News Review RSS Feed


Local authority a serious contender to buy Southampton FC's ground

St Mary's Stadium St Mary's Stadium

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)

Boris Remmington says...
10:54am Sat 11 Apr 09

A referendum with the rate payers should be held....
Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant

saint Compo says...
11:07am Sat 11 Apr 09

Boris Remmington wrote:
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
You don't even live in Southampton, so have no financial interest in this proposal by Southampton City Council.


Millbrook Dave says...
11:22am Sat 11 Apr 09

saint Compo wrote:
Boris Remmington wrote: A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
You don't even live in Southampton, so have no financial interest in this proposal by Southampton City Council.
EXACTLY SO KEEP OUT OF IT.I'M SURE THERE ARE REALLY EXCITING THINGS HAPPENING IN WELLOW YOU CAN COMMENT ON INSTEAD!!

SF76 says...
11:33am Sat 11 Apr 09

I applauded the Conservative run council if they are indeed genuine in this endeavour. This aquisition is in the interests of the city of Southampton.

Make no mistake the fortunes of SFC do have an impact on the fortunes of the city for myriad reasons.

Saints Mike says...
11:40am Sat 11 Apr 09

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

Boris Remmington says...
11:41am Sat 11 Apr 09

Wellow does have a football pitch if SFC need to use in the future

juan101 says...
11:50am Sat 11 Apr 09

I think this could solve a lot of the financial problems if the City Council bought the stadium. I believe that the councils in Doncaster and Hull played prominent roles in the financing of new stadiums. Nine years ago Hull City were on the very edge of extinction but now look at them! Also, there are examples of clubs leasing stadiums from local councils (eg Juventus, I believe). So the idea is workable and, if it benefits the community, I think the City Council should buy St Mary's. It could become a venue for pop music and other events as well as football. I think the vast majority of people in the City would approve. This council has had so much stick recently, it would be good to see it doing something positive.

juan101 says...
11:52am Sat 11 Apr 09

PS to Boris. With a name like that are you the Mayor of Wellow?

teamgreen says...
11:52am Sat 11 Apr 09

the football players should take a wage cut and bring them more in line with the rest of us then the money saved could be used to purchase it.if they dont want that then sell them off and the ground too and turn it into something better for southampton that everyone can use

juliusevola says...
11:54am Sat 11 Apr 09

If this story is correct it is a visionary move by the council.The Conservatives have my vote next time if it goes through !!!!

Neilsaintsfan says...
11:55am Sat 11 Apr 09

But if a big money person (like this 7th richest man in the world) comes in to buy the club, would he also not want to buy the stadium? i hope the buyers of the club will have the 1st choice to buy SMS alao.

normsted says...
11:55am Sat 11 Apr 09

Go for it

Iw61 says...
11:59am Sat 11 Apr 09

Clever Tories. Is this where they will put the Ice Rink?

Saints Mike says...
12:00pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Question to Boris
Where is Wellow?
I remember driving through it once, I blinked and I missed it.

SF76 says...
12:01pm Sat 11 Apr 09

I have emailed David Cameron to urge him to endorse this proposal to the city council. I would urge others to contact thier local councillors and Southampton Conservatives.

This is not only a move that would benefit the city of southampton, but a move that would give the Socialists a bloody nose at the next general election!

UTS says...
12:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09

It certainly would give the council some investment return thats for sure.


Saints Mike says...
12:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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

Bright Spark says...
12:09pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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.

bunneymen says...
12:10pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Boris Remmington wrote:
A referendum with the rate payers should be held....
Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
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.

SF76 says...
12:12pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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 & white
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.

Who knows, perhaps this single action could change the colour of the political map for years to come.

It'd be a wise move for them in my opinion.

thesaint says...
12:16pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Bright Spark wrote:
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.
it was hampshire council and not our council,thats why i was glad we took back our powers from those idiots.

thesaint says...
12:19pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Saints Mike wrote:
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
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.

Saints Mike says...
12:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09

bunneymen wrote:
Boris Remmington wrote: A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
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.
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

thesaint says...
12:22pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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 & white
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.

goard says...
12:34pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Pie in the sky you lot. If you ruled the world... indeed if you were the deciding factor - HOW WOULD YOU ALL AGREE? its business, how would you all fare, can you come to terms with your next door neighbour -NO YOU WOULD NOT AGREE.

