Should Councils Invest In Their Football Clubs?

Richard Blight wrote:

Angry, I don't understand why you think the council would be wasting their money on Argyle? The council has a duty to get the best value for tax payers money.

Why would investing money in Argyle's stadium where the council would get a fair rent in return be wasting money. The rent they would receive is highly likely to be much higher than the interest rate they would receive from any bank. PCC invests money in Home Park and gets it's money back plus interest over the medium to long term. A perfectly normal commercial deal.

That is no different to the council building an out of town shopping centre and receiving rent from the businesses that occupy the units in the centre. No different to me buying a house, converting it into flats and renting them out.

life is bigger than plymouth argyle

That's kind of Richard's point, Angry.

Councils always love to plead poverty but at the same time they were closing public lavs etc they were investing seemingly surplus funds in Icelandic banks which we only heard about because they failed and wanted a bail out. Were they going to give us a cut of their casino pay out had it not gone tits? Yeah like buggery.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

That's kind of Richard's point, Angry.

no his point is tax payers money paying the way of a football club with the absolute no gurantee of any real profit from it. Tax payers have bailed out argyle enough already their reluctant owner should be investing himself.

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

That's kind of Richard's point, Angry.

no his point is tax payers money paying the way of a football club with the absolute no gurantee of any real profit from it. Tax payers have bailed out argyle enough already their reluctant owner should be investing himself.

Sorry, Angry, your completely missing the point.

As long as the council didn't build a stand so big that Argyle could never afford the increased rent the council WOULD make a profit. The only reason they wouldn't make a profit in the medium to long term, is if the club went completely bust so there was no football club playing at Home Park. Hence no one paying any rent.

As long as the right balance is made between investment and the ability to pay the rent, there is no reason why the council wouldn't see a return on it's investment.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

We live in an area of the country that needs jobs, upgrades to many areas including transport and outside investments. The little money PCC have should not be pissed away on a football club especially when its bailed it out to the tune of millions already and seen no come back on that. PCC cant take risks with tax payers money that SFD seems keen on spending without thinking where as bigger cities with more going for it like Hull and Swansea can invest int their stadiums as they are used for more than football and also they get the money back.

As i say im yet to see or hear that Brent has paid back his loans from the council yet.

Richard Blight wrote:

As long as the council didn't build a stand so big that Argyle could never afford the increased rent the council WOULD make a profit.

The market rent for a completed Gnome Park with a capacity of 16k should be way over a million pounds a year, they aren't ever going to get the money back, you are just looking for another bail out, be grateful for what you have had, ECC gives us fook all, the rent isn't too bad but everything is down to us re development, and that is how it should be.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Richard Blight wrote:

As long as the council didn't build a stand so big that Argyle could never afford the increased rent the council WOULD make a profit.

The market rent for a completed Gnome Park with a capacity of 16k should be way over a million pounds a year, they aren't ever going to get the money back, you are just looking for another bail out, be grateful for what you have had, ECC gives us fook all, the rent isn't too bad but everything is down to us re development, and that is how it should be.

Who paid out of interest for the last lot of ground redevelopments to that big bank and cowshed?

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

We live in an area of the country that needs jobs, upgrades to many areas including transport and outside investments. The little money PCC have should not be pissed away on a football club especially when its bailed it out to the tune of millions already and seen no come back on that. PCC cant take risks with tax payers money that SFD seems keen on spending without thinking where as bigger cities with more going for it like Hull and Swansea can invest int their stadiums as they are used for more than football and also they get the money back.

As i say im yet to see or hear that Brent has paid back his loans from the council yet.

Get your facts right.

Population of Swansea 239000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swansea)

Population of Hull 256000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull)

Population of Plymouth 261000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth)

Whatever else may be said about Hull and Swansea they are not bigger than Plymouth. Comparable? Definitely. Not bigger.

I'm not sure how either has more going for it either.

In truth I'm struggling to think of another 2 places more like Plymouth: coastal, provincial, remote, no airport (I'm guessing that one)... They couldn't be more similar, really, could they?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Angry wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

We live in an area of the country that needs jobs, upgrades to many areas including transport and outside investments. The little money PCC have should not be pissed away on a football club especially when its bailed it out to the tune of millions already and seen no come back on that. PCC cant take risks with tax payers money that SFD seems keen on spending without thinking where as bigger cities with more going for it like Hull and Swansea can invest int their stadiums as they are used for more than football and also they get the money back.

As i say im yet to see or hear that Brent has paid back his loans from the council yet.

Get your facts right.

Population of Swansea 239000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swansea)

Population of Hull 256000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull)

Population of Plymouth 261000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth)

Whatever else may be said about Hull and Swansea they are not bigger than Plymouth. Comparable? Definitely. Not bigger.

