Ground share with F*rest

[Piethagoram]

Now I have your attention, this is from 1972

 

[Fan of Big Tone]

I really wish you hadn’t done that @Piethagoram I nearly had a heart attack. 

[super_ram]

2 minutes ago, Fan of Big Tone said:

I really wish you hadn’t done that @Piethagoram I nearly had a heart attack. 

I saw the headline and thought (censored) ! Please don't do that again @Piethagoram.I'll be having a nightmare tonight now,can't get the idea out of my head.Shudder,shudder!!!

[Chris]

@Fan of Big Tone I really didn't want to laugh, as I felt the same way, but your comment was funny.

I remember in 1999, my grandfather driving to Asda in Radford. On the radio (BBC Nottingham) it mentioned that the council and both clubs were in talks with ground sharing. My grandfather pulled over near Wilkson Street, asked me to pass him a paper (Nottingham Post) and proceeded to read the sports section. When I asked if he thought Notts would go ahead and groundshare, his reply was "not in my lifetime if I can help it".

He then tossed the paper to the passenger side, groaned and didn't speak until we were back home.

I later found out that the ground sharing thing had been floating around every so often, when someone would bring it up. In fact, I remember it reoccurring in the early 2000s when we weren't sure what would happen to Meadow Lane due to our financial struggles.

This is someone who used to watch both teams back in the day, until Forest developed their violent side and over the years I have heard many stories about that. I think there's a clipping of this in my grandfather's scrap book; he used to keep one with historial clipping.

[liampie]

i would hate this, i love meadow lane and i hope our owners eventually try to buy the stadium. that would limit this from cropping up and if we are to be a successful club i think its a must we do own the ground outright. not just the stadium, we need to own the land.

[DangerousSausage]

This subject has cropped up many times during our history. I'm glad nothing came of it as it would have been utterly counterproductive for us. Imagine playing in the National League in a stadium that holds 40,000...

2 hours ago, liampie said:

i would hate this, i love meadow lane and i hope our owners eventually try to buy the stadium. that would limit this from cropping up and if we are to be a successful club i think its a must we do own the ground outright. not just the stadium, we need to own the land.

I think the current arrangement is ideal actually. The club pays very little in rent, it gives us security and it stops an unscrupulous future owner attempting to get their hands on the land.

[Piethagoram]

Spot on @DangerousSausage

[liampie]

@DangerousSausage i dont think we should worry about people who just want the land, as if those types got hold of our club we would not be in a good position. not like our current owners. the same argument could be said about the council being awkward about the land. there was some talk awhile ago about them charging more for renewing, i also remember talk of issues when munto took over.

a club should own its ground and training facilities in my opinion because it offers much more security than it does not.

[NottsCountyKev]

Owning a football club’s ground can have many benefits over leasing the land from the council. For one, it provides the club with greater control over the use and development of the ground. This can allow for more flexibility in terms of making improvements or renovations to the facilities, which can enhance the overall matchday experience for fans.

In addition, owning the ground can provide a more stable and secure financial foundation for the club. Rather than having to pay rent to the council, the club can invest in its own infrastructure and generate revenue through various means such as ticket sales, merchandise, and concessions. This can help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the club and its operations.

Owning a football club’s ground can provide many advantages over leasing from the council. It allows for greater control, flexibility, and financial stability, all of which are important factors in ensuring the success and longevity of a football club. I agree with @liampie, Notts should own the land. It offers more benefits than the exception of being worried about bad owners who may or may not want to sell the land.

[Joshua]

Owning the ground could indeed provide Notts County with added security over the club’s future and prevent them from being drawn into discussions about ground sharing. The only reason for not owning the land would be if the owners cannot afford it. While concerns about dodgy owners may be valid, it is not necessarily true that the council would be any more trustworthy. At any point, they could decide not to renew the lease to Notts County.

[TheSkipper]

Owning your own ground can also provide significant benefits. Take Coventry, for example, who sold their own ground and had to ground share before returning to their own stadium as renters alongside the rugby club. In my opinion, it makes little sense to suggest that not owning the land is better. This seems like the wrong point to make, especially in a discussion about the threat of ground sharing with our neighbours across the river. Personally, I would not want to rent land from Nottingham Council.

[AmericanPie]

While ground sharing with Forest wouldn't be feasible, I agree with @liampie and other fans who have emphasized the benefits of owning the land. Ownership provides security, and any ambitious team aiming to compete at the highest level must possess their facilities outright. It's the only way to ensure future-proofing, as the council could easily decide to sell the land to developers once the lease expires, just as easily as bad owners might.

[cheeky~k8]

I was thinking... That cant be true... What are we sharing, training facilities at the most because anything else makes no sense... Not tht that does either.