a division below us that owes over £30m
It's because I'm so good looking! On a serious note, I rate any article on content issue, whether it's mine or others, it's the importance of the subject that matters to me for rating, and I give 99% of articles 5 stars, especially those Jacks who are new at posting, also it combats the one star Muppet's from the Bluetit brigade! Don't start the multi ID thing please, for crying out loud!!................ please log in to view this image
I vote phils articles all ones to combat the 5 star muppets it's a tough job but somebody has got to do it lol
