Don't want this thread to turn into a 'Swans council ground' debate, but until the last few days I didn't realise how many football clubs didn't own (mortgaged or not) their own ground. Terrible news yesterday that Coventry have been docked 10 points as they couldn't reach agreement with the owners of their ground so will now play at Northampton. Also, leeds in discussion about buying their ground back. Wrexham are in a similar position and Newport ground share. How many others are there? You have to worry for Coventry's future and any other club in a similar position. We lost Chester a few seasons back. Who else will go the same way.
Bristol Rovers over here Remote, they ground share with Bristol rugby. Not sure if West Ham will own or be tenants in the olympic stadium when they move !!!
Yes, Rovers was another discussed Eldon. When I was living in BS, they were playing at Twerton Park. At least now they are back in the city. Their old ground at the botton of the M32 was turned into an open air market. I'd seen the city play there back in the 70s. I've played rugby on the Memorial Ground. Not the best location for access though close to Horfield Prison for those fans who misbehave.
The Coventry situation is unbelievable. Swansea have a council facility so they shouldnt have that problem. Best thing for us was getting the egg chasers out.
Big bone of contention amongst fans at a number of clubs. Hull are basically renting a rugby ground at the KC because it's owned by an oval ball dominated city council. I think the Tiger's owners the Allam family want to buy it at one time but were knocked back by the local authority mafia. Ground ownership is a very immotive subject and can be blown out of all proportion by various club fans who see it as a wum scoring subject. The ownership of the venue matters very little to the game on the pitch, but it does make one significant difference. The ownership of a venue (freehold or 150 year lease, makes no difference) and the options that that brings to a club, has a huge influence on its' attraction to outside investment.
Remember the trips to the old eastville, now Ikea. Rovers are part way through getting the ok to build there own ground and its looks good, 20,000 though you could fit both Brizzle clubs in that
Now IKEA is it? Flat pack at a football ground. Makes a change from a flat pack football ground. Good luck to Rovers on their new ground. Their neighbours have been trying to build a new ground for ages.
IMO they should rebrand themselves as Bristol United, they may get up the leagues then They dont take too kindly to that suggestion over here
Spammers have a 100 year lease on the Olympic Stadium at a ridiculously low rent if my memory serves me correctly.
Hilts swansea do not have a council facility,the stadium is owned by stad co. of which swansea city and the ospreys along with swansea city council have a third share each.
Ok. Fair enough. Why have the Ospreys got a 3rd share? They get what 6000 fans or something like that. Play a minority sport. Swansea are a PL football club. Cant you buy them out and let them play at St Helens or the Knoll.
Wrong Mabbs - Stadco are the operating managment company and have the structure you detail - they do not own the stadium. The stadium is and remains the property of Swansea City Council.
Find it hard to belive that clubs that spend millions on players still rent council and owe rent as well ..............
John - this thread was started by remote presumably to discuss the wider issues of club ownership of football stadia. Do you have to turn it into another wum thread with that sort of remark?
Have to agree, JH we all know the history of certain clubs even if some try to gloss over it. Those threads have been done to death before and no argument is ever won or lost, they just become bore fests with certain people trying to getting the upper hand
Ground sharing is not all its cracked up to be when the two sets of fans that are sharing do'nt get on like down at the DW.
Just checked, the Spammers have a 99 year lease from 2016 and will pay a rent of £2m a year. Breakdown of conversion funding Government: Around £60m Loan from Newham Council: £40m LLDC loan: £20m West Ham: £15m There will also be funding from London Mayor Boris Johnson's budget. Okay so big outlays all round and £2m a year is quite steep although for a Prem club on a 60k capacity stadium it is not too bad and compares very favourably with the £1m a year Coventry were being charged as a Championship side in a 32k capacity stadium. What I recall though is there is no provision for upward rent reviews in West Hams' deal so what looks costly at £2m a year in year 1 is likely to remain £2m a year in years 20, 35, 50, 75 etc - no apparent allowance for inflation or increasing market rentals over the whole lease term. Now that looks a very good deal for West Ham.
I did say in the OP I didn't want it to become a 'Swans Council Stadium' discussion. It is genuinely worrying the number of clubs that have lost one of the few tangible assets they had. It's why administration is such a threat. No collateral. You wonder how many clubs will go the way of Chester over the next 5-10 years. That will just drive a bigger wedge between the haves and have nots. The Top 4-6 clubs will get further away at the top and a bigger gap will spring up between divisions. If you lost a Coventry or a Leeds, what plugs the gaps? Even the likes of Newport coming into the leagues (and hopefully Wrexham) have severe limitations in how they can progress. A genuine concern over the future of the game, especially when you think that Gareth Bale is likely to change clubs for more than the total value of Cardiff City and probably the Swans and a good many other clubs, certainly those outside the top two tiers.
