A topic I have been asked to bring up via social media, is the situation in regard to us fully owning our ground by purchasing the land in which it stands. I know we have discussed this on and off at times, however, with Nottingham City council in debt. It has been pointed out to me that they might be more inclined to accept a fair offer for it.

Personally, I would rather the club outright own the land. It gives the club far better options with what can be done, but I do understand the point about it falling into the hands of potential bad owners.

I do think it makes more sense to own it, along with our own training facilities, because then it gives the club assets and more control. Sharing training facilities is fine for where we are, but if we aspire to be a bigger club then I just feel it makes far more sense to own our facilities. When you don't own something, you may find yourself looking to make a change - whilst this is unlikely to happen with the land Meadow Lane is built. Owning the land would make it easier to further develop the ground.

They may be more likely to accept an offer but on the other hand they may want more money to pay off more debt so won't accept a lower offer especially as we are now in league two, they could automatically take chances on that notts make more money, not that they do in reality.

 

I'm not sure the brothers are interested though currently. Opportunities sometimes need taking though, but not at the the expense of Notts budget in other areas.

Actually this is where Supporters Trusts could actually work. A supporters trust funded training ground, would lessen risk of any unscruppled owners

I’m not sure that the club owning the ground would necessarily be a good thing, it’s in a prime position, if the brothers moved on and sold up it could fall into the hands of property developers and be sold for development and we the fans wouldn’t have a say, whereas if the council own it they have the voters to answer to.

No!!! I don't think we would exist now if the land was owned by the club. Any one of several of our past owners could easily be envisaged cashing in on the land.  The fact that it is leased with conditions protects the club.  That said, if I were the brothers I would be very tempted as the land provides an underlying value to the club.  Given the development potential of the land, it's value is only likely to increase.  

3 hours ago, Piethagoram said:

Actually this is where Supporters Trusts could actually work. A supporters trust funded training ground, would lessen risk of any unscruppled owners

But, would they sell it if the promise of riches came along for a princely sum of £1?

I think most trust groups are driven by people who merely want to boss clubs around, be in the known or other power-driven actions.

In principle, I think the club having the training ground and stadium's land entrusted to supporter groups wouldn't be a bad thing. Perhaps the fans' committee could have involved multiple groups instead of just one?

I understand the worry what would happen if the Reedtz sold the club having bought the land in which Meadow Lane stands.

I support the idea of the club owning the land and training facilities for security reasons, but I don’t think it should be a priority. The club could consider appointing some trustees to protect them, but it might be too much for a club of our current size.

What if Notts couldn’t lease the land? What if the council said, we need to sell the land where Meadow Lane is? I’m not sure how we’d manage without good owners. A few bad apples in football shouldn’t make everyone so worried about us losing the stadium. How many grounds like ours have been knocked down or sold to other sports teams because an owner wanted to profit? Most grounds eventually go back to their clubs. I think every club should own their ground and land.

i would prefer the land to be ours, so that we could purchase parts around the ground so that eventually we can further improve the facilities. remember when alan hardy planned to build a hotel behind the kop? that was never going to happen whilst the council owned the land. i think ah only said it because is it yeovil who did this? it could be morecambe or stevenage for all i remember, i know its a club that are not exactly big by this level.

i dont think fearing bad owners is something we need to worry about.

i worry more about the fans not having their voices heard.

The FA/Premier League and EFL need to ensure that football assets, like training pitches and grounds, need approval to be sold outside of the club’s facilities as part of their licensing. Many clubs are building new grounds on land they own, even lower than the National League North and South. I’d prefer the club to own everything outright. Whatever stops the council from selling the land should give some relief to those who worry a bad owner will sell it.

This discussion is really sparking my interest! I’ve got a couple of questions for you. They’re essentially the same, just framed differently for those in favour and those against. What if the owners of Notts County made the following statements?

1. If they expressed a desire to buy the land and explained their reasons, would that change how you feel? What would alleviate your concerns?
2. Conversely, if they declared they had no intention of owning the land and explained why, would you accept this as being for the best? Or would you bring it up at a future fans forum?

Most sports teams do own their own venues, although I can’t say for sure how common this is for League One or Two teams. It’s a fascinating topic, isn’t it?

Personally, I’d prefer if the club owned the stadium and land outright. Considering the problems other clubs have faced with owners exploiting the stadiums, it’s a worry, but I think it’s better for the club to own its assets. Ultimately, it’s up to the Reedtz to decide. If they’re not interested in buying, I respect that. If they do want to buy the land, I hope they’ll consider ways to ensure the ground stays with the club, regardless of who owns Notts County.

Like others, I’d prefer to have full control over the stadium. However, it’s the club’s decision, and they might be content to continue paying the ground rent. I’m wary of Nottingham City Council, as they don’t seem to have our best interests at heart. I’m not privy to the details of the agreement, but I remain sceptical.

No. The current arrangement - with the land being owned by the council, the Haydn Green estate owning the lease and renting it to the club for 99 years - gives the club a lot of protection. I trust the Reedtz brothers, but they won't own the club forever; if the club owns the ground, that could make us a target for property developers one day after they leave.

I doubt it would happen anyway as it isn't worth anyone's while. As the club pays such a low rent, it wouldn't make sense to buy the land outright as the investment possibly wouldn't pay off in our lifetime. Secondly, the land has a covenant stating it can only be used for sports, so there would be no other feasible buyer. If you consider the club pays rent of (I recall) 10,000 pounds per season in L2, the purchase price would be in the low six figures. Is it worth the council's while to sell, and would it be worth the owners' while to buy? Probably not, and we don't even know whether the leasehold would allow it.

If the land is designated solely for sports use, then housing developers might not be interested in purchasing Meadow Lane unless the Council makes a notable reversal. I suspect that most of the land would be challenging to build on due to the high risk of flooding. While I’m not opposed to the idea of owning the land, I believe it will become a necessity once we regain our status as a Championship team.