Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: hatter76 on June 22, 2015, 03:45:24 PM
-
Edgeley Park the home of Stockport County is under a possible threat of being demolished. Stockport would lose a great iconic cultural and community asset if this goes ahead.
It looks like one of the last chances to save it is if Stockport MBC provide a loan that would be cost neutral in the long term.
This is not the Premier League, there are no rich investors trying to buy the club.
I know most in Marple are either United or City but many have a second club affiliation to County, please help us out at this time of need and sign the petition. A decision is being made by Stockport MBC on Wednesday PM.
https://www.change.org/p/stockport-metropolitan-borough-council-protect-edgeley-park
-
There is much in this post that is very misleading. And in any event a petition is about 2 weeks too late.
-
The local council has no business whatsoever providing financial support to a failing company, whether or not that company is a local sports club or the owners of the ground. The owners need to stand on their own feet or fail.
-
"Statement on Edgeley Park 22 June 2015
An opportunity has arisen for Stockport Council to purchase the Edgeley Park Football Ground from the current owners, Cheshire Sport. The Council’s Executive will receive a report on Wednesday recommending that, subject to due diligence, the Council will become owner of the ground.
This is a genuinely commercial arrangement which would enable the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship between the Council and Stockport County Football Club. Wednesday’s decision would be to purchase a land asset on a cost neutral basis and will therefore not cost Council Tax Payers a penny.
The Council will not, at any stage, be providing financial support to the football club but hope to purchase the ground in order to provide the stability for the team to remain in Stockport and for the club to progress in securing their own longer term future and footballing success.
All political groups on Stockport Council have come together to support this proposal so that the club can stay in Stockport, close to the vibrant local communities of which it is part and to contribute to raising the profile of our thriving Borough.
Councillors in Stockport will monitor the proposals as they develop and reserve the right not to proceed with the purchase if the deal ceases to represent the best interests of Council Tax Payers and of our town.
Cllr Sue Derbyshire
Leader of Stockport Council and the
Liberal Democrat Group
Cllr Alex Ganotis
Leader of the Labour Group
Cllr Syd Lloyd
Leader of the Conservative Group
Cllr Peter Burns
Leader of the Independent Ratepayers Group
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/newsroom/edgeleypark"
-
The local council has no business whatsoever providing financial support to a failing company, whether or not that company is a local sports club or the owners of the ground. The owners need to stand on their own feet or fail.
Sugest then Howard .
-
The owners of the ground (Cheshire Sport) aren't a failing company - it's just that their tenants (Stockport County) can't afford the rent.
It is not a "cultural icon", it's not part of a "vibrant local community" and it isn't the business of the council to be propping up a far-from-successful football team. It would be an atrocious use of Council Tax payers' money.
There are far more successful sports teams in Stockport with much greater individual participation in sport: Stockport Metro (swimming), Stockport Harriers and AC (running and athletics) - and some good local rugby and cricket clubs.
-
You have to be clear that in County's case the club and the ground are two separate things. To invest in what has been a badly run and managed club would clearly be a waste of public funds. To buy a strategically important piece of land is not the same that happens all y
the time.. The statement above has been drawn up by the three researcher of each of the party groups. Despite what county fans are trying to suggest Wednesdays meeting is of little decision making significance as everyone is agreed on the way forward.
I am sure it has been made clear to County that a missed rental payment will have consequences for them.
-
With 4479 signing the E petition many of whom live outside Stockport all the organisers have done is expose how little support they have. A silly move given eve tone had agreed on the way forward weeks ago anyway.
-
Hello Wheels, I have not come on here to have an argument with people but I think 4.5k signatures in a few days is very good.
When the petition was started the fans were unsure if the Council were going to support the plan.
Its good to see cross party support on this issue. There is little risk to the Council as the asset will not fall in value.
-
No the asset will not fall in value but don't imagine this is necessarily the beginning of a great new future. What happens when the club fails to pay the rent as they have continually done to Cheshire Sports. At that point a Local Authority using public funds only have one option to evict and sell on. The problem has never been CS or the ownership of the ground but rather the mismanagement of the club indeed CS have been more than helpful to the club and are still owed for unpaid rent.
In terms of the petition it's regarded as as a very poor response and further is full of none Stockport Council Tax payers.
-
Up the County! I for one am glad Stockport still has a football team.
-
Having been a County fan for many years I am delighted that SMBC have agreed to buy Edgeley Park, although others would appear to be happy to see County gone forever! I wish the new manager and players every success, and look forward to County regaining league status as soon as possible, and the eventual purchase back of Edgeley Park by County fans.
-
My point was when the club fail to pay their rent as they have done consistently in recent year don't paint the local authority as the bad boys when they perfectly reasonably seek to evict a tenant for none payment of rent. The LA you might find to be a less benign landlord than BK/CS
-
My point was when the club fail to pay their rent as they have done consistently in recent year don't paint the local authority as the bad boys when they perfectly reasonably seek to evict a tenant for none payment of rent. The LA you might find to be a less benign landlord than BK/CS
Except that won't happen because of the "public backlash" when they try it, so instead the council tax payers of Stockport will foot the bill.
-
I think you'll find that's not the case or the understanding of those involved
-
Stockport MBC have to take out a loan to buy the ground. Certainly, the land may not lose value, but the Council - or rather its Council Tax payers - still have to pay interest on the loan. The money to pay that interest comes from ... the rent (that might be) paid by Stockport County ... who are known for NOT paying their rent to Cheshire Sports.
To take on a loan at a reasonable rate one would need to demonstrate that one had a good business proposition. I'm stumped as to which lender regards Stockport County (middle of Conference League North; one place below North Ferriby United and a division below Altrincham, Chester and Macclesfield) as a good business proposition. If Stockport County's supporters regard their club as such a good investment why don't they stump up the 500 pounds each (2 million, divided by the 4000 or so on the petition) and buy the ground themselves?
If the council can't stump up small amounts of money to fix potholes on its major roads or replace small items of play equipment in children's playgrounds, why is it borrowing large amounts of money to prop up a private sports club?
-
Stockport MBC have to take out a loan to buy the ground. Certainly, the land may not lose value, but the Council - or rather its Council Tax payers - still have to pay interest on the loan. The money to pay that interest comes from ... the rent (that might be) paid by Stockport County ... who are known for NOT paying their rent to Cheshire Sports.
To take on a loan at a reasonable rate one would need to demonstrate that one had a good business proposition. I'm stumped as to which lender regards Stockport County (middle of Conference League North; one place below North Ferriby United and a division below Altrincham, Chester and Macclesfield) as a good business proposition. If Stockport County's supporters regard their club as such a good investment why don't they stump up the 500 pounds each (2 million, divided by the 4000 or so on the petition) and buy the ground themselves?
If the council can't stump up small amounts of money to fix potholes on its major roads or replace small items of play equipment in children's playgrounds, why is it borrowing large amounts of money to prop up a private sports club?
. Good point Hollins
-
What ever we might think of the purchases it is, subject to DD, being achieved at no cost to the CT payer. Sometimes Councils have to pump prime organisations Houndsworth Mill, The Plaza are obvious examples that spring to mind. Thankfully we have a well run local authority in which I certainly have confidence that this investment will be profitable for all concerned. ?.
-
Let us hope that this will persuade local people to support County rather than the greedy, money-obsessed Manchester clubs.
-
In reply to other posts yes I agree the Council should do other things like fixing pot holes etc. but to do so requires them to spend money that they haven't got.
Buying EP has not cost them anything, it is cost neutral. They have an asset as a guarantee. local Councils are able to borrow money easily but it needs to be for budgeted spend.
-
I think you'll find that's not the case or the understanding of those involved
I hope you're right, but I suspect in a year or two when County haven't paid their rent, and there are front page headlines and sob stories on NorthWest Tonight, that it'll be a different story.
-
Thankfully we have a well run local authority
ermmmm, "well run" is not the phrase I would use.
-
ermmmm, "well run" is not the phrase I would use.
Ok excellently run then although I do accept it reqularly scores Outstanding when various areas are assessed.
-
The local council has no business whatsoever providing financial support to a failing company, whether or not that company is a local sports club or the owners of the ground. The owners need to stand on their own feet or fail.
I quite agree, it is however, other local authorities financing other stadiums that makes Edgeley Park a white elephant. Greater Manchester is awash with sports stadiums, many of which are not being fully utilised.
I can't see how a council loan would be repaid.
-
Duke you amaze me. I would have thought you would have seen the role of the LA is to put in place the environment that aids and supports the private sector.
Also you seem confused this is not a loan in any respect from the council. It is the council acquiring an asset at no cost to the CT payer. What's wrong with that.
-
Duke you amaze me. I would have thought you would have seen the role of the LA is to put in place the environment that aids and supports the private sector.
Also you seem confused this is not a loan in any respect from the council. It