Should the Reedtz buy the land in which Meadow Lane is built?

[Chris Website URL Visit Site 𝕏 fmcj10 Instagram fmcj10]

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.

[cheeky~k8]

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.

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

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

[Fan of Big Tone 𝕏 @mainstandpie]

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.

[Ohh Tommy Johnson]

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.  

[Chris Website URL Visit Site 𝕏 fmcj10 Instagram fmcj10]

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.

[RetroPie 𝕏 @Retro_Pie]

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.

[Benji]

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.

[liampie]

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.

[NottsTastic]

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.

[Burnz3r0]

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?

[Joshua]

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.

[NiftyNick]

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.

[DangerousSausage]

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.

[Sirrels County]

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.

[B&Wstripes]

I don’t mind who owns Meadow Lane, as long as it’s our home ground. I trust the club to make the best decision. The current lease gives us some security.

[thommo]

Owning our assets would be great, but it depends on the costs involved. Having our own training ground could lead to extra maintenance expenses. Coexisting might be more beneficial. As long as we have a home at Meadow Lane and a good standard training ground, I’m content.

[Ohh Tommy Johnson]

On 06/12/2023 at 23:12, Sirrels County said:

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.

Covenants can easily be circumnavigated - I live near a ground  where the Local Council waived a covenant on a park to allow a club to redevelop it to pay for a stadium upgrade.  In that situation someone who holds the original covenant has to take the process through court to get the covenant upheld.  In or case the club didn't have the money to do the development, but the planning permission is still in place 20 odd years later (they keep updating it).  So a canny developer would get around the covenant. 

[Callumpie]

As I understand it, the council own the land and Haydn Green Trust have a 150 year lease who then sublet to the club. the club owning the infrastructure (stands etc) 
It was set up this way to ensure the club has a home "forever". The rent is like £20k a year (depending on which league we are in) so nothing that will significantly improve the clubs revenue if they did own it. 

Personally I would prefer it to stay this way, we have fantastic owners now but removing the land as an asset deters greedy/selfish owners selling the land to make a £. 

Securing a permanent training ground is far more important. 

[CliftonMagpie]

Now that I understand the current agreement better, I think it’s fine because it allows us to grow. I wonder what would happen if Notts tried to buy land around the ground for further work. I hope Meadow Lane remains a traditional four-stand stadium. If we move up the leagues and attendance increases, we might need some work done.

[Robbie 𝕏 @Robbie_NCFC]

In an ideal World I would love our Club to own the land that our Stadium stands on, however the main focus of Notts owners should be to get Notts into the championship, and to use any spare capital to acquire players that will get us there. We have a Stadium large enough for the Championship. Once we are a established Championship club, then look to buy the land, only if the owners feel it's worthwhile to do so.

[Chris Website URL Visit Site 𝕏 fmcj10 Instagram fmcj10]

Does this make anyone think differently?

I don't see it happening but the council is far from to be trusted with regards to ground rent.

[Robbie 𝕏 @Robbie_NCFC]

Looks like the Council wants to increase the rent for the City ground I'm sure there may well be a compromise agreed, but Forest may decide to move to a different site. Could have repercussions for Notts. We'll have to see what happens.

[Robbie 𝕏 @Robbie_NCFC]

So the Nottingham CC is offering to sell the Land that the City Ground stands on to Forest for £10 million.

Notts should look into buying the freehold for the land that Meadow stands on from NCC if given the opportunity. Surely the land wouldn't cost so much anyway. 

Notts don't want to have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in lease charges,  if they can own the land, even if they take out a loan to finance the buy.

[Up the Maggies]

On 02/03/2024 at 16:54, Chris said:

Does this make anyone think differently?

I don't see it happening but the council is far from to be trusted with regards to ground rent.

Forest are in a different situation to Notts, in that their lease only has about 40 years left to run, whereas the current arrangement at Meadow Lane still has well over 100 years to go. It's difficult for Forest to justify long-term redevelopment of the City Ground when ultimately it could potentially be short- to medium-term for them.

The current set up on Meadow Lane saved the club in 2019, when Haydn Green's family effectively forced Hardy out. I trust the Reedtz brothers, but not as much as I trust the Green family. I hope they have a stake in the ground for many years to come.