When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
10:51am Saturday 11th April 2009 in News Review
By Peter Law, Feature Writer
SOUTHAMPTON City Council IS in negotiations to buy St Mary’s Stadium, the Daily Echo can exclusively reveal.
Council chiefs have met with the administrator trying to sell Saints to see if the stadium could be sold at a knock down price and then leased back to the club.
It is understood the council is one of four serious bidders for the 32,600-seat stadium, which could be sold for about £10m.
But council bosses have stressed they will not invest any public money in the club itself – it is just seeking to buy the stadium as an asset for the city.
The Daily Echo first revealed the prospect of the council buying St Mary’s ten days ago after the club’s parent c o m p a n y , S o u t h a m p t o n Leisure Holdings Plc, went into administration with debts of around £30m.
There have since been at least 34 separate approaches to buy the club.
Councillor Royston Smith, deputy leader of the council, confirmed he had met with the administrator Mar Fry on an informal basis and discussed the idea.
Finance chiefs from the council will now get involved in talks to see what figures are involved.
Cllr Smith said: “We have not ruled it out and have been looking to see whether or not it’s financially viable. We are asking for the figures and will then look to see what the ground does, or could potentially generate, and will make a decision based on that.
“We want to do all we can to support the club and take it forward, but we have categorically said we will not put taxpayers’ money at risk by putting any money into the club.”
If the council did go ahead with a purchase, the stadium would be leased back for use by the club but would also be used for other events and purposes like conferences.
Cllr Smith added: “We would want it to have as many uses as possible. We would look at protecting and extending our CCTV capability, making more use of the conference facilities and looking at whether maybe the car park could be utilised in other ways.”
It’s thought that one radical scheme to recoup the cost could be to build a multistorey development above the stadium’s car park.
While the ground level car park would remain available on match days, the site could be converted into shops and flats.
The dramatic development could lead to further regeneration of surrounding areas, with the council also looking to sell off the nearby town depot site to private developers.
The council could also boost its coffers by hiring out the stadium for concerts, with the four events it currently has permission for every year capable of generating up to £1m profit annually.
As reported, some of the biggest names in music – including Take That, Rod Stewart and The Eagles – were in talks to stage concerts at St Mary’s this summer, but had to be abandoned because Saints could not guarantee the stadium being open for business.
Norwich Union, who are owed £24m for the mortgage on the stadium, are widely thought to want to cut their losses on the project.
A council source said: “At the moment there is a book price for the stadium, a Norwich Union price and then a realistic market value and that is what we are trying to establish.”
The purchase would be funded either by taking out a loan or by selling council assets.
The development comes after fans last week called on the city council to sell off some of its £150m of artworks to raise cash to buy the stadium.
Comments(72)
saint Compo
says...
11:07am Sat 11 Apr 09
Boris Remmington wrote:You don't even live in Southampton, so have no financial interest in this proposal by Southampton City Council.
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
Millbrook Dave
says...
11:22am Sat 11 Apr 09
saint Compo wrote:EXACTLY SO KEEP OUT OF IT.I'M SURE THERE ARE REALLY EXCITING THINGS HAPPENING IN WELLOW YOU CAN COMMENT ON INSTEAD!!
Boris Remmington wrote: A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White ElephantYou don't even live in Southampton, so have no financial interest in this proposal by Southampton City Council.
SF76
says...
11:33am Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike
says...
11:40am Sat 11 Apr 09
Boris Remmington
says...
11:41am Sat 11 Apr 09
juan101
says...
11:50am Sat 11 Apr 09
juan101
says...
11:52am Sat 11 Apr 09
teamgreen
says...
11:52am Sat 11 Apr 09
juliusevola
says...
11:54am Sat 11 Apr 09
Neilsaintsfan
says...
11:55am Sat 11 Apr 09
normsted
says...
11:55am Sat 11 Apr 09
Iw61
says...
11:59am Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike
says...
12:00pm Sat 11 Apr 09
SF76
says...
12:01pm Sat 11 Apr 09
UTS
says...
12:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike
says...
12:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Bright Spark
says...
12:09pm Sat 11 Apr 09
bunneymen
says...