GOARD

Saints Mike says...
12:37pm Sat 11 Apr 09

thesaint wrote:
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 & white
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.
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?

dannyfloyd says...
12:44pm Sat 11 Apr 09

as someone who runs a local company i can say for sure that southamptons down fall has had a massively negative effect on business in the city. some of my clients have been recently entertained in other prem clubs. if the likes of man u etc were coming to sms it would help me no end. also, how many jobs would a succesful club offer compared to now. even the likes of flybe may move to a higer profile city. it sounds like pie in the sky but i can see the negative impact this is all having.

dannyfloyd says...
1:02pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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...
1:09pm Sat 11 Apr 09

dannyfloyd wrote:
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...
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.

Saints Mike says...
1:11pm Sat 11 Apr 09

If that lot down the road are the poundstore, surely thats got to be a Buy One Get One Free store

gorf says...
1:15pm Sat 11 Apr 09

the WOW factor has been found!

how about using it as a propper stadium...ie concerts and dog racing outside of the football season?

Tobeblunt says...
1:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Boris Remmington wrote:
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
I fully agree, another white elephant paid for by us and run by the council, only to have the money wasted once more.

As a tax payer I have the right to vote against this pathetic idea. Money would be better off being used in helping more deserving people than keeping a grass pitch for over paid fottballers

huckit P says...
1:26pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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!

Rob444 says...
1:34pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Expect more vote getting moves like this from the tories during the next 12 months.

People seem to look upon council (and general) elections like some kind of popularity contest, to be won by whichever party can come up with the most popular ideas.

Don't be fooled again!





Stafford Saint says...
1:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Someone made a good comment on another thread that refers to this that I wish to add to the debate. The potential of the stadium to have other uses and gain revenue outside matchday money is NOT dependent on the stadium being owed by someone that does not own the club. That includes the council. If we assume that the stadium is a potentially profit generating asset, then I would imagine that a potential owner of the club would want to own the stadium (debt included). They would probably be as capable as the council or another to put the stadium to use other than football. There are now obstacles to concerts, other sports, conference and wedding etc uses in place that I know of. More importantly they would want those revenues made. Much as I don't wish to deny the council money, but the fans concern is about the club getting revenue.
With this revenue stream removed the club owners would be totally dependent on matchday, merchandise and sponsorship to survive. Regardless of the reasons, it has to be accepted that the attendance is not reliable! Without the stadium revenue, the next owners might have to accept that at times the club will be a loss making enterprise that they will finance out of their own wealth.

moominpapa says...
1:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Thats nice a private box for the corrupt councillors to entertain their next "client"

Traceyf says...
2:19pm Sat 11 Apr 09

This is good news for the short to medium term if it happens but should Saints eventually gain promotion back to the premier league will SSC invest in any necessary expansion on the stadium?

San Marco says...
2:31pm Sat 11 Apr 09

I see all the little tories are re-emerging now that the collapse of Thatcherism is getting rid of New Labour.

Football is in the mess it is in largely because of the inequalities caused by, and the financial skullduggery of, Thatcherite tories (eg Ruperts Murdoch and Lowe). If there really was any socialism in this country little twerps like Ronaldo wouldn't be 'earning' the obscene sums that they do and Rupert Murdoch might actually pay a penny or two of tax in the UK...

Family Man says...
3:05pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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!

mastershot100 says...
4:46pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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.

thesaint says...
4:47pm Sat 11 Apr 09

huckit P wrote:
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!
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.

c0rsa28 says...
4:48pm Sat 11 Apr 09

would they throw money at the club like a proper investor though????

security word: poor-shop lol

Jesus_02 says...
4:53pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Family Man wrote:
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!
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.

