Ipswich Town Under Threat Of A Winding Up Order

from the local council for non payment of ground rent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15204924.stm

Under the terms of a lease taken out in 1969 where the council purchased the land on which Portman Road stands an annual ground rent was payable to the council, and the amount of rent was to be reviewed every 7 years. In 2004 the council and club were unable to reach agreement on the ground rent and in line with the terms of the lease an independent expert was used to establish a "Market Price" ground rent. This was required to ensure the Council was receiving a realistic amount in rent and was therefore unlikely to breach state aid rules.

The independent expert calculated that to achieve "Market Value" at 2004 rates the ground rent would need to increase from £15k per year to £110k per year, and under the terms of the lease the new rent was backdated to 2004. Despite all efforts on behalf of the council Ipswich town have not paid the arrears, although they have been paying the new annual rent on a monthly basis since September 2010. This has however left an amount of £652k outstanding and despite the best efforts of the council Ipswich Town have failed to make payment or agree terms to pay the outstanding debt. Next week the council will meet to decide if it should seek a winding up order in the High Court for non payment of this debt.

Other clubs who have had outstanding debts to other public bodies, HMRC, have had a transfer embargo placed on them by the Football League. Why have Ipswich Town not been placed under such a transfer embargo as I can see no difference between HMRC and Ipswich Council as both are public bodies.

It does also raise the question of consistency over the use of public funds as a local authority 40 miles west of Cardiff, who own not only the land but a £35m stadium built on it, have not received a single penny in rent since the stadium opened. If Ipswich council are concerned about a possible breach of state aid rules why did Swansea council write off £2.37m of public monies used to fit out the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium?

Interesting times for the fans of Ipswich Town I think and eventually for our friends out west.

very interesting reading castleblue, this is a story thats going to be well worth following the outcome could effect other clubs with council owned stadiums like you say

I've been saying this about the Jacks for a few years now.

I think I will await for that NJ to comment.

Interesting stuff Gary The link below is how the Ipswich fans forum report the rent which is due.

http://www.twtd.co.uk/news.php?storyid= ... rumbles_on

Sorry forgot to post a link to the Council meeting on 11th October;

http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/E-1 ... %80%A6.pdf

Where is the FL with this as any club in debt to HMRC has an automatic transfer ban until all monies are paid. At best Ipswich Town will get 4 years to pay this debt and as the Council are a public body should that be a 4 year transfer ban.

another job for ridsdale to sink his fangs into

another job for ridsdale to sink his fangs into

Well he knows the way to the High Court.

from the local council for non payment of ground rent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15204924.stm

Under the terms of a lease taken out in 1969 where the council purchased the land on which Portman Road stands an annual ground rent was payable to the council, and the amount of rent was to be reviewed every 7 years. In 2004 the council and club were unable to reach agreement on the ground rent and in line with the terms of the lease an independent expert was used to establish a "Market Price" ground rent. This was required to ensure the Council was receiving a realistic amount in rent and was therefore unlikely to breach state aid rules.

The independent expert calculated that to achieve "Market Value" at 2004 rates the ground rent would need to increase from £15k per year to £110k per year, and under the terms of the lease the new rent was backdated to 2004. Despite all efforts on behalf of the council Ipswich town have not paid the arrears, although they have been paying the new annual rent on a monthly basis since September 2010. This has however left an amount of £652k outstanding and despite the best efforts of the council Ipswich Town have failed to make payment or agree terms to pay the outstanding debt. Next week the council will meet to decide if it should seek a winding up order in the High Court for non payment of this debt.

Other clubs who have had outstanding debts to other public bodies, HMRC, have had a transfer embargo placed on them by the Football League. Why have Ipswich Town not been placed under such a transfer embargo as I can see no difference between HMRC and Ipswich Council as both are public bodies.

It does also raise the question of consistency over the use of public funds as a local authority 40 miles west of Cardiff, who own not only the land but a £35m stadium built on it, have not received a single penny in rent since the stadium opened. If Ipswich council are concerned about a possible breach of state aid rules why did Swansea council write off £2.37m of public monies used to fit out the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium?