12:10pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Boris Remmington wrote:Votes don't count in Soton though, as seen recently in the childrens teeth debate. Glad to see the council setting a precedent for all the other failed businesses in the City though. Put the athletics track round the car park? flood and freeze the pitch for ice skating when there isn't a match on? if the council is so concerned about dual use their are already plenty of empty buildings to use as the football team would not allow the pitch to be used for anything else. If the council is so socially conscious on this issue perhaps they could introduce as well the long waited for, previously vowed free passage on the Itchen Bridge. I know who will never get my vote should this ever happen, and I am one of the minority who always votes.
A referendum with the rate payers should be held....
Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
SF76
says...
12:12pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike wrote:Precisely, which is why it'd be such a feather in the Tories cap to be the ones "that saved Saints". They shouldn't be in power by rights - they're only there because Labour are so bad.
It does not matter what political party run the council, Im sure the labour would be doing the same, as long as the stadium is bought who cares what colour party it is, from the minute they sign the cheque they will always be red & white
thesaint
says...
12:16pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Bright Spark wrote:it was hampshire council and not our council,thats why i was glad we took back our powers from those idiots.
Don't forget that it was the Conservatives who vetoed the Stoneham Lane Stadium (where the new ground SHOULD have been built) proposals at the eleventh hour. Maybe they want to turn St Mary's into more flats and a shopping centre.
thesaint
says...
12:19pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike wrote:its a good idea,full marks to the tory council looking after the city interests rather than playing politics,could be used for local people and regular concerts.
The elected members of the council have a duty to act in the best interests of the people of the city, referendums cost money to run, rate payers money wasted on a no brainer, the council should BUY the stadium for the people of the city, we have lost our shipbuilding industry, our car manufacturing is in decline, our docks are not the gateway to the world they once were, to lose our football club would be devastating, the stadium owned by the people of the city would only benefit the city, someone will buy the football Im sure of that, but the stadium purchase will the key to that, so lets not waste time debating should or shouldn't they buy it. let get on and buy now, if the people of the city dont like it then they can vote the elected members out, at the next local elections
Saints Mike
says...
12:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09
bunneymen wrote:I vote as well, let just fofget the political points, if your interested in buying the football club, then surely not having 24 million quid stadium debt as part of the deal is only a good thing, Norwich Union will proberbly right most of that off but theres no guarantee of that, I fully support the idea, even if I dont support the party in power. As for a council and social conscious. I dont think those three words can be used in the same sentence
Boris Remmington wrote: A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White ElephantVotes don't count in Soton though, as seen recently in the childrens teeth debate. Glad to see the council setting a precedent for all the other failed businesses in the City though. Put the athletics track round the car park? flood and freeze the pitch for ice skating when there isn't a match on? if the council is so concerned about dual use their are already plenty of empty buildings to use as the football team would not allow the pitch to be used for anything else. If the council is so socially conscious on this issue perhaps they could introduce as well the long waited for, previously vowed free passage on the Itchen Bridge. I know who will never get my vote should this ever happen, and I am one of the minority who always votes.
thesaint
says...
12:22pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike wrote:i agree i have no problems with southampton tories. i would be more worried if hampshire or romsey tories were involved because they are muppets.
It does not matter what political party run the council, Im sure the labour would be doing the same, as long as the stadium is bought who cares what colour party it is, from the minute they sign the cheque they will always be red & white
goard
says...
12:34pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike
says...
12:37pm Sat 11 Apr 09
thesaint wrote:Maybe Im being a bit cynical but I look at it this way, Councillors Royston Smith & Jeremy Moulton are both Tory candidates for Southampton at the next general election (2010) Deputy Leader of Southampton council is at present Royston Smith, Cabinet member in charge of finance for Southampton council is Jeremy Moulton, local football stadium needs buying (2009), tory buy it for the city, City voters (Saints fan) remember who saved their stadium (2009) and elect, said councillor to be cities MPs in 2010 general election, Cynical I may be but as long as the stadium is bought who cares?
