[Official Site] OAKWELL - WE'RE HERE TO STAY

I'd be interested in who, if anyone, has benefitted financially from the deal.

 

Doesn't just sound like it, Houghton appears to flat out rule out any improvements.


There may be some short-term investments in terms of maintenance and other things that are required, but in terms of developing the ground, that’s for the longer term.
We won’t be putting in any additional financing, if we properly maintain the West Stand there’s at least another 10 years’ life in that.
That gives us time to think about the future of that part of the ground without making any hasty judgements

 

I would imagine the Crynes will have got back more than Patrick paid for his 50%. And the council will also benefit in the long run. Unless the (assumed on my part) borrowing interest payments are more than the rent.

 

The one thing people are missing is one owner means its easier to invest in the property.

I would imagine with 2 lots of 50% owners it was bordering on the impossible.

If the council felt they wanted to invest, it would need the Cryne family to invest the same amount. At least now we have one controlling organisation with a long term lease in place.

This is great news in my humble opinion and I would hope could lead to much needed investment, not only at the ground but surrounding areas as well.

 

"Any income we receive as landlord will be reinvested back in the site."

My guess would be the council will cover the maintenance, the club will be responsible for any upgrades or new stands. A 30 year lease means the club can safely invest in new structures, and potentially benefit from additional events.

 

I think it's better than what everyone initially thought. In the sense it was just going to be a lease extension.
And allowing the owners of the football club to move forward.

 

I have to agree. I park at Meadowhell and I'm away

 

Nareev alludes to this in the press conference, saying Jean found it difficult being a part owner of both which made things quite difficult

 

If I was representing the Council then such a lease would actually oblige the club to invest in it.

 

Not a fan of the Crynes then ?

 

The changes in the Dennis era was mainly paid for by selling players.

 

And Football League grants available at the time after the Taylor Report.

 

Thanks for posting enjoyed that. Interesting that both the Council and the club can apply for various grants as well as the club seeking other commercial investments/sponsorship. I suppose what I’m getting at is we won’t be just getting the ‘rent money’ reinvested.

 

A long term lease helps the tenant raise capital via loans or grants towards the works. It’s often a big stipulation by them.

 

The 30yr term is more than sufficient for the leaseholder to have all the maintenance obligations. But it does seem that BMBC are at least involved in some way with providing some investment.

Not sure how it can be 'cost neutral to the taxpayer' if they are reinvesting the rent they receive, that is in fact public money.

 

I haven't read the full thread yet but will do. Just a few thoughts.
Great news, I presume when the Crynes and council owned 50%each then the incoming rent was split across both parties which would be a reason why neither party would invest in the ground. Now the profit from the lease goes to one party then its more simple to invest in the ground.
This is a positive move by the council and I would presume the Crynes offered them a good deal to get 50%of the stadium of their back. Neerav and the other directors nothing changes for them except they now have a single party landlord which has to be better to deal with. I also presume that any previous ground investment would have had to have been split equally. Let's hope the right side have now got full ownership and that the council can invest more than the Crynes could.