Is owning your own ground really an asset?

[Bored Of Education]

I was thinking in a discussion elsewhere that whatever the issues with Swansea, whatever happens to them they will still be assured of a ground, even if they go bust and a phoenix club forms, they will be assured of an excellent stadium due to the fact that the council owns it. There have been quite a few examples of clubs returning to their old grounds after they have gone bust - Hereford, Chester etc.

Is there an argument that a ground owned by a club is a liability as it can always be loaned against, mortgaged, asset-stripped or sold on for housing by any rapacious owner? This leaves a club without a ground and forced to search elsewhere to play, sometimes out of the town or city where they play or into a much smaller ground.

Having a council owned ground means that there is usually a permanent home for football and other large team sports - rugby or whatever - that is protected. Not only that but council restrictions can often stop clubs and their owners from making decisions that detrimentally affect the supporters or local community. For instance, Bath Rugby - although the Rec isn't technically a council-owned ground but very similar - are stopped from doing what they want to a ground in the middle of the city and, were they to want to enlarge the ground, would have to provide a home for other sports in the City so that they don't dominate it. Although that doesn't seem great for the rugby, a lot of rugby supporters are extremely protective of the Rec and do not want it getting redeveloped out of hand.

Obviously, councils aren't all going to buy up their local grounds but I like the idea that all councils of a certain size perhaps should provide multi-sport stadia that could provide a safe home for the main sports clubs in that area. Are countries that municipal sports stadiums happen as a matter of course?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

It doesn't work very well in italy, but then again rubbish collection doesn't work very well in italy. however that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea in principle.

[Patrick Thistle]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Mmmm. Where do you stop? Should councils own speedway tracks, dog tracks, racecourses, skating rinks, etc.

Swimming pools I get, like leisure centres, for the public health side of things. Not sure about sports stadia that will only be used by professionals.

[ingoldale]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

I think that a lot of clubs that own their own stadia (which are new) appear to be better off. Both financially and in terms of disputes with the local authority.

[Janik]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

But in the cases of the clubs in dispute with the local authority (Coventry, Hull, anyone else?) it is quite hard to paint the owners as having the best interest of the clubs at heart. The two cases I mention don't really undermine Bored's opening post at all, quite the opposite, really.

[NHH]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

TLR version

It's a double-egded sword. Clubs which own their own ground tend to be able to keep up with maintenance, redevelopment and so on. They can also use the asset to secure debts.

The downside is that in some cases, the last thing a club should do is mortgage it's long-term security for a debt to be spent on this year's promotion push.

Against that, many ground aren't worth much in security because council planning policy renders them unusable for anything else (many are also covenanted).

Clubs which have grounds owned by their councils tend to have greater security of tenure and rental levels, but can suffer as the council has no money to do the ground up, and the club has no incentive to do so. On the plus point, councils tend not to sell a club's ground from under it for housing.

An equally apposite question is whether anyone else should own a football ground. They're notoriously shit payers, and can mobilise an army of fans to pour buckets of shit onto whoever owns it, on the basis that such ownership is merely a legal fiction, with the real owners being the club, and since the club really owns it, the club really shouldn't need to pay rent (hello Coventry!)

I'd think the ideal scenario is a ground either owned by the club directly, with a covenant on it and ACV, or else a peppercorn rent and a long lease to the club.

[utfi]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Hull and Swansea are two clubs whose rise through the leagues would be unthinkable without their council owned, council built stadia.

I don't know about Swansea, but since Hull spent the decade or so before moving to the KC lurching from crisis to crisis in a dilapidated (but characterful, obviously) old stadium in front of rubbish crowds I don't think they'd have ever been in a position to build a new venue themselves. Without the KC Hull City are surely still playing in the bottom tier.

[AMMS]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Patrick Thistle wrote: Mmmm. Where do you stop? Should councils own speedway tracks, dog tracks, racecourses, skating rinks, etc.

Swimming pools I get, like leisure centres, for the public health side of things. Not sure about sports stadia that will only be used by professionals.