Interesting times for the fans of Ipswich Town I think and eventually for our friends out west.

I know what you mean but its a massive difference in reality.

Say a company owes a local authority for Council tax etc. The ultimate move nowadays is they
sell the debt on to the bailiffs. They then have the power to remove assets to the value of the
debt.

HMRC have the power to close you down or even bang Directors in jail, or both.

from the local council for non payment of ground rent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15204924.stm

Under the terms of a lease taken out in 1969 where the council purchased the land on which Portman Road stands an annual ground rent was payable to the council, and the amount of rent was to be reviewed every 7 years. In 2004 the council and club were unable to reach agreement on the ground rent and in line with the terms of the lease an independent expert was used to establish a "Market Price" ground rent. This was required to ensure the Council was receiving a realistic amount in rent and was therefore unlikely to breach state aid rules.

The independent expert calculated that to achieve "Market Value" at 2004 rates the ground rent would need to increase from £15k per year to £110k per year, and under the terms of the lease the new rent was backdated to 2004. Despite all efforts on behalf of the council Ipswich town have not paid the arrears, although they have been paying the new annual rent on a monthly basis since September 2010. This has however left an amount of £652k outstanding and despite the best efforts of the council Ipswich Town have failed to make payment or agree terms to pay the outstanding debt. Next week the council will meet to decide if it should seek a winding up order in the High Court for non payment of this debt.

Other clubs who have had outstanding debts to other public bodies, HMRC, have had a transfer embargo placed on them by the Football League. Why have Ipswich Town not been placed under such a transfer embargo as I can see no difference between HMRC and Ipswich Council as both are public bodies.

It does also raise the question of consistency over the use of public funds as a local authority 40 miles west of Cardiff, who own not only the land but a £35m stadium built on it, have not received a single penny in rent since the stadium opened. If Ipswich council are concerned about a possible breach of state aid rules why did Swansea council write off £2.37m of public monies used to fit out the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium?

Interesting times for the fans of Ipswich Town I think and eventually for our friends out west.

I know what you mean but its a massive difference in reality.

Say a company owes a local authority for Council tax etc. The ultimate move nowadays is they
sell the debt on to the bailiffs. They then have the power to remove assets to the value of the
debt.

HMRC have the power to close you down or even bang Directors in jail, or both.

Thats exactly what I thought the Council would do Taff but when I read the document which has been circulated to all councillors prior to next weeks meeting the "Legal Action" being considered is to apply for a Winding Up Order in the High Court.

http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/E-1 ... %80%A6.pdf

With Ipswich Town effectively in debt to a public body to the sum of £650k I still ask why the Football League hasn't imposed a transfer ban on them, and should that transfer ban stay in place until the debt is paid in full.

from the local council for non payment of ground rent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15204924.stm

Under the terms of a lease taken out in 1969 where the council purchased the land on which Portman Road stands an annual ground rent was payable to the council, and the amount of rent was to be reviewed every 7 years. In 2004 the council and club were unable to reach agreement on the ground rent and in line with the terms of the lease an independent expert was used to establish a "Market Price" ground rent. This was required to ensure the Council was receiving a realistic amount in rent and was therefore unlikely to breach state aid rules.

The independent expert calculated that to achieve "Market Value" at 2004 rates the ground rent would need to increase from £15k per year to £110k per year, and under the terms of the lease the new rent was backdated to 2004. Despite all efforts on behalf of the council Ipswich town have not paid the arrears, although they have been paying the new annual rent on a monthly basis since September 2010. This has however left an amount of £652k outstanding and despite the best efforts of the council Ipswich Town have failed to make payment or agree terms to pay the outstanding debt. Next week the council will meet to decide if it should seek a winding up order in the High Court for non payment of this debt.

Other clubs who have had outstanding debts to other public bodies, HMRC, have had a transfer embargo placed on them by the Football League. Why have Ipswich Town not been placed under such a transfer embargo as I can see no difference between HMRC and Ipswich Council as both are public bodies.