Saints Mike wrote: It does not matter what political party run the council, Im sure the labour would be doing the same, as long as the stadium is bought who cares what colour party it is, from the minute they sign the cheque they will always be red & whitei agree i have no problems with southampton tories. i would be more worried if hampshire or romsey tories were involved because they are muppets.
dannyfloyd
says...
12:44pm Sat 11 Apr 09
dannyfloyd
says...
1:02pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Saints Mike
says...
1:09pm Sat 11 Apr 09
dannyfloyd wrote:Maybe Woolworths today, but M&S on Tuesday, who knows what the future holds, but if the council does the stadium, then none of the stores mentioned will be seen in Britainnia Rd that for sure.
just some light hearted fun... man u is tesco chelsea is sainsburys liverpool is of course asda portsmouth is poundstore and saints... gotta be woolworths...
Saints Mike
says...
1:11pm Sat 11 Apr 09
gorf
says...
1:15pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Tobeblunt
says...
1:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Boris Remmington wrote:I fully agree, another white elephant paid for by us and run by the council, only to have the money wasted once more.
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
huckit P
says...
1:26pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Rob444
says...
1:34pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Stafford Saint
says...
1:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09
moominpapa
says...
1:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Traceyf
says...
2:19pm Sat 11 Apr 09
San Marco
says...
2:31pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Family Man
says...
3:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09
mastershot100
says...
4:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09
thesaint
says...
4:47pm Sat 11 Apr 09
huckit P wrote:the club will be run has a private business nothing to do with council,the council will buy the ground and expect i private business will run the concerts and conferences.
I am extremely happy that my rates will not go towards purchasing the SFC Stadium. (I would move if they were) It will lose the council millions of pounds even though they say that public funds will not be used. If public funds are not used how will they purchase it? Borrow the money? Who will pay the interest? Will players salaries be restricted to the level of local government workers? Ridiculous situation - let's face it - SFC is finished!
c0rsa28
says...
4:48pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Jesus_02
says...
4:53pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Family Man wrote:For those that dont know thw satadium is already used for local initiavive that are partially finded by the club. for example after school lession is the perpose built IT suite for children with learning dificulties.
Unless the SMS is going to be used for wide variety of uses that benefit the taxpayers as a whole rather than a mionority or a very limited section of society, I for one would object very strongly if the council spent my taxes on the purchase. What Southampton needs is a multi-purpose venue to attract top bands, top sports, not just a third division football club, wide interest exhibitions, and conferences so that Southampton (it already has the hotels...) could compete with the likes of Bournemouth, Brighton, and yes, even London and Birmingham. Nothing wrong with the aspiration, but I doubt that the SMS could be adapted for such use. And given that a football side only has about 23 home games a year in whatever league, that is not VFM for the other 342 days of the year when it stands empty and largely unused!
desirodave
says...
5:13pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Karen Southampton
says...
5:27pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Jesus_02
says...
5:30pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Karen Southampton wrote:what are you intreste din Karen
As long as I don't have to pay for it through my council tax - I am not interested in football
Interserie
says...
5:31pm Sat 11 Apr 09
mastershot100 wrote:At the rate Saints are going down the pan, they're only going to need the ground at Marchwood.
What would happen to the old Road-Sea sporting and training complex at Marchwood? At this moment in time it is still owned by the Saints.If the council do buy St.Marys at a bargin price would Marchwood become HQ to the Saints?All they will need at St. Marys is the offices.
Jesus_02
says...
5:33pm Sat 11 Apr 09
desirodave wrote:I like tha art gallery, an dim rightly proud of it. Hoiwever you cant say that it gets 20k every other saturday!
So Southampton City might buy the Saints Stadium. Its nice to know they can find the money for this but not enough to pay their staff to keep tourist attractions open Sundays (City Art Gallery, Maritime Museum and the Museum of Archaeology) and lets not forget the council tax :- They agreed a council tax rise of 2.94 per cent. But their spending plans axed 128 jobs and contained a raft of cuts, savings, and higher charges to plug a massive £11.2m black hole in the £179m budget. So im pleased Southampton City has its priority's right
greystonesben
says...
6:04pm Sat 11 Apr 09
pugwash
says...
6:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09
Boris Remmington
says...
10:00pm Sat 11 Apr 09
seagullsaint
says...
10:58pm Sat 11 Apr 09
IanRRR
says...
11:13pm Sat 11 Apr 09
thesaint
says...
12:01am Sun 12 Apr 09
greystonesben wrote:you got to remember we have some thick posters who do not understand economics and investment .
There really are some muppets on this thread. Boris, tobeblunt and Huckit P being the ones that stand out.
You obviously havent read the article clearly, or if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it.
I will put it in lamen terms just for you guys. SFC was and still is at the moment owned by a parent company. This parent company owns the club as an asset. Another seperate asset is St Mary's. The Parent company is the thing which is in administration, not specifically the stadium or even the club. The stadium which the council is proposing to buy (NOT THE CLUB) would be a wise investment.
Yes it will cost money to buy, but by leasing it back to the new owner of the club, they will get regular income by the way of rent. They will also make seperate income from avenues such as using it as a concert stadium location, renting out the offices and function rooms etc.
People saying it is stupid to pump money into something which will lose money are morons who do not understand what is happening. I would urge you to refrain from commenting on something you clearly do not understand. The council buying the stadium would only be a good thing because it wont take long for them to make their initial investment back (if the rumoured price of £10m-£12m is to be believed) and then make clear profit on the initial investment.
The council will have a very lucrative income stream which can surely only be a good thing for the community. I hope I have explained this as simply as possible for you to understand!
Final word for Goard - are you even on the same planet as us? Your posts make no sense and have no relevance to other posts or indeed even the main article!
Vonnie
says...
12:21am Sun 12 Apr 09
Martin Orford
says...
9:09am Sun 12 Apr 09
Condor Man
says...
9:24am Sun 12 Apr 09
Boris Remmington wrote:I'd rather the council buy the stadium, too much money is spent on social services. People should put in more than they take out.
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
Feeling Blue
says...
10:09am Sun 12 Apr 09
SF76
says...
10:15am Sun 12 Apr 09
Feeling Blue wrote:Ha Ha, only a Skate could say something like that and keep a straight face.
Solves one problem , all councils now have to provide a Pikey camp, SMS should fit the bill nicely.
Tobeblunt
says...
12:02pm Sun 12 Apr 09
thesaint wrote:And you have to remember that there are some of us on here that don't have their eyes clouded over by a stupid overpaid game and clearly see that money is being wasted when the council is making cuts to jobs and services. You didn't see our councils nationaly trying to save woolworths yet that name was a high street icon.
greystonesben wrote: There really are some muppets on this thread. Boris, tobeblunt and Huckit P being the ones that stand out. You obviously havent read the article clearly, or if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it. I will put it in lamen terms just for you guys. SFC was and still is at the moment owned by a parent company. This parent company owns the club as an asset. Another seperate asset is St Mary's. The Parent company is the thing which is in administration, not specifically the stadium or even the club. The stadium which the council is proposing to buy (NOT THE CLUB) would be a wise investment. Yes it will cost money to buy, but by leasing it back to the new owner of the club, they will get regular income by the way of rent. They will also make seperate income from avenues such as using it as a concert stadium location, renting out the offices and function rooms etc. People saying it is stupid to pump money into something which will lose money are morons who do not understand what is happening. I would urge you to refrain from commenting on something you clearly do not understand. The council buying the stadium would only be a good thing because it wont take long for them to make their initial investment back (if the rumoured price of £10m-£12m is to be believed) and then make clear profit on the initial investment. The council will have a very lucrative income stream which can surely only be a good thing for the community. I hope I have explained this as simply as possible for you to understand! Final word for Goard - are you even on the same planet as us? Your posts make no sense and have no relevance to other posts or indeed even the main article!you got to remember we have some thick posters who do not understand economics and investment .
robhythe
says...