I'm not sure how either has more going for them either.

you really arguing over a few thousand lol get a life baba.

Why have they succeeded and we have not, Angry? What is the difference between them and us?

Or, to put it another way, were the councils of Swansea and Hull wrong to invest in their football teams?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Or, to put it another way, were the councils of Swansea and Hull wrong to invest in their football teams?

never said they were wrong too did i? perhaps you should get your facts right too. They for one have other investors and not looking for bail outs from their councils.

If you really think investing other peoples tax money on a football club with little too no prospect of ever seeing a return it when that clubs own directors and owner dont even invest themselves is good business then there is no helping you.

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Or, to put it another way, were the councils of Swansea and Hull wrong to invest in their football teams?

never said they were wrong too did i? perhaps you should get your facts right too. They for one have other investors and not looking for bail outs from their councils.

If you really think investing other peoples tax money on a football club with little too no prospect of ever seeing a return it when that clubs own directors and owner dont even invest themselves is good business then there is no helping you.

Sorry to butt in here but does nothing in life transcend making a return ? After all what would we want to spend OUR money on anyway. Does the NHS make a return? Does that mean it has no worth? Of course vanity projects like stadiums shouldn't Take priority over the sick from getting treatment etc but if all we do is toil to pay the bills that's pretty depressing isn't it ?
Even David Cameron said this week that despite all the unemployment and waiting lists for hospital beds in Cornwall that a stadium would be top priority for mid Cornwall Tories despite the fact there isn't even a club that could fill one.

As I said earlier put Brent to one side. This isn't really about him.

As things stand I agree with you. There's no way that PCC could or should spend £10m on a grandstand while Brent can invoke a clause and buy the ground cheaply amassing a tidy paper profit along the way. No way at all.

But that doesn't alter the underlying issue here: that a council investing in its football club is, potentially at least, very good for the local economy.

The trick is for that investment to be protected so that it doesn't end up in a pension fund and that it is repayable on terms beneficial to everybody so that it is neither a subsidy, a gift nor unrecoverable.

Nowhere have I advocated that PCC gives Brent anything. I wish you'd stop implying that I have, actually read what I write and disagree with what I have said rather than what you would like me to have said.

With-menace wrote:

Angry wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Or, to put it another way, were the councils of Swansea and Hull wrong to invest in their football teams?

never said they were wrong too did i? perhaps you should get your facts right too. They for one have other investors and not looking for bail outs from their councils.

If you really think investing other peoples tax money on a football club with little too no prospect of ever seeing a return it when that clubs own directors and owner dont even invest themselves is good business then there is no helping you.

Sorry to butt in here but does nothing in life transcend making a return ? After all what would we want to spend OUR money on anyway. Does the NHS make a return? Does that mean it has no worth? Of course vanity projects like stadiums shouldn't Take priority over the sick from getting treatment etc but if all we do is toil to pay the bills that's pretty depressing isn't it ?
Even David Cameron said this week that despite all the unemployment and waiting lists for hospital beds in Cornwall that a stadium would be top priority for mid Cornwall Tories despite the fact there isn't even a club that could fill one.

and the wildlings down there expect that to be council funded too

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

As I said earlier put Brent to one side. This isn't really about him.

As things stand I agree with you. There's no way that PCC could or should spend £10m on a grandstand while Brent can invoke a clause and buy the ground cheaply amassing a tidy paper profit along the way. No way at all.

But that doesn't alter the underlying issue here: that a council investing in its football club is, potentially at least, very good for the local economy.

The trick is for that investment to be protected so that it doesn't end up in a pension fund and that it is repayable on terms beneficial to everybody so that it is neither a subsidy, a gift nor unrecoverable.

Nowhere have I advocated that PCC gives Brent anything. I wish you'd stop implying that I have, actually read what I write and disagree with what I have said rather than what you would like me to have said.

again no one said you did so please get off that toadstool pleae

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

But that doesn't alter the underlying issue here: that a council investing in its football club is, potentially at least, very good for the local economy.

Or potentially a disaster...

The investment will only be as good as the football team.  

If a team turns crap and falls a few divisions or goes out of the league, the council will have spent millions and be left with a carcass that holds a few hundred fans every week, and a club that is probably unable to pay you much if any rent at all.

Imagine if the council had funded a 25,000 seat stadium that got finished the season we were relegated from the Championship...


The council are certainly never ever getting back the cost of a stadium in 'rent'.


And sorry folks...  This idea that Plymouth and Argyle are in someway 'attractive' to emmets is highly misplaced.  