It does also raise the question of consistency over the use of public funds as a local authority 40 miles west of Cardiff, who own not only the land but a £35m stadium built on it, have not received a single penny in rent since the stadium opened. If Ipswich council are concerned about a possible breach of state aid rules why did Swansea council write off £2.37m of public monies used to fit out the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium?

Interesting times for the fans of Ipswich Town I think and eventually for our friends out west.

I know what you mean but its a massive difference in reality.

Say a company owes a local authority for Council tax etc. The ultimate move nowadays is they
sell the debt on to the bailiffs. They then have the power to remove assets to the value of the
debt.

HMRC have the power to close you down or even bang Directors in jail, or both.

Thats exactly what I thought the Council would do Taff but when I read the document which has been circulated to all councillors prior to next weeks meeting the "Legal Action" being considered is to apply for a Winding Up Order in the High Court.

http://www.ipswich.gov.uk/downloads/E-1 ... %80%A6.pdf

With Ipswich Town effectively in debt to a public body to the sum of £650k I still ask why the Football League hasn't imposed a transfer ban on them, and should that transfer ban stay in place until the debt is paid in full.

Ah right. My initial reaction then was a Life Of Brian moment..

STONE 'EM

Is it possible that there is some sort of ban on Ipswich but the FA have chosen not to publicise it?

I only mention this as, a few years ago, us supporters didnt know that we were under an embargo.

another job for ridsdale to sink his fangs into

Ridsdale CEO of the Jacks? Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it?
StT.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

It also begs the question of whether state aid rules were breached when Cardiff City Council handed over millions of pounds worth of public owned land to Cardiff City Football Club?

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

Hence why the council have threatened you with legal action. The only reason they have not followed it through is that they stood no chance of getting anything as you as a football club have no assets.

As time goes by you say. Well your in the premier now and that is the real reason the ocuncil have not tightened the screw. I would imagine they are expecting some rent now.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

And yet again you show a total lack of appreciation of a reasonable return on investment, you also totally ignore the fact that Swansea Council took out a mortgage, value £2.37m, for the fit out of the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium. Quite why things like the electricty supply to the ice machine in the home dressing room were included in this mortgage is open for interpretation, must be this stadium upkeep you keep talking about.

Not a single penny of this £2.37m pounds was repaid to the Council for 5 years and of greater concern no monies to cover the interest was paid either. This matter was picked up by the National Audit office as "Public Money" was being used in a manner which could be seen to be state aid of commercial business. Rather than force the issue of repayment the Council decided to write off the mortgage, £2.37m of public money wiped away while SCFC were receiving a rebate of approx £810k per year from the use of the hospitality areas. Without the benefit of £2.37m of public money the hospitality areas could not be used but having spent public money SCFC get just under £1m a year the Council gert nothing. Thats state aid purely and simple.

Last night the FAW hired the Liberty Stadium, where will that money go? To the landlord? or the same place that the profits from the summer concerts at the Liberty or any other non football event goes.

Talk about sticking your head in the sand Ipswich Town are being faced with this potential winding up order because of a change of political control on the council. As I say keep a good eye on the local elections out west my friend this particular gravy train could change in a heartbeat if the next elections go the wrong way.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

Hence why the council have threatened you with legal action. The only reason they have not followed it through is that they stood no chance of getting anything as you as a football club have no assets.

As time goes by you say. Well your in the premier now and that is the real reason the ocuncil have not tightened the screw. I would imagine they are expecting some rent now.

You keep mentioning rent. The only "rent" payable is a peppercorn rent. The other money payable is 1/3 of any profit made by SSMC (as indeed SCFC and The Ospreys would also be entitled to as joint partners).

As quoted in a council report "“The council built the stadium using well-being powers and one of the conditions of those powers is that the primary purpose should not be to raise money. Instead, it should promote or improve well-being.

“Under the joint venture agreement, SSMC pays a peppercorn rent. In addition, the council as shareholder is entitled to a share of any profit made by SSMC once the cost of running the stadium has been met.

“In return, the management and maintenance of the stadium is the responsibility of SSMC. This means the council retains the ownership of the stadium but avoids any financial commitments for its running or maintenance, which saves the council hundreds of thousands of pounds each year."