The club is part of the comunity as is the cricket team, art gallery, sports centre and golf course.

desirodave says...
5:13pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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

Karen Southampton says...
5:27pm Sat 11 Apr 09

As long as I don't have to pay for it through my council tax - I am not interested in football

Jesus_02 says...
5:30pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Karen Southampton wrote:
As long as I don't have to pay for it through my council tax - I am not interested in football
what are you intreste din Karen

Interserie says...
5:31pm Sat 11 Apr 09

mastershot100 wrote:
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.
At the rate Saints are going down the pan, they're only going to need the ground at Marchwood.

It should be fine for the level of football the Saints will be playing in by 2010.

Wessex League here we come !!!

Jesus_02 says...
5:33pm Sat 11 Apr 09

desirodave wrote:
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
I like tha art gallery, an dim rightly proud of it. Hoiwever you cant say that it gets 20k every other saturday!

Any way at least you lot got christmas lights this year!!

greystonesben says...
6:04pm Sat 11 Apr 09

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!

pugwash says...
6:20pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Having lived near Coventry for 20 yrs.,it was interesting to follow their route from Highfield Rd.,to the Ricoh Arena.They sold Highfield Rd., and spent the proceeds on players and eventually had to move out of Highfield Rd.,along with debts of £37m. and vitually no assets(which puts the Saints problems into perspective!)The only way out for them was that the city council built and owned the Ricoh,and the only income Coventry had came from selling tickets and pies and renting the Ricoh from the council.When SISU took over the club,one of the first moves they made was to buy half the stadium for a lot less than half the cost of building it.
So it seems to me if the council buy the stadium for a reduced price for now,there would no reason why the club could not buy its way back to owning the stadium at a later date when things improve....Unless of course one of the serious investors could afford to buy the stadium too.

Boris Remmington says...
10:00pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Omtimists, how about naming anything that the council run successfully?

seagullsaint says...
10:58pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Could not agree more with Greystone. Some idiots have not got a clue. I am assuming Goard and a few others had been at the sherry before posting !

Bottom line is , correctly managed and bought for a knock down price, SMS would be a wonderful asset for my City, Southampton.

If insolvency takes over, it will become another block of flats, never to be re-built as community use.

This is the reality. What sort of place to you want Southampton to be?

IanRRR says...
11:13pm Sat 11 Apr 09

Fantastic news, except that by declaring a public interest, Norwich Union will probably want more money from SCC, than they would have settled for elsewhere... Where is Paramjit today? Surely he must have a tory bashing view on today of all days? For me THE TORIES WILL BE LONG STANDING HEROS for doing this. About 40000 others will also agree. Brilliant news and brilliant politics. COYR.

thesaint says...
12:01am Sun 12 Apr 09

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 .

Vonnie says...
12:21am Sun 12 Apr 09

There are three issues here, and some contributors, and the Echo, have successfully muddied the waters to the point where the issues have become totally confused. Good politics, that, and it sells papers.

Issue 1. Southampton Football Club and it's need for a sponsor in order to carry on as a Club.

Issue 2 The Receivership of the Parent company and the latter's debts and mortgages.

Issue 3. The sale of assets at present owned by the parent company in order to pay off said debts. eg. the Stadium, the training ground, the farm, etc.

Obviously, there are overlaps with all three issues and solving one will not solve them all.

My view. I am totally opposed to Southampton City Council being involved at all, but then I am just a Council Tax payer !

On the one hand, SCC are telling us that this year it has to make cuts in basic and non statutory services and staff (ie sports centres) in order to make ends meet, and on the other it is also now telling us that it can afford to put in a bid for one of Southampton FC's parent company's assets. Is that not contradictory? What is SCC's true agenda? More likely that it wants the office space rather than any support for SFC.

Martin Orford says...
9:09am Sun 12 Apr 09

I'm Southampton born and bred but it shames me to see how other cities have facilities and attractions way beyond anything we can offer. If the City Council isn't going to save the football ground I wonder what exactly they would spend money on, as it's the only decent facility Southampton's got. Even the cricket ground is in Eastleigh.

Condor Man says...
9:24am Sun 12 Apr 09

Boris Remmington wrote:
A referendum with the rate payers should be held.... Provide more Social Services or buy a White Elephant
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.

Feeling Blue says...
10:09am Sun 12 Apr 09

Solves one problem , all councils now have to provide a Pikey camp, SMS should fit the bill nicely.

