|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 9, 2017 17:21:19 GMT
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 !! Not much different to when our current lease on the ground is up, we signed a 100 year lease or something like that back in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 9, 2017 17:25:01 GMT
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 !! Not much different to when our current lease on the ground is up, we signed a 100 year lease or something like that back in 2012. Was not the original lease with the MOD and signed earlier than that?
I have vague recollections that our current owners bought out the lease, gaining the freehold, as one of their early actions. But I could well be wrong - again!
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 9, 2017 17:30:15 GMT
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 !! Not much different to when our current lease on the ground is up, we signed a 100 year lease or something like that back in 2012. No, we purchased the land from the MOD freehold. Anything we developed on the riverside would theoretically need to be demolished when the lease expired, but I suspect the reality is that either the lease would be renewed, or that they would eventually sell us the freehold anyway, if indeed we haven't outgrown the site and moved on by then. I think the only difficulty the club really has is in raising money for a development on leasehold land. If it doesn't get resolved in time for this season, it will be eventually and at least the NL won't be able to relegate us for refusing to dig up the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 9, 2017 17:34:40 GMT
Not much different to when our current lease on the ground is up, we signed a 100 year lease or something like that back in 2012. No, we purchased the land from the MOD freehold. Anything we developed on the riverside would theoretically need to be demolished when the lease expired, but I suspect the reality is that either the lease would be renewed, or that they would eventually sell us the freehold anyway, if indeed we haven't outgrown the site and moved on by then. I think the only difficulty the club really has is in raising money for a development on leasehold land. If it doesn't get resolved in time for this season, it will be eventually and at least the NL won't be able to relegate us for refusing to dig up the pitch. Cant seem to find anything where it says we own the land or remember a statement being released, just remember in a meeting not long before the ground was built where it was stated we had a lease of 100 years or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by southcoaststone on Nov 9, 2017 17:50:10 GMT
Not a problem, if and when we do need that space for development we just send in our weapon. I'm sure council staff could only cope for so long in the company of NWS 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Nov 9, 2017 17:51:33 GMT
No, we purchased the land from the MOD freehold. Anything we developed on the riverside would theoretically need to be demolished when the lease expired, but I suspect the reality is that either the lease would be renewed, or that they would eventually sell us the freehold anyway, if indeed we haven't outgrown the site and moved on by then. I think the only difficulty the club really has is in raising money for a development on leasehold land. If it doesn't get resolved in time for this season, it will be eventually and at least the NL won't be able to relegate us for refusing to dig up the pitch. Cant seem to find anything where it says we own the land or remember a statement being released, just remember in a meeting not long before the ground was built where it was stated we had a lease of 100 years or something like that. I'll look it up when I have time, might be on Kent Online. Definitely remember it though.
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Nov 9, 2017 18:00:35 GMT
My recollection was that we started with a 99 year lease, in which case taking a 99 year lease of the two metre strip wouldn't seem to be a major handicap. But I also have a vague memory that the owners subsequently purchased the freehold, in which case building on neighbouring leasehold land could be a problem. The club would have the protection of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 to demand renewal of the lease at the end of the term, but it wouldn't work if the Council wanted the land back for their own purposes.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 9, 2017 18:15:47 GMT
Cant seem to find anything where it says we own the land or remember a statement being released, just remember in a meeting not long before the ground was built where it was stated we had a lease of 100 years or something like that. I'll look it up when I have time, might be on Kent Online. Definitely remember it though. March 2006
"Maidstone United booked their place in the Kentish Observer League Cup final on the day their chairman, Paul Bowden-Brown announced he has paid the £90,000 MOD Lease Premium, and possesses the keys to their new stadium at James Whatman Way in the County Town."
Oliver's blog, June 2011
"It's a small but significant step: we are now completing the acquisition of the freehold of the James Whatman Way site after a lengthy negotiation process."
|
|
|
Post by moonboots on Nov 9, 2017 18:48:06 GMT
According to the KM today, the council are seeking to sell about 330sq metres of land next to the Gallagher Stadium
|
|
|
Post by toonarmy on Nov 9, 2017 19:04:45 GMT
Just read the meeting notes and it states that the council have offered a 99 year lease and charge the club a peppercorn rent, instead of the market rate
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 9, 2017 19:05:09 GMT
How do people not know we own the land? It was one of the major steps in returning the club to the town. Without that, I seriously doubt if Oliver and Terry would have gone ahead with their investment.
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Nov 9, 2017 19:24:31 GMT
How do people not know we own the land? It was one of the major steps in returning the club to the town. Without that, I seriously doubt if Oliver and Terry would have gone ahead with their investment. I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question because I've got no clue how you show how people don't know something. and ...
living up to my name I think you'll find that technically "we" don't own the land.
For two reasons: i) "we" didn't put in the investment; and ii) the ground/stadium is owned by a separate company to the football club.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 9, 2017 19:28:46 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. could be a major
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.
In 'stand/terrace' terms, 2 metres is nothing. At a guess it would give you 4 steps of standing terrace, or 3 rows of seats. The accepted wisdom is that we need to keep a 'road' big enough to let an ambulance/fire engine reach the EE down that side of the pitch, so that leaves very little of the existing space for terracing or a stand. Adding in an extra 2 metres makes it just about a viable proposition for expansion when all other options have been exhausted, but it would be a long way from first choice for seriously boosting capacity/seats to prepare for promotion. The obvious choice would be to replace the TE with a similar stand to the EE - perhaps designed so that later it can also accommodate offices/changing rooms/classrooms, so that the main stand can be extended, but initially just a 'bare' structure. Extending the ground 2 metres towards the river and building a pitch-long stand, probably wouldn't cost much less than replacing the TE with an EE type structure, especially if we did buy the land. The 'story', I suspect, is just the KM blowing something up to sell copies. I would imagine that the club has simply been discussing this with the council as a long-term possibility. The KM reporter would have picked it up from the council meeting, rung Terry up for a quote and, bingo, a 'Stones Crisis' story. Although announced on the front page, it was actually just a short story, buried somewhere like page 6 or 9. If they thought it was a real story, it would have been a front-page headline, and the main article on the back.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 9, 2017 19:29:42 GMT
How do people not know we own the land? It was one of the major steps in returning the club to the town. Without that, I seriously doubt if Oliver and Terry would have gone ahead with their investment. I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question because I've got no clue how you show how people don't know something. and ...
living up to my name I think you'll find that technically "we" don't own the land.
For two reasons: i) "we" didn't put in the investment; and ii) the ground/stadium is owned by a separate company to the football club.
Is that you, nws?
|
|
|
Post by moonboots on Nov 9, 2017 20:42:32 GMT
The report in the KM is not a story from a reporter, but a notice from the council stating that they wish to dispose of the land. It is printed in the public notice section on page 60
|
|