The only action even being remotely considered by the council is over the sinking fund.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -25543490/

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

It also begs the question of whether state aid rules were breached when Cardiff City Council handed over millions of pounds worth of public owned land to Cardiff City Football Club?

Major difference here my friend as the Council are still owners of the land the stadium is built on and also the council benefits from taxes from the retail park etc.

Big Big difference here.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

Hence why the council have threatened you with legal action. The only reason they have not followed it through is that they stood no chance of getting anything as you as a football club have no assets.

As time goes by you say. Well your in the premier now and that is the real reason the ocuncil have not tightened the screw. I would imagine they are expecting some rent now.

You keep mentioning rent. The only "rent" payable is a peppercorn rent. The other money payable is 1/3 of any profit made by SSMC (as indeed SCFC and The Ospreys would also be entitled to as joint partners).

As quoted in a council report "“The council built the stadium using well-being powers and one of the conditions of those powers is that the primary purpose should not be to raise money. Instead, it should promote or improve well-being.

“Under the joint venture agreement, SSMC pays a peppercorn rent. In addition, the council as shareholder is entitled to a share of any profit made by SSMC once the cost of running the stadium has been met.

“In return, the management and maintenance of the stadium is the responsibility of SSMC. This means the council retains the ownership of the stadium but avoids any financial commitments for its running or maintenance, which saves the council hundreds of thousands of pounds each year."

The only action even being remotely considered by the council is over the sinking fund.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -25543490/

If everything is fine with the financial arrangements why did the council write off the £2.37m mortgage for the stadium fit out.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

And yet again you show a total lack of appreciation of a reasonable return on investment, you also totally ignore the fact that Swansea Council took out a mortgage, value £2.37m, for the fit out of the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium. Quite why things like the electricty supply to the ice machine in the home dressing room were included in this mortgage is open for interpretation, must be this stadium upkeep you keep talking about.

Not a single penny of this £2.37m pounds was repaid to the Council for 5 years and of greater concern no monies to cover the interest was paid either. This matter was picked up by the National Audit office as "Public Money" was being used in a manner which could be seen to be state aid of commercial business. Rather than force the issue of repayment the Council decided to write off the mortgage, £2.37m of public money wiped away while SCFC were receiving a rebate of approx £810k per year from the use of the hospitality areas. Without the benefit of £2.37m of public money the hospitality areas could not be used but having spent public money SCFC get just under £1m a year the Council gert nothing. Thats state aid purely and simple.

Last night the FAW hired the Liberty Stadium, where will that money go? To the landlord? or the same place that the profits from the summer concerts at the Liberty or any other non football event goes.

Talk about sticking your head in the sand Ipswich Town are being faced with this potential winding up order because of a change of political control on the council. As I say keep a good eye on the local elections out west my friend this particular gravy train could change in a heartbeat if the next elections go the wrong way.

Like a dog with a bone over this issue.

If you rented a house of a landlord under the criteria that it was fully furnished and it wasn't, would you expect the landlord to pay to ensure that situation was rectified? Of course you would.

You need to grasp a better understanding of the management set up of SSMC and just what each party is liable for, and entitled to.

And YET AGAIN, I will state that we are paying everything we are legally obliged to pay.

What you always fail to point out with the stadium management agreement is that any upkeep of the stadium is paid for by SSMC which is funded by SCFC and The Ospreys. This means that despite the fact Swansea Council own the stadium, they do not have to pay for its upkeep, something that, as time goes on, I'm sure the council will benefit from greatly.

The only "rent" the council are entitled to is based on any profit made by this company. You can be damn sure that there is far more than £110k per year being spent on the maintenance of the stadium so would it really benefit the council to amend that arrangement? Of course not.

Hence why the council have threatened you with legal action. The only reason they have not followed it through is that they stood no chance of getting anything as you as a football club have no assets.

As time goes by you say. Well your in the premier now and that is the real reason the ocuncil have not tightened the screw. I would imagine they are expecting some rent now.

You keep mentioning rent. The only "rent" payable is a peppercorn rent. The other money payable is 1/3 of any profit made by SSMC (as indeed SCFC and The Ospreys would also be entitled to as joint partners).

