Ownership of St James Park

[DB9]

Presumably the lease sets out the framework by which the amount the Club pays in rent for each of the next 25 years is calculated. The longer the term, the more difficult it is for both parties to determine whether they are getting good value.

Incidentally, what makes you think the Council are pulling a PR stunt? Personally, I genuinely believe they value the Club; primarily because of the Community work that we do, but also the football side.

Just my own view mind we're always seen as the " Pain" in their eyes, I'm probably wrong but it's like dealing with us is a roll of the eyes thing.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

as much as you are correct in what you when said Pete (granted I’ve not been watching city for 54 years as I’m a few years off being old enough for that) And I don’t disagree with, But do you think that the fans of those clubs look back on there ride up the leagues fondly and cherish those memories?

or like us do you think they wish they had stayed in the 4th tire with nothing really tangible achieved on the pitch?

Probably 50/50 to be honest.
I went up to watch Yeovil's playoff final with some fellow City fans the year that they got into the Championship.
Exciting? Yes, even for myself as a non partisan viewer and undoubtedly far more so for the devout Yeovil fan.
Would they have swapped that experience for never having lost their league status?
Only a Yeovil fan could tell us, although I suspect the year they ceased to be a non-league team and joined L2 for the very first time was possibly a bigger moment.

 

[i8cornwall]

Probably 50/50 to be honest.
I went up to watch Yeovil's playoff final with some fellow City fans the year that they got into the Championship.
Exciting? Yes, even for myself as a non partisan viewer and undoubtedly far more so for the devout Yeovil fan.
Would they have swapped that experience for never having lost their league status?
Only a Yeovil fan could tell us, although I suspect the year they ceased to be a non-league team and joined L2 for the very first time was possibly a bigger moment.

I think it’s all down to someone’s personal views and what they have seen there club do and go through.

as someone who follows a club that has had one hell of a ride over the last 15 plus years of going from the Championship to playing Bayern Munich in the UEFA cup and all the way down to league two, some of it has been great and some less great but I wouldn't change it for the world, even when it looked like we might go to the wall.

I think with regards to city it does feel like we have put the hand break on and a journey ever so small into league one is becoming further and further away all the time.

the renewal of the lease of SJP is great even what ever the length might be and I applaud the club and trust for doing it but feel like unless we as a club are going to push on in what ever format is seen fit and wanted then it’s a rather futile exercise. I’ve said enough on this before so I’ll leave it there.

 

[rightwing]

Just my own view mind we're always seen as the " Pain" in their eyes, I'm probably wrong but it's like dealing with us is a roll of the eyes thing.

With regard to the ownership of St. James’ Park, it is apparent to me two things stand out. Firstly the City Council have only ever given the very minimum help in keeping the Club afloat and secondly the Trust and Club have failed to recognise the full potential value to the Club in completing certain objectives.
The City Council bought the ground from Beazer Homes in 1996 using the threat of compulsory purchase and at a value fixed by the District Valuer of £750,000. Since then they have recouped from the Club more than £1m in annual rent. They are now making money out of us when the ground is morally ours. No doubt the new lease is at a higher annual rent - is our open Trust too embarrassed to say what it actually is? Similarly, at the time of the Drivers Jonas consultation, the Council would give no assurance to Drivers Jonas that the sale proceeds (or even part of the sale proceeds) would be passed over to the Club in any move away from SJP. This effectively killed at a stroke any move to a new stadium or a ground share with the rugby club, leaving the only option to stay at SJP.

During the negotiations on the new lease did the Club/Trust seek to include a freehold buy back provision in the agreement? I suspect that Club/Trust didn’t even bother to ask for one and I further suspect that the Council would not have co-operated on this issue. In not raising the subject the Club/Trust have failed to recognise the potential value in having an agreed buy back provision should we ever want to move. That would be of great benefit in securing a deal with a developer wanting to develop the whole site. If we were ever to agree a possible deal similar to the one agreed with Beazer Homes in 1995 where they would have built us a new stadium in return for building houses on SJP, then it is imperative that the Club/Trust has the opportunity to acquire the freehold, particularly after the stance adopted by the Council at Drivers Jonas time. The Trust is also remiss in not securing the freehold of the St. James’ Centre. Why go on paying £40,000 a year in rent for that when the freehold is available for under £800,000? It’s bad management of available resources in not buying it. Further, the Trust fails to recognise that that there is far greater value in owning the whole SJP site rather than having a chunk in the middle owned by OTR.
It makes me wonder if anyone is actually planning for the long term future of the Club. As for Exeter City Council being helpful, don't make me laugh!!

 

[Oldsmobile-88]

RW my fag pack maths makes the rent roughly £4k a month median over the term since 1996.
That appears to be reasonable for a site of the size of SJP.
I seem to recall Cambridge Utd paying their local authority around £250k pa rent for the Abbey Stadium a few years ago.

 

[rightwing]

RW my fag pack maths makes the rent roughly £4k a month median over the term since 1996.
That appears to be reasonable for a site of the size of SJP.
I seem to recall Cambridge Utd paying their local authority around £250k pa rent for the Abbey Stadium a few years ago.