SF76 says...
10:15am Sun 12 Apr 09

Feeling Blue wrote:
Solves one problem , all councils now have to provide a Pikey camp, SMS should fit the bill nicely.
Ha Ha, only a Skate could say something like that and keep a straight face.

Gypooooooooos.

Tobeblunt says...
12:02pm Sun 12 Apr 09

thesaint wrote:
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 .
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.

robhythe says...
12:12pm Sun 12 Apr 09

Tobeblunt wrote:
thesaint wrote:
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 .
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.
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!!

Tobeblunt says...
6:24pm Sun 12 Apr 09

robhythe wrote:
Tobeblunt wrote:
thesaint wrote:
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 .
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.
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!!
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

Pedant says...
6:55pm Sun 12 Apr 09

I understand how emotions run high in this matter but I wonder what advice city councillors are getting. I would think they might be asked to consider what the City might do with the stadium if the football club was unable to pay the rent, or went into administration. It would appear that 20,000+ paying for admission for 23 days a year PLUS all the spin offs, corporate, office rents, conferences etc. would be sufficient. But the PLC didn`t appear to have paid off much of the debt with Premiership income and how does this all stack up if the football club was in Division 2 or worse. I don`t know how many pop concerts etc one would need to keep the stadium afloat and I believe there is some doubt as to whether the land could be used for residential, contaminated? It could be a good investment....but on the other hand...????

Condor Man says...
8:09pm Sun 12 Apr 09

The council should ditch the white elephant that is Eastpoint, especially given that the funding for the rebuild at Itchen College has all but disappeared and use the 4 suites at SMS for corporate functions. After all it's a much more desirable location that a dilapidated old school on a sink estate.

fuzzyfelt says...
9:52pm Sun 12 Apr 09

the salons would miss the custom if saints go .......

Invidia says...
10:07pm Sun 12 Apr 09

I have read most of the posts on this subject, that is the more intelligent posts that is.
I would have thought that if SCC bought the stadium it would be a very good investment for the Council, on the other hand for SFC it would be a very costly bit of business, My knowledge of council owned assets rented out are very costly they would expect the maintenance, groundsmen, all the employees, in fact all costs to be met by the hirer, and as someone pointed out earlier that SLH (SFC) could not meet the outstanding mortgage payments and running costs even with gate receipts Parachute payments, television, etc. So how would they afford the rent especially as they will be in Div 1 next season. If the council let SFC hire the stadium at a peppercorn rent, then it may be a feasible solution but I would have thought that many rate payers would be unhappy about this

Condor Man says...
10:43pm Sun 12 Apr 09

rate payers? we've not had rates since the late 80's!

As a council tax payer I'd rather the council spend money on an asset like the stadium than waste it on ne'er do wells.

Invidia says...
10:51pm Sun 12 Apr 09

"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

Condor Man says...
12:26am Mon 13 Apr 09

Invidia wrote:
"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
really?

I'd rather live in a city where we recognise and reward achievement, dynamism and hard work. I'd rather my taxes went to providing my sons with something to be proud of rather than encouraging people who offer nothing to society. So what if it costs a lot of money, Southampton is not just for the poor and disadvantaged.

Iw61 says...
7:59am Mon 13 Apr 09

Where are the Council going to get the money from to finance this?

They allways moan about being strapped for cash and that money is being taken from the South and given to the north and yet when an oppurtunity come along that would guarrantee Messrs Smith and Moulton loads of votes at the next general election there is loads of money?

pqp says...
4:18pm Mon 13 Apr 09

I am not english so I shouldn't actually make any comments on this however I didn't want see my money, your money being spent on professional sports. This money would be better employed if to promote sports to people, build more sport facilities etc. Why not buy the Meridian site and build a huge multi-sport complex there. The football team will find its investors soon. Football is self sufficient, sports for people is not. It depends on the coucil's will to provide the poople with sport facilities with affordable rates. More sports=less drug use

BertCatt says...
11:45pm Mon 13 Apr 09

Not being a council Tax payer for Southampton I feel I should not comment. As a Saints supporter I think it sounds like a good idea. I'm in favour of anything to help the Saints.

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree