Louise Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 City bid to revive plans for sharing at Walkers by Lee Marlow The new chairman of Leicester City Football Club wants to revive controversial plans to share the Walkers Stadium with the Leicester Tigers. Andrew Taylor, who took over at City earlier this month, said the groundshare issue was dormant, but needed reviving. This comes as Leicester City brace themselves for the loss of £7 million. This money was being paid by the Premiership as compensation after City were relegated. Mr Taylor said that while he was happy with the state of Leicester City's accounts, the club needed to look at ways of bringing in more money. "I know it [the groundshare plan] was unpopular with some fans and it's a dormant issue at the moment. But we need to look at that again. It needs to be reactivated. It could generate some much needed revenue for the club." The groundshare deal was first mooted in November 2004. After months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the plan fell apart in July, last year, over the final stumbling block of "primacy of tenure". This means if there was a fixture clash, Football League rules dictated that City's match must take priority. There was only a minute chance of such a fixture clash, but it was enough to scupper the deal. With the plan in tatters, it left both clubs with an ongoing problem. The Tigers have outgrown Welford Road and are losing money because they cannot accommodate everyone. Cash-strapped City, meanwhile, would have welcomed the £8 million the Tigers were offering to share the Walkers Stadium. At the time, City's chief executive Tim Davies said: "We worked well together and we got close (to doing a deal) but primacy of tenure was an issue we just could not get over - no matter how small the chance of a fixture clash." The Tigers have planning permission to redevelop Welford Road and create what they hope would be the "finest" rugby ground in the country. Work would cost somewhere between £20-£30 million. A spokeswoman for Leicester City Council said that since the application was granted last year - to build a new stand - nothing has happened. Today, David Clayton, managing director of the Tigers, seemed to leave the door open for further negotiation, despite the club's ambitions to redevelop Welford Road. Mr Clayton said: "One thing I've learned in life is that you never say never, but clearly we have recently purchased the freehold to Welford Road and have plans in place to redevelop the stadium". http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?b...6269754|p|536|0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 If they leave it bloo'n'white and pay us a bundle of cash, I'm really not fussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Unlikely with the Tigers MD saying: ' but clearly we have recently purchased the freehold to Welford Road and have plans in place to redevelop the stadium' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedging Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Unlikely with the Tigers MD saying: ' but clearly we have recently purchased the freehold to Welford Road and have plans in place to redevelop the stadium' To redevelop the stadium as another supermarket, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 To redevelop the stadium as another supermarket, perhaps? More like houses\flats, whereever there some space some bugger or company is building 'city living' flats!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 8 million is tempting. if our pitch was kept in a half decent state, they left the seats and our fixtures took priorty ive got no problem with it. 8 million....... alot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted 26 April 2006 Author Share Posted 26 April 2006 While the initial quotes from the Tigers MD are not positive as regards the groundshare, I'd guess he's not spoken with AD yet - if AD seriously wishes to pursue this line then I'd imagine this issue will run on for a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Unlikely with the Tigers MD saying: ' but clearly we have recently purchased the freehold to Welford Road and have plans in place to redevelop the stadium' Not really as it just means they have an asset that they can resell hopefully for them, at a profit. Certainly not a stumbling block. Not that I'm in favour of a groundshare in principle, to be honest I'd sooner stay in the Championship for a longer period, than spend some short term gained money on promotion that we can't maintain only to come crashing down and to start the whole cycle over again, but with even less assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 That's why Kelly wants to keep Tiatto ... they can lease him out to the Tigers as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 That's why Kelly wants to keep Tiatto ... they can lease him out to the Tigers as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 8 million is tempting. if our pitch was kept in a half decent state, they left the seats and our fixtures took priorty ive got no problem with it. 8 million....... alot of money. But once spent on players gone for ever, and then left with control over only half the ground, short term gain, I just can't see the longer term benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffolk_fox Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 How are other teams coping with groundshare? What state was the pitch in after Tigers' game the other week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 While the initial quotes from the Tigers MD are not positive as regards the groundshare, I'd guess he's not spoken with AD yet - if AD seriously wishes to pursue this line then I'd imagine this issue will run on for a bit longer. Yet again another negative for me as it compromises our bargaining position, we're desperate they are not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Not really as it just means they have an asset that they can resell hopefully for them, at a profit. Certainly not a stumbling block. Not that I'm in favour of a groundshare in principle, to be honest I'd sooner stay in the Championship for a longer period, than spend some short term gained money on promotion that we can't maintain only to come crashing down and to start the whole cycle over again, but with even less assets. I think it was said in a negative context as a BUT One thing I've learned in life is that you never say never, but clearly we have recently purchased the freehold to Welford Road and have plans in place to redevelop the stadium". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 I just can't see the longer term benefits. Pissing off tigers fans??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 But once spent on players gone for ever, and then left with control over only half the ground, short term gain, I just can't see the longer term benefits. Control over the ground? I assume you're speaking with regards to fixtures etc. It could surely only benefit both clubs from the point of view of utilising the facilities for something other than football/rugby, maximising other income streams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicfox Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 More like houses\flats, whereever there some space some bugger or company is building 'city living' flats!!! Agreed, students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 That's why Kelly wants to keep Tiatto ... they can lease him out to the Tigers as well He wouldn't last five minutes in a game of Rugby, League or Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Control over the ground? I assume you're speaking with regards to fixtures etc. It could surely only benefit both clubs from the point of view of utilising the facilities for something other than football/rugby, maximising other income streams? Do we need the Tigers to help us do that? Have not recruited someone on £100k / year to do that? We would then not have to share the proceeds of any such income with the Tigers, I'm sorry I still can't see it other than some short term payment of yes £8mill, but then we didn't do much with similar amounts we got from our parachute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 He wouldn't last five minutes in a game of Rugby, League or Union. Or junior, or ladies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Do we need the Tigers to help us do that? Have not recruited someone on £100k / year to do that? We would then not have to share the proceeds of any such income with the Tigers, I'm sorry I still can't see it other than some short term payment of yes £8mill, but then we didn't do much with similar amounts we got from our parachute payments. We had a transfere budget though Davie. Now we dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 We had a transfere budget though Davie. Now we dont that was mostly wasted on paying huge wages to passed their sell by date mercenaries. The point I'm making is that we get £8mill, get promoted if we're lucky, we WILL get relegated again sometime, we would then be back in the same boat and have no assets to negotiate with, so in my mind it's just a short term gain and a long term loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 that was mostly wasted on paying huge wages to passed their sell by date mercenaries. The point I'm making is that we get £8mill, get promoted if we're lucky, we WILL get relegated again sometime, we would then be back in the same boat and have no assets to negotiate with, so in my mind it's just a short term gain and a long term loss. That's a very good point. It's a shame that we won't ever be able to pay for our ground unless we stay in the premiership for about 10+ consecutive years, which is highly unlikely unless we get a massive financial boost, in which case the payment of the ground wouldn't be a worry anyway. Basically we have a ground that we can't afford and most fans don't even like, although I agree it would be a short term fix if we get help in actually paying it off it might not be a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 Short term fix. I still can't believe this has resurfaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 26 April 2006 Share Posted 26 April 2006 How are other teams coping with groundshare? Other football clubs rent their stadia to the rugby clubs, they don't share in the way that's proposed here. I think only Wigan is different where Whelan owns both clubs, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.