Olds, the primary objective in the Council buying the ground from Beazer Homes in 1996 was to help the Club. Heaven knows how many hours I spent talking to then City Council leader Chester Long about this issue after Beazer refused to budge in discussions with me over the £1.2 m it wanted from the Club to buy it back. I realised that the CPO route was the only possible option to take to secure it. However the Council appears to have changed its stance since then. It was certainly remiss of the current board at the time in not securing a buy back provision in that first lease.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

With regard to the ownership of St. James’ Park, it is apparent to me two things stand out. Firstly the City Council have only ever given the very minimum help in keeping the Club afloat and secondly the Trust and Club have failed to recognise the full potential value to the Club in completing certain objectives.
The City Council bought the ground from Beazer Homes in 1996 using the threat of compulsory purchase and at a value fixed by the District Valuer of £750,000. Since then they have recouped from the Club more than £1m in annual rent. They are now making money out of us when the ground is morally ours. No doubt the new lease is at a higher annual rent - is our open Trust too embarrassed to say what it actually is? Similarly, at the time of the Drivers Jonas consultation, the Council would give no assurance to Drivers Jonas that the sale proceeds (or even part of the sale proceeds) would be passed over to the Club in any move away from SJP. This effectively killed at a stroke any move to a new stadium or a ground share with the rugby club, leaving the only option to stay at SJP.

During the negotiations on the new lease did the Club/Trust seek to include a freehold buy back provision in the agreement? I suspect that Club/Trust didn’t even bother to ask for one and I further suspect that the Council would not have co-operated on this issue. In not raising the subject the Club/Trust have failed to recognise the potential value in having an agreed buy back provision should we ever want to move. That would be of great benefit in securing a deal with a developer wanting to develop the whole site. If we were ever to agree a possible deal similar to the one agreed with Beazer Homes in 1995 where they would have built us a new stadium in return for building houses on SJP, then it is imperative that the Club/Trust has the opportunity to acquire the freehold, particularly after the stance adopted by the Council at Drivers Jonas time. The Trust is also remiss in not securing the freehold of the St. James’ Centre. Why go on paying £40,000 a year in rent for that when the freehold is available for under £800,000? It’s bad management of available resources in not buying it. Further, the Trust fails to recognise that that there is far greater value in owning the whole SJP site rather than having a chunk in the middle owned by OTR.
It makes me wonder if anyone is actually planning for the long term future of the Club. As for Exeter City Council being helpful, don't make me laugh!!

Just one slight correction Adrian in respect to OTR. The process of buying out the various shareholdings has already begun, albeit on the basis of as and when they become available, and seemingly by the Club itself. I am sure that we both agree that we would have preferred the acquisition to have been made by the Trust.
It could have been financed by reducing the annual donations made to the Club, but this would compensated by charging a £1 pa pepper corn rent to the Club. So no overall loss of revenue to Club, but The Trust acquiring a tangible asset.

 

[rightwing]

Just one slight correction Adrian in respect to OTR. The process of buying out the various shareholdings has already begun, albeit on the basis of as and when they become available, and seemingly by the Club itself. I am sure that we both agree that we would have preferred the acquisition to have been made by the Trust.
It could have been financed by reducing the annual donations made to the Club, but this would compensated by charging a £1 pa pepper corn rent to the Club. So no overall loss of revenue to Club, but The Trust acquiring a tangible asset.

Thanks CB. As always, we're in total agreement!

 

[Boyo]

With regard to the ownership of St. James’ Park, it is apparent to me two things stand out. Firstly the City Council have only ever given the very minimum help in keeping the Club afloat and secondly the Trust and Club have failed to recognise the full potential value to the Club in completing certain objectives.
The City Council bought the ground from Beazer Homes in 1996 using the threat of compulsory purchase and at a value fixed by the District Valuer of £750,000. Since then they have recouped from the Club more than £1m in annual rent. They are now making money out of us when the ground is morally ours. No doubt the new lease is at a higher annual rent - is our open Trust too embarrassed to say what it actually is? Similarly, at the time of the Drivers Jonas consultation, the Council would give no assurance to Drivers Jonas that the sale proceeds (or even part of the sale proceeds) would be passed over to the Club in any move away from SJP. This effectively killed at a stroke any move to a new stadium or a ground share with the rugby club, leaving the only option to stay at SJP.

During the negotiations on the new lease did the Club/Trust seek to include a freehold buy back provision in the agreement? I suspect that Club/Trust didn’t even bother to ask for one and I further suspect that the Council would not have co-operated on this issue. In not raising the subject the Club/Trust have failed to recognise the potential value in having an agreed buy back provision should we ever want to move. That would be of great benefit in securing a deal with a developer wanting to develop the whole site. If we were ever to agree a possible deal similar to the one agreed with Beazer Homes in 1995 where they would have built us a new stadium in return for building houses on SJP, then it is imperative that the Club/Trust has the opportunity to acquire the freehold, particularly after the stance adopted by the Council at Drivers Jonas time. The Trust is also remiss in not securing the freehold of the St. James’ Centre. Why go on paying £40,000 a year in rent for that when the freehold is available for under £800,000? It’s bad management of available resources in not buying it. Further, the Trust fails to recognise that that there is far greater value in owning the whole SJP site rather than having a chunk in the middle owned by OTR.
It makes me wonder if anyone is actually planning for the long term future of the Club. As for Exeter City Council being helpful, don't make me laugh!!

If SJP was valued at £750k in 1996, what makes you think it's available now for less than £800k? Average (residential) property prices have gone up more than 320% in that time period.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Olds, the primary objective in the Council buying the ground from Beazer Homes in 1996 was to help the Club. Heaven knows how many hours I spent talking to then City Council leader Chester Long about this issue after Beazer refused to budge in discussions with me over the £1.2 m it wanted from the Club to buy it back. I realised that the CPO route was the only possible option to take to secure it. However the Council appears to have changed its stance since then. It was certainly remiss of the current board at the time in not securing a buy back provision in that first lease.

Just for my memories sake, didn't the council push us towards Beazer Homes in the first place after turning down the rokeagle Matford plans? Then they turned down planning for the Beazer Homes Digby plans as well despite them recommending it to us in the first place.