I also didn't really want to say it...  But Plymouth in the beauty stakes is about a six.  And yeah...  The view over the sound is nice, but you have five hundred better views within an hours drive. Shopping is crap and the nightlife?  There really is no reason to visit...

... and Argyle are not Man Utd with a world wide fan base, nobody cares about seeing the Pilgrims  unless their team is playing us.


It's all about the success of the football.  
And therein lies the root cause of all our problems.  Quite frankly, we're very crap at it at the moment, for a few brief moments in our history we have been 'alright' at it, but really...  We have never ever been 'good' at it at all.  Ever.

Which is why nobody is investing.

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

Clubs with no top flight history or sugar daddy owner, will not be supported well enough to sustain tier 2 status. The last lot claimed we were 'an established championship club' and look what happened there, as predicted. The only way to cement a fanbase to sustain a club during dark days, is through top flight exposure. Look at the attendances of Norwich & Southampton in the 3rd tier a decade ago........ still 20k plus and we were on a par with them before their days in the sun.
How our Avivas laughed as we beat them. 'enjoy the ride....look how far we've come.....the organic model....trust in stapes' . They wouldn't listen then, they're not listening still..........perhaps they never will 

Tringreen wrote:

SwimWithTheTide wrote:

Its about risk assessment really Angry, and the evidence suggests that it makes economical sense for PCC to invest in the city's professional football club. The potential financial benefit for the city could be great, as seen most recently with Swansea and Hull. 

I just did a quick google and came across this.

Quote :

Just how important is a point picked up by Tim Jones, chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council.
Football League status was a "must have for Plymouth Argyle and for Plymouth city in the business context.
"The club is worth millions of pounds a year to the local economy," he said. "Successful football clubs bring in visitors and generate income and they develop supply chains and local services. Plymouth is also recognised nationally in the media because of its football club. People know where the city is."
The future economy of the city was also linked to the football club, he said. Successful sporting football clubs were great showcases, for sponsorship and for doing business. "They are attractive to inward investors," said Mr Jones. "Business is done watching quality sporting fixtures."


Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Plymouth-Argyle-relegation-fight-important/story-18286162-detail/story.html#ixzz3YpNdgXYU 

Clearly people identify a link between successful sporting clubs and benefit of city's economies.

But for any plan to work, in the way that many on this thread have already highlight, it would require a healthy relationship between club owner and council. A relationship in which both parties share the same ambition, drive and ability to deliver. You're rightly skeptical about Brent's credentials, for this plan to work there would have to be a change of ownership. If PCC laid out a commitment to fulfill their part of an ambitious plan, then I'm sure Brent would find it easier to source a replacement owner for his get out plan, as well as us fans having an owner who could take us back to the 2nd division as a minimum.

Clubs with no top flight history or sugar daddy owner, will not be supported well enough to sustain tier 2 status. The last lot claimed we were 'an established championship club' and look what happened there, as predicted. The only way to cement a fanbase to sustain a club during dark days, is through top flight exposure. Look at the attendances of Norwich & Southampton in the 3rd tier a decade ago........ still 20k plus and we were on a par with them before their days in the sun.
How our Avivas laughed as we beat them. 'enjoy the ride....look how far we've come.....the organic model....trust in stapes' . They wouldn't listen then, they're not listening still..........perhaps they never will 

My point is Tring is very much in line with your thoughts. If we show ambition through the development of a proper stadium then it'd awaken the dormant fanbase and help propel us up the divisions, ala Swansea, Hull. But I'm expanding on that, by suggesting that should the PCC be in a position as owners of Home Park to develop the stadium in a manner that would be suitable for such a climb of the divisions (i.e. showing true ambition & intent), then it would most certainly help to attract a new owner that could deliver in injecting the cash required to make that jump back to where we belong, and beyond.

The point I made earlier was would Swansea City FC and Hull City AFC have attract the investment that they have, had the council's not developed their stadiums? Would they have had that rise from the bottom end of the football league to competing in the top division and reaching (even winning) domestic cup finals? Highly doubt it. A healthy relationship between club owners and council, who share the same ambition and vision is clearly very beneficial to the sporting clubs. SFD's debate is about, does the council, and subsequently the city, benefit? And the evidence, despite Angry's incoherent narrowminded ramblings, suggests that it absolutely is a two way street.

I'm not sure why Rickler believes this wouldn't work with Plymouth and Argyle, but did work with Hull and Swansea? Like you say Tring, these are comparable clubs and cities historically - this idea that Plymouth is a different breed depends entirely on speculative assumptions. We aren't comparable with Bournemouth, Lord Tis' suggestion that the only hope we have of achieve success is to copy their model is pure bollocks. It is certainly one way that it could happen, a total fluke should it ever happen, but replicating the strategy of Swansea and Hull is clearly a more achievable model to chase. And, considering interest rates on borrowings are at a historical low, now is the right time to do it. Brent wants out, Argyle needs a new Grandstand, the Council needs to invest in the city to boost the economy... Its a win, win, win, feckin win situation should the powers that be have the sense to put a plan into action. Though that buy-back clause absolutely needs to go before anything can happen.

