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?
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?
Comment