|
|
Post by eclipse on Nov 9, 2017 13:03:17 GMT
Maidstone United’s owners are having to revise plans to develop the west side of the Gallagher Stadium after Maidstone Borough Council refused to sell a narrow strip of scrub land to the club.
The strip, which is just two metres wide, is landlocked between the stadium and a path leading to Whatman Park. It formed part of a project to increase the capacity up to the 5,000 required by the Football League.
Club co-owner Terry Casey said: “This is a big disappointment as we have been in discussion and negotiation with the council for almost a year. It means we will have to produce yet more drawings and calculations and it may jeopardise our application to be allowed to compete in the play-offs and ultimately to be eligible to join the Football League.
“The football club went to great lengths to offer a fair market price but Maidstone Borough Council, despite agreeing the land is surplus to requirements, insisted that they would only offer a lease agreement, as they deemed the strip to be ‘strategic’ and wanted to retain control.
“We explained at length and in detail that the Gallagher Stadium site is already saddled with numerous legal charges, covenants, easements, wayleaves and clawbacks. Each time we want to secure a grant or modify the use the legal and administrative costs are prohibitive.
“If we were to agree to a lease we would always be at the mercy of the council and it would make it impossible to raise financing for the future. We don’t feel that this is a fair and reasonable position for the club to be put into. It is deeply disappointing in terms of trust and support that the officers said they disagreed with our arguments.
“Regrettably it appears, yet again, that Maidstone Borough Council does not understand or appreciate what Maidstone United Football Club means to the town. We urge them to reconsider and are lobbying for the freehold sale option to be given due consideration.”
|
|
|
|
Post by buster on Nov 9, 2017 13:06:29 GMT
They never cease to amaze with their shortsightedness. Two bloody metres and they need to retain control for strategic purposes, do me a favour
|
|
|
|
Post by pwoodstone on Nov 9, 2017 13:45:14 GMT
It seems like the proposal that they voted on in the council meeting, gave he impression that the club would accept the leasehold rather than the outright purchase.
Re-vote!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by porkystone on Nov 9, 2017 14:14:36 GMT
Of all the stuff posted on this board this is the most depressing & serious by far. What a bunch of ****s our Council are.........
|
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 9, 2017 14:17:58 GMT
For the extra capacity and extra seats (not just to go up, but to stay in the EFL), we need to redevelop the TE not a 2m wide strip along the riverside - this is a nothing story.
And what does it matter if it's leashold? The freehold remains the council's, but that's a very long way from imagining them ever wanting to repossess it (for what?!). Once we've built on it, the council won't want the fuss of trying to get it back and they'll quickly realise that they're better off selling it to us anyway.
The council is just being careful (what else would we want?) and Terry's just negotiating.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 9, 2017 14:20:41 GMT
Of all the stuff posted on this board this is the most depressing & serious by far. What a bunch of ****s our Council are......... I'm one of the last people to defend Maidstone Borough Council but we have to remember they, both as the elected councillors and paid staff, have a legal duty to maximise any return on Council owned assets.
We've only really seen one side so far of the discussion and I'd like to think the Council staff were doing 'the right thing for the right reasons'. Unfortunately they don't have a great track record - at least publically - that might support that thought !
|
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 9, 2017 14:27:23 GMT
Well said НЙД and Pedant. Nice to see some sense posted before this thread descends into a feeding frenzy of anti council hatred.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 9, 2017 14:36:54 GMT
For the extra capacity and extra seats (not just to go up, but to stay in the EFL), we need to redevelop the TE not a 2m wide strip along the riverside - this is a nothing story. And what does it matter if it's leashold? The freehold remains the council's, but that's a very long way from imagining them ever wanting to repossess it (for what?!). Once we've built on it, the council won't want the fuss of trying to get it back and they'll quickly realise that they're better off selling it to us anyway. The council is just being careful (what else would we want?) and Terry's just negotiating. Agree with the last sentence not so for the rest.
The 2m wide strip under discussion would give the club a 5m wide strip in total potentially allowing a significant development along that side.
In terms of any refinancing (or indeed financing) being leasehold could be a major hurdle. The land not being owned makes any structure/development potentially time limited and thus not so attractive an investment.
Its not a "nothing story" but its not life threatening either.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Nov 9, 2017 15:26:41 GMT
Hope it gets sorted but let's be honest the council have never been the club's friend and its failure to see the community asset it has with the Stones is not surprising. Councils have a habit of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernie on Nov 9, 2017 15:52:23 GMT
A five metre footprint would not exactly allow for an Old Trafford style development, but would be a nice little terrace or stand to enclose the pitch and make it feel more like a complete stadium. Hope it all gets sorted out between the club and council.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Nov 9, 2017 15:57:59 GMT
Any serious investment in the club to support infrastructure development, a free-hold deal has to be much better
Hopefully the Council will see sense and get off its strategic hobby-horse
Financing a project based on a leasehold term is never so attractive.
Whether it is viable at all, must depend on the length of lease.
I would have thought a leasehold deal would need to be at least for 20 years to make any sense at all
Anybody know the length of time the Council offered ?
Fingers crossed it gets sorted
|
|
|
|
Post by garstone on Nov 9, 2017 16:11:15 GMT
According to the article on the Vanarama Web page the council were proposing a 99 year lease.
|
|
|
|
Post by southwick1 on Nov 9, 2017 16:13:08 GMT
Any serious investment in the club to support infrastructure development, a free-hold deal has to be much better Hopefully the Council will see sense and get off its strategic hobby-horse Financing a project based on a leasehold term is never so attractive. Whether it is viable at all, must depend on the length of lease. I would have thought a leasehold deal would need to be at least for 20 years to make any sense at all Anybody know the length of time the Council offered ? Fingers crossed it gets sorted I think the lease the council has offered is 99 years with a peppercorn rent. |
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 9, 2017 16:17:39 GMT
According to the article on the Vanarama Web page the council were proposing a 99 year lease. |
|
|
|
Post by cheshiregrandad on Nov 9, 2017 17:03:48 GMT
Reading the Council's statement I am slightly concerned at the wording 'The only issue is that the land the football club plans to use has been identified as strategic due to its location near the river and towpath'.
if they consider that the land is 'strategic due its location near the river and towpath' does this mean that they would not allow any development on this piece of land otherwise why is it 'strategic'. If that is the case what benefit would the land be to the Club.
On the other hand if they are prepared to allow development on the land will they expect the club to pull down anything built on the land when the lease expires in 99 years time !!
|
|