Glasgow Warriors rugby side are based and play at stadium owned by Glasgow council. They train there and have offices in the stadium too. But that stadium is used for amateur athletics events, five and seven aside football, amateur rugby, mother and toddler classes, kid's parties, community council meetings and just about every other type of event you can think of.
Having been sceptical when it was first announced the Warriors were moving there (they previously shared Partick Thistle's ground) I have to say it actually works pretty well. The stadium and land round it is in almost constant use now.

[Patrick Thistle]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

utfi wrote: Hull and Swansea are two clubs whose rise through the leagues would be unthinkable without their council owned, council built stadia.

I don't know about Swansea, but since Hull spent the decade or so before moving to the KC lurching from crisis to crisis in a dilapidated (but characterful, obviously) old stadium in front of rubbish crowds I don't think they'd have ever been in a position to build a new venue themselves. Without the KC Hull City are surely still playing in the bottom tier.

You could make the argument this is just a variant of financial doping. Compared to teams that have had to fund their own new grounds, they've probably done better than most teams who were playing against them in the basement 10-15 years ago.

[Errorist Sympathiser]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Patrick Thistle wrote: Mmmm. Where do you stop? Should councils own speedway tracks, dog tracks, racecourses, skating rinks, etc.

Swimming pools I get, like leisure centres, for the public health side of things. Not sure about sports stadia that will only be used by professionals.

But they won't only be used by professionals, because usage - in spectator sports - can be done by those not participating, too.

Ideally, every municipality should have council-owned sports grounds, and the more the better. In the grand socialist paradise that is our mind palaces, they already do.

[utfi]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Patrick Thistle wrote: You could make the argument this is just a variant of financial doping. Compared to teams that have had to fund their own new grounds, they've probably done better than most teams who were playing against them in the basement 10-15 years ago.

Not just financial doping either but publicly sponsored financial doping. Of the sort of the European Union appears to frown on.

I think both councils, and especially Swansea, would argue that they've recouped enough in publicity for the respective cities to make the outlay worthwhile.

Although maybe that would be a mini version of the "hosting the Olympics/World Cup/Euros is good and has financial benefits in the long term" delusion.

[Bored Of Education]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Errorist Sympathiser wrote:

Mmmm. Where do you stop? Should councils own speedway tracks, dog tracks, racecourses, skating rinks, etc.

Swimming pools I get, like leisure centres, for the public health side of things. Not sure about sports stadia that will only be used by professionals.

But they won't only be used by professionals, because usage - in spectator sports - can be done by those not participating, too.

Ideally, every municipality should have council-owned sports grounds, and the more the better. In the grand socialist paradise that is our mind palaces, they already do.

Well, obviously, this, in my perfect world, is exactly what would happen.

Mind you, I would nationalise football as well.

[Stumpy Pepys]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Then again, flogging your old ground and building a bigger one, then taking extra revenue from ticket sales and naming rights, has benefitted some big clubs.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

A lot of this depends on how amenable your local council is to allowing commercial or property development of the old ground, though, doesn't it?

There are a number of examples of clubs/owners who thought they'd make a fortune by selling the old ground, only to discover that the council turned round and said "well, you realise you can't build anything on that land". Wasn't that something that even slapped Arsenal in the face, which is why the old Highbury is now effectively four blocks of flats surrounding a football-pitch-sized park?

[Stumpy Pepys]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote: Wasn't that something that even slapped Arsenal in the face, which is why the old Highbury is now effectively four blocks of flats surrounding a football-pitch-sized park?

I think part of the old Highbury was listed.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

The facades were, which is why they're still there. Can't believe the pitch was. You'd have got a Tesco's megastore on that.

[Bored Of Education]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Bloody hell, it really is the same footprint as the pitch was.

[ursus arctos]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Preservation of the footprint wasn't mandated, but was an integral part of the design from the beginning. A denser development wouldn't have worked for the market for they were targeting (and would likely have been more difficult from a planning perspective).

You can get a good sense of that from this photo essay.

[Bored Of Education]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

Actually, the inside isn't as nice as I would have thought. It looks like a comprehensive school. The outside, obviously, is lovely.

[E10 Rifle]

Is owning your own ground really an asset?

I don't see a problem with councils owning dog tracks. If our local one had been municipally owned, it might still exist.

NHH has nailed it pretty much - the main problem in football is when two different private companies own football club and stadium. That way frequently leads to carnage