As quoted in a council report "“The council built the stadium using well-being powers and one of the conditions of those powers is that the primary purpose should not be to raise money. Instead, it should promote or improve well-being.

“Under the joint venture agreement, SSMC pays a peppercorn rent. In addition, the council as shareholder is entitled to a share of any profit made by SSMC once the cost of running the stadium has been met.

“In return, the management and maintenance of the stadium is the responsibility of SSMC. This means the council retains the ownership of the stadium but avoids any financial commitments for its running or maintenance, which saves the council hundreds of thousands of pounds each year."

The only action even being remotely considered by the council is over the sinking fund.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -25543490/

If everything is fine with the financial arrangements why did the council write off the £2.37m mortgage for the stadium fit out.

As I said in the other post, the council underestimated the cost of fitting out the stadium and therefore had to take out the mortgage to fund the final fit out. If you rented a house, you'd expect everything to be in working order wouldn't you?

And yet again you show a total lack of appreciation of a reasonable return on investment, you also totally ignore the fact that Swansea Council took out a mortgage, value £2.37m, for the fit out of the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium. Quite why things like the electricty supply to the ice machine in the home dressing room were included in this mortgage is open for interpretation, must be this stadium upkeep you keep talking about.

Not a single penny of this £2.37m pounds was repaid to the Council for 5 years and of greater concern no monies to cover the interest was paid either. This matter was picked up by the National Audit office as "Public Money" was being used in a manner which could be seen to be state aid of commercial business. Rather than force the issue of repayment the Council decided to write off the mortgage, £2.37m of public money wiped away while SCFC were receiving a rebate of approx £810k per year from the use of the hospitality areas. Without the benefit of £2.37m of public money the hospitality areas could not be used but having spent public money SCFC get just under £1m a year the Council gert nothing. Thats state aid purely and simple.

Last night the FAW hired the Liberty Stadium, where will that money go? To the landlord? or the same place that the profits from the summer concerts at the Liberty or any other non football event goes.

Talk about sticking your head in the sand Ipswich Town are being faced with this potential winding up order because of a change of political control on the council. As I say keep a good eye on the local elections out west my friend this particular gravy train could change in a heartbeat if the next elections go the wrong way.

Like a dog with a bone over this issue.

If you rented a house of a landlord under the criteria that it was fully furnished and it wasn't, would you expect the landlord to pay to ensure that situation was rectified? Of course you would.

You need to grasp a better understanding of the management set up of SSMC and just what each party is liable for, and entitled to.

I understand the management set of SSMC it sort of akin to the lunatics running the asylum and the only question is how long will the Council allow it to continue. Maybe like Ipswich Town a simple thing like the change in the political party running the council could see a change in attitude to the way the Stadium is being managed.

One thing I hadn't understood until this evening is that SCFC only rent the Liberty Stadium on the basis that it was fully furnished. I have to say I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read that . One thing is certain and I will agree with you on this if you rent a furnished property it will be more expensive than a non furnished property. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whats happening down there, does it

Why did the Council need to pay for the hospitality areas? What benefit has paying £2.37m been to the Council? Who has benefitted the most Swansea Council (Income Zero), or SCFC (Income £4m). The thing is the Council could have decided not to fit out the hospitality areas and it would have made no difference to its income from the Stadium, but SCFC would have lost out on £4m of income. Who are the winners here SCFC and it amounts to state aid.

I am like a dog with a bone and trust me when I say this I understand whats happening out west a lot more than you give me credit for. But trust me again when I tell you it won't last forever.

And yet again you show a total lack of appreciation of a reasonable return on investment, you also totally ignore the fact that Swansea Council took out a mortgage, value £2.37m, for the fit out of the hospitality areas of the Liberty Stadium. Quite why things like the electricty supply to the ice machine in the home dressing room were included in this mortgage is open for interpretation, must be this stadium upkeep you keep talking about.

Not a single penny of this £2.37m pounds was repaid to the Council for 5 years and of greater concern no monies to cover the interest was paid either. This matter was picked up by the National Audit office as "Public Money" was being used in a manner which could be seen to be state aid of commercial business. Rather than force the issue of repayment the Council decided to write off the mortgage, £2.37m of public money wiped away while SCFC were receiving a rebate of approx £810k per year from the use of the hospitality areas. Without the benefit of £2.37m of public money the hospitality areas could not be used but having spent public money SCFC get just under £1m a year the Council gert nothing. Thats state aid purely and simple.

Last night the FAW hired the Liberty Stadium, where will that money go? To the landlord? or the same place that the profits from the summer concerts at the Liberty or any other non football event goes.

Talk about sticking your head in the sand Ipswich Town are being faced with this potential winding up order because of a change of political control on the council. As I say keep a good eye on the local elections out west my friend this particular gravy train could change in a heartbeat if the next elections go the wrong way.

Like a dog with a bone over this issue.

If you rented a house of a landlord under the criteria that it was fully furnished and it wasn't, would you expect the landlord to pay to ensure that situation was rectified? Of course you would.

You need to grasp a better understanding of the management set up of SSMC and just what each party is liable for, and entitled to.

I understand the management set of SSMC it sort of akin to the lunatics running the asylum and the only question is how long will the Council allow it to continue. Maybe like Ipswich Town a simple thing like the change in the political party running the council could see a change in attitude to the way the Stadium is being managed.

One thing I hadn't understood until this evening is that SCFC only rent the Liberty Stadium on the basis that it was fully furnished. I have to say I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read that . One thing is certain and I will agree with you on this if you rent a furnished property it will be more expensive than a non furnished property. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whats happening down there, does it

Why did the Council need to pay for the hospitality areas? What benefit has paying £2.37m been to the Council? Who has benefitted the most Swansea Council (Income Zero), or SCFC (Income £4m). The thing is the Council could have decided not to fit out the hospitality areas and it would have made no difference to its income from the Stadium, but SCFC would have lost out on £4m of income. Who are the winners here SCFC and it amounts to state aid.

I am like a dog with a bone and trust me when I say this I understand whats happening out west a lot more than you give me credit for. But trust me again when I tell you it won't last forever.

I really haven't got the inclination to debate this with you further as we clearly disagree. you've been banging on about this now for god knows how long and unsurprisingly, nothing has happened in relation to what you say the council is owed or is entitled to and seeing as "“The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn." as stated in teh councils own report, nothing will change.

As for claims of "state aid", absolutely pathetic. What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?

I understand the management set of SSMC it sort of akin to the lunatics running the asylum and the only question is how long will the Council allow it to continue. Maybe like Ipswich Town a simple thing like the change in the political party running the council could see a change in attitude to the way the Stadium is being managed.

One thing I hadn't understood until this evening is that SCFC only rent the Liberty Stadium on the basis that it was fully furnished. I have to say I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read that . One thing is certain and I will agree with you on this if you rent a furnished property it will be more expensive than a non furnished property. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whats happening down there, does it

Why did the Council need to pay for the hospitality areas? What benefit has paying £2.37m been to the Council? Who has benefitted the most Swansea Council (Income Zero), or SCFC (Income £4m). The thing is the Council could have decided not to fit out the hospitality areas and it would have made no difference to its income from the Stadium, but SCFC would have lost out on £4m of income. Who are the winners here SCFC and it amounts to state aid.

I am like a dog with a bone and trust me when I say this I understand whats happening out west a lot more than you give me credit for. But trust me again when I tell you it won't last forever.

I really haven't got the inclination to debate this with you further as we clearly disagree. you've been banging on about this now for god knows how long and unsurprisingly, nothing has happened in relation to what you say the council is owed or is entitled to and seeing as "“The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn." as stated in teh councils own report, nothing will change.

As for claims of "state aid", absolutely pathetic. What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?

Game, set and match.

I understand the management set of SSMC it sort of akin to the lunatics running the asylum and the only question is how long will the Council allow it to continue. Maybe like Ipswich Town a simple thing like the change in the political party running the council could see a change in attitude to the way the Stadium is being managed.

One thing I hadn't understood until this evening is that SCFC only rent the Liberty Stadium on the basis that it was fully furnished. I have to say I nearly pissed myself laughing when I read that . One thing is certain and I will agree with you on this if you rent a furnished property it will be more expensive than a non furnished property. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whats happening down there, does it

Why did the Council need to pay for the hospitality areas? What benefit has paying £2.37m been to the Council? Who has benefitted the most Swansea Council (Income Zero), or SCFC (Income £4m). The thing is the Council could have decided not to fit out the hospitality areas and it would have made no difference to its income from the Stadium, but SCFC would have lost out on £4m of income. Who are the winners here SCFC and it amounts to state aid.

I am like a dog with a bone and trust me when I say this I understand whats happening out west a lot more than you give me credit for. But trust me again when I tell you it won't last forever.

I really haven't got the inclination to debate this with you further as we clearly disagree. you've been banging on about this now for god knows how long and unsurprisingly, nothing has happened in relation to what you say the council is owed or is entitled to and seeing as "“The stadium was leased to SSMC under a 50-year lease dated April 22 2005. The basis of the lease is that rent will be payable at 30% of any distribution of profits from SSMC, plus a peppercorn." as stated in teh councils own report, nothing will change.

As for claims of "state aid", absolutely pathetic. What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?

Game, set and match.

In your head, not in reality. Just because I can't be arsed to pander to your drivel doesn't mean you've won an argument ffs

I see you've not bothered responding to "What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?" Shocking.

In your head, not in reality. Just because I can't be arsed to pander to your drivel doesn't mean you've won an argument ffs

I see you've not bothered responding to "What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?" Shocking.

[/quote]

No inclination to debate, can't br arsed and yet your back for more.

Now your either a last word merchant or a dog with a bone. Which one is it.

In your head, not in reality. Just because I can't be arsed to pander to your drivel doesn't mean you've won an argument ffs

I see you've not bothered responding to "What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?" Shocking.

No inclination to debate, can't br arsed and yet your back for more.

Now your either a last word merchant or a dog with a bone. Which one is it. [/quote]

I've no inclination to debate the Liberty Stadium situation any further as you clearly hold a ridiculous view that even the bare fact won't change. I'm offering you the chance for the last word by answering the question on the land gift to CCFC which you've twice declined to reply to.

In your head, not in reality. Just because I can't be arsed to pander to your drivel doesn't mean you've won an argument ffs

I see you've not bothered responding to "What benefit was there to Cardiff Council in gifting the use of the land the CCS is built on to its taxpayers?" Shocking.

No inclination to debate, can't br arsed and yet your back for more.

Now your either a last word merchant or a dog with a bone. Which one is it.

I've no inclination to debate the Liberty Stadium situation any further as you clearly hold a ridiculous view that even the bare fact won't change. I'm offering you the chance for the last word by answering the question on the land gift to CCFC which you've twice declined to reply to.[/quote]

Try and keep up my friend I've already given my opinion on that, but lets face it your assertion here is complete nonsense and only offered to muddy the waters.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Leade ... story.html

Still confident nothing will change with the Stadium should say Labour win control of Swansea Council.

Try and keep up my friend I've already given my opinion on that, but lets face it your assertion here is complete nonsense and only offered to muddy the waters.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Leade ... story.html

Still confident nothing will change with the Stadium should say Labour win control of Swansea Council.

Really? Can you point me to where you answer how Council tax payers of Cardiff benefit from the gift of the use of land to CCFC?

And yes, I'm perfectly confident thanks. Legally binding agreements are just that.

Try and keep up my friend I've already given my opinion on that, but lets face it your assertion here is complete nonsense and only offered to muddy the waters.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Leade ... story.html

Still confident nothing will change with the Stadium should say Labour win control of Swansea Council.

Really? Can you point me to where you answer how Council tax payers of Cardiff benefit from the gift of the use of land to CCFC?

And yes, I'm perfectly confident thanks. Legally binding agreements are just that.

The answer your looking for is there just keep looking.

Something we agree on at last as legally binding agreements are just that, but what happens when they are not being honoured.