12:12pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Tobeblunt wrote:you dont obviously have any pride in your city, and have a hatred for football and anything else that can be held at ST Marys for the PEOPLE! Great asset i reckon!!
thesaint wrote:And you have to remember that there are some of us on here that don't have their eyes clouded over by a stupid overpaid game and clearly see that money is being wasted when the council is making cuts to jobs and services. You didn't see our councils nationaly trying to save woolworths yet that name was a high street icon.greystonesben wrote: There really are some muppets on this thread. Boris, tobeblunt and Huckit P being the ones that stand out. You obviously havent read the article clearly, or if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it. I will put it in lamen terms just for you guys. SFC was and still is at the moment owned by a parent company. This parent company owns the club as an asset. Another seperate asset is St Mary's. The Parent company is the thing which is in administration, not specifically the stadium or even the club. The stadium which the council is proposing to buy (NOT THE CLUB) would be a wise investment. Yes it will cost money to buy, but by leasing it back to the new owner of the club, they will get regular income by the way of rent. They will also make seperate income from avenues such as using it as a concert stadium location, renting out the offices and function rooms etc. People saying it is stupid to pump money into something which will lose money are morons who do not understand what is happening. I would urge you to refrain from commenting on something you clearly do not understand. The council buying the stadium would only be a good thing because it wont take long for them to make their initial investment back (if the rumoured price of £10m-£12m is to be believed) and then make clear profit on the initial investment. The council will have a very lucrative income stream which can surely only be a good thing for the community. I hope I have explained this as simply as possible for you to understand! Final word for Goard - are you even on the same planet as us? Your posts make no sense and have no relevance to other posts or indeed even the main article!you got to remember we have some thick posters who do not understand economics and investment .
Tobeblunt
says...
6:24pm Sun 12 Apr 09
robhythe wrote:How can anyone have pride in this city when it's run by bafoons wasting money on white elephants and taking away support from people who truly deserve it
Tobeblunt wrote:you dont obviously have any pride in your city, and have a hatred for football and anything else that can be held at ST Marys for the PEOPLE! Great asset i reckon!!thesaint wrote:And you have to remember that there are some of us on here that don't have their eyes clouded over by a stupid overpaid game and clearly see that money is being wasted when the council is making cuts to jobs and services. You didn't see our councils nationaly trying to save woolworths yet that name was a high street icon.greystonesben wrote: There really are some muppets on this thread. Boris, tobeblunt and Huckit P being the ones that stand out. You obviously havent read the article clearly, or if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it. I will put it in lamen terms just for you guys. SFC was and still is at the moment owned by a parent company. This parent company owns the club as an asset. Another seperate asset is St Mary's. The Parent company is the thing which is in administration, not specifically the stadium or even the club. The stadium which the council is proposing to buy (NOT THE CLUB) would be a wise investment. Yes it will cost money to buy, but by leasing it back to the new owner of the club, they will get regular income by the way of rent. They will also make seperate income from avenues such as using it as a concert stadium location, renting out the offices and function rooms etc. People saying it is stupid to pump money into something which will lose money are morons who do not understand what is happening. I would urge you to refrain from commenting on something you clearly do not understand. The council buying the stadium would only be a good thing because it wont take long for them to make their initial investment back (if the rumoured price of £10m-£12m is to be believed) and then make clear profit on the initial investment. The council will have a very lucrative income stream which can surely only be a good thing for the community. I hope I have explained this as simply as possible for you to understand! Final word for Goard - are you even on the same planet as us? Your posts make no sense and have no relevance to other posts or indeed even the main article!you got to remember we have some thick posters who do not understand economics and investment .
Pedant
says...
6:55pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Condor Man
says...
8:09pm Sun 12 Apr 09
fuzzyfelt
says...
9:52pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Invidia
says...
10:07pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Condor Man
says...
10:43pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Invidia
says...
10:51pm Sun 12 Apr 09
Condor Man
says...
12:26am Mon 13 Apr 09
Invidia wrote:really?
"Ne'er do wells" We've not had Ne'er do wells since the Victorian times!! I would rather the Council tax went on housing the unmarried mothers and imigrants than just waste it
Iw61
says...
7:59am Mon 13 Apr 09
pqp
says...
4:18pm Mon 13 Apr 09
BertCatt
says...
11:45pm Mon 13 Apr 09
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Boris Remmington says...
10:54am Sat 11 Apr 09
Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant