So what if HBC sells the land?

A change of ownership does not normally mean that the new owners can turf the tenants out. The new owners will be tied in to the pre-existing the lease agreement.

Darlo got grants for the main stand at Feethams.

If IOR really needed to own a ground then they could easily have bought a different club that owned the land it was on.

Worst thing you could do is move from Victoria Park. You have enough room on that land to make a decent lower league stadium alot better. Moving will bring different problems as we have found out.

How the hell is it a bad business model?

Most of the Blue Chip companies rent their premises. Locked-up capital in land which you can't realistically sell on due to its use as a football ground is certainly not part of a good business model.

I thought ADG was on a wind-up when he first said the above further up the page, but now I'm sure of it. He's saying how ruthless IOR are then he's saying sell them the land. Are they only ruthless as long as it doesn't upset you, ADG? What's to say this band of mercenaries and heavies are going to retain the ground for the football club?

Portfolio? What the hell has a land portfolio got to do with IOR? If IOR acquire VP, will we soonafter be seeing nodding donkeys all over the place

No-one would give two hoots whether IOR own the land or not.

As things stand, the site is protected and that's no bad thing, because I'm sure we hope there'll still be a HUFC at Victoria Park when IOR have long gone.

Right, I'm off to be ruthless.

It may not need to own the ground to have access to the development grants to which you refer, however they may well be looking at other grants or funding that would become available if they did own the land which you haven't considered in your haste to prove your point.

It's about time this silly analogy was put to bed. Pools have a legal interest in the land; and long term tenancy. While they don't own the freehold, I don't see that as a problem. Anyone living in a block of flats will, in all probability, not own the freehold but instead have a long term lease with an option to extend. Are you telling me that flat-owners see no reason to improve their property?

Such as?

And in 70 years time that stand will have a book value of zilch. Depreciation is built into the value of assets; they'll have lost nothing. God, in 70 years time I would expect the Vic to look very different.

The last thing I would want is for Pools to relocate, it would probably mean somewhere on the outskirts of the town. I honestly can't think of anywhere close to the Vic that we could build a new stadium. I enjoy being close to pubs for a pre/ post match drink and new stadium normally mean nowhere close to do that.

Most on here have give valid reasons both for and against Pools buying the ground. I still believe ownership has more advantages than disadvantages. Though Waldo points out that a long term lease does not stop Pools/IOR applying for grants, that tends to make one of my arguments less strong for ownership of the ground.

Such as the provision of other facilities alongside the stadium, for example leisure or conference facilities.

And why couldn't such grants go to the leaseholder, bearing in mind the remaining time of the lease is in excess of 50 years?

You tell me, you seem to think that you know everything about anything.

Now, now, don’t be like that.

I simply asked why the club couldn’t obtain 'other' grants if it didn’t own the land as this is contrary to my understanding where leases in excess of 50 years are held. If someone makes an assertion, I would expect them to be able to back up it up if questioned.

Yes, I think we ALL know the stance IOR has taken on this.

However, in the context of this thread, my posts about leases are relevant when others have said the club needs to own the ground to have access to them.

Maybe you should have directed your comments at those people.

POINTLESS DISCUSSION IS NOT IN MY BAG.

IOR WANT THE GROUND.....................END OF.
WHICH PART OF THAT ESCAPES YOU?????????????

Well if you do know the stance IOR are taking (at last).................what the hell are you rabitting on for?????????????

Blimey O'Reilley.

I've counted to 100 and now feel I can respond in a civilised manner.

My comments have been in response to those people who have said IOR need to purchase the land to obtain grants. This has been said on at least a couple of occassions above which suggests you are completely ignorant, if you still need to ask the same question over and over again.

I bet it's fun hosting you in a job interview.

You'll never find out just how much fun waldo, you couldn't afford me.

Is that what you do?????????????

Sadly, there is no indication of the funds available in total. Reading the information on the website, you could almost believe it's case of sending off a letter claiming your two million quid and do not pass go. I suspect the funds will be very limited or all clubs would be making their annual application. Question not really answered, but I ackowledge your point.

Any funding a FL club receives will not cover the full capital expenditure. I would think that, as well as any limits there may be on frequency of claims, would prohibit clubs from going back annually.

A club only need 4 stands after all (some don't even need that).

At the end of the day Mr Pepper, the harsh truth is that it's IOR's money and their business plan is geared towards owning the ground before they develop it any further. If they choose to follow that line, that's their choice and all part of their package. Our opinions are neither here nor there. For the record, I have no objection either way.

Spot on Mr Snowy.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't realised that.

From what I gathered,the ground developments,and surrounding areas are to be funded through grants and a fraction of the costs will be met by the club and the council.
This will be because it will be community centred apparantly (in particular the surrounding arears/training facilities/pitches that type of thing? etc if i remember rightly.

If im not wrong-wasnt the CK stand funded by grants too? sport england or football trust? something like that.?
the key point RG put to me was 'community centred' and a joint venture between club and council- in my own opinion i think the council are weighing up their options before agreeing to the sale of the ground-we all know they were fully behind the H20 project,since that went tits up they are looking at other things- the regeneration of millhouse leisure centre and the surrounding areas are looking the most likely option.