Freehold of the Park

Oliver

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
606
Location
EXETER
All conjecture I know, but if we got a fair old wedge for Kwame Ampadu, what are the chances of us buying back the freehold ?
 

rightwing

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
5,901
Location
Plymouth
All conjecture I know, but if we got a fair old wedge for Kwame Ampadu, what are the chances of us buying back the freehold ?
There’s neither the will nor the expertise at the Club to buy the freehold - after all we‘ve been trying to renew the lease without success for at least the last eight years. We’ve got 4 years left on the existing lease but what is currently being done about it?

I believe there is merit in buying the freehold of the St. James’ Centre – it’s certainly available at around £800k. This would give a secure hold on the centre of the whole site as the deal would include Red Square and even part of Stadium Way. In combination with the Fountains Centre and car park, which is already effectively in Club ownership, this would put together a decent enabling site which could finance a major stadium upgrade.
 

Anonymous

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
6,019
Location
in yr internats
Buying the freehold is a dangerous idea because it leaves the club open to unscrupulous businessmen out to line their own pockets via asset stripping and property development.


At the moment, because the council owns it there is little incentive for "wealthy" private investors to try and take over the club. If we owned the freehold, owning the club would become much more attractive financially.

James Brents are ten-a-penny in this country and I for one am not keen on them. Council ownership of the freehold is not a guaranteed means of protection, but it sure is a big deterrent.

The downside to council ownership is that we can't really control the rates of the lease. However the council inherently has a vested interest in the football club because of the knock-on revenue it generates in the city. Increased high street footfall on matchday is a huge deal. They want us to be in the city to keep that money coming in. Nothing would be worse for them than us moving to an out-of-town bowl.
 

Matt Russell

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
903
Interesting views in both posts above. Don't suppose either will convince the other, but I'll probably end up the wiser if you try!
 

Saint James

Active member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,651
Location
Ottery
Buying the freehold is a dangerous idea because it leaves the club open to unscrupulous businessmen out to line their own pockets via asset stripping and property development.


At the moment, because the council owns it there is little incentive for "wealthy" private investors to try and take over the club. If we owned the freehold, owning the club would become much more attractive financially.

James Brents are ten-a-penny in this country and I for one am not keen on them. Council ownership of the freehold is not a guaranteed means of protection, but it sure is a big deterrent.

The downside to council ownership is that we can't really control the rates of the lease. However the council inherently has a vested interest in the football club because of the knock-on revenue it generates in the city. Increased high street footfall on matchday is a huge deal. They want us to be in the city to keep that money coming in. Nothing would be worse for them than us moving to an out-of-town bowl.
Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.
 

ianaplincorners

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
1,826
Location
-
Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.
I'm pretty sure there is already a covenant on the land that says exactly this.
 
Top