AstiSpumante wrote:

VillageGreen wrote:

As the owner and landlord of Home Park, i believe that PCC should help with the funding and building of a new stand, whenever that happens.

If as stated, there is  clause where JB can buy Home Park back, surly he would pay a more reasonable price to PCC should a new stand be in place, rather than a knock-down sum with a stand that looks and feels its age [a bye-gone era relic]..

Having done that, JB would then sell on the club to whoever is interested in owning a football club. I would expect there to be one or two who would be. They are out there.

The sooner JB sells the club, the better. That is why i feel that PCC should throw caution to the wind and help Argyle get a new stand as soon as possible.

The tax paying public of Plymouth will get their money back [as the saying goes] and PCC will get a fair price for a fair stadium. Brent will get what he gets for selling the club and we the fans, well, we would see new ownership at last and hopefully the beginning of good fortunes..

If things remain as they currently are, then Argyle as a sizeable football club are not looking great.

No they won't, Brent gets it for a fraction of it's true value. PCC need to revoke the buyback clause ASAP IMO FCOL !!!

Can anyone clarify the actual figure to save me lurking back through old threads, was it 10x annual rent for Brent to purchase the stadium?

The council would be crazy to spend between 5 and 10 million on a new grandstand and then allow Brent to buy the whole stadium back for 1.5 or 2 million. The figures just don't add up, the option for Brent to purchase the stadium on the cheap from pcc should definitely be withdrawn. Are there any legal issues stopping the council from making such a move? The trust should make this issue a priority imo, if the stadium falls into private ownership we could find ourselves at the mercy of a complete shyster further down the line.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Why have they succeeded and we have not, Angry? What is the difference between them and us?

The difference is that both the Liberty Stadium and the KC Stadium were not financed directly by the respective City Councils out of their capital expenditure budget.

The Liberty Stadium was financed by a 350,000ft2 retail park private development. Swansea City Council provided the site. The Vetch Field was then sold for residential development which assisted in the funding of the stadium.

The KC Stadium in Hull was funded by the Council's sale of their holding in the private and unique to Hull, Kingston Communications which ran the telecoms network in the city. The £40m plus raised from the sale was enough to build the stadium on Council owned land. Boothferry Park is now I believe a supermarket site although I don't know if the sale proceeds went to the Council.

Both Council's, working with development partners, had the vision and the availability of pre- financial crash privately generated funding to provide their respective stadiums that subsequently played a major part in both teams securing a position in the Premiership.

The situation at Home Park is rather different. The ill fated HHP demonstrated how difficult it is to attract major private sector retail / food and drink investment on what some may perceive as a secondary location in Central Park. As a result any privately funded options are limited and extremely unlikely to generate the level of profits or funding even to complete a £10m grandstand let alone any additional capacity aspiration. There is no prospect, and rightly so, of the land at Home Park being sold off for development to fund a stadium elsewhere even if the land could be found.

That leaves the club and the Council facing the only realistic option of the Council as freeholder funding a grandstand and the club being required to pay a substantially higher rent to fund it over the leasehold period (25 years plus) to fund it. Whether, the Council, whichever party gains control next week, has the appetite to go down that road in the face of future austerity cuts upon services remains to be seen. A strong economic case for a new grandstand would have to made with an enhanced community use, in conjunction with the Life Centre, at its heart to stand any chance at all. It cannot simply be just a grandstand with some corporate facilities it has to be much more and paly a key role in enabling Central Park to fulfill its potential as the major leisure location in the heart of the city.

Perhaps if the funding came, not out of Council capital expenditure, but an enhanced above market rate of return repayment of a loan out of Council reserves, it may have a chance. However, with construction costs rising at a conservative 10% a year, even in the south west, the £10m grandstand will soon become an £11m unless aspirations are accordingly readjusted. The clock is ticking and not even the potential euphoria of a promotion will necessarily enhance the likelihood of the ground being completed, unless of course a well wedged 'sugar daddy' appears on the seen and is prepared to fund the ride .... but that would be a very different story!

The council own both Brickfields and HP, I think? Both are struggling financially so why not sell one off and plough it into a singular venue? Ok very simplistic and would have thought with all the re development going on down Devoport end of city, Brickfields could be valuable land. With Central Park as a sporting hub surely it would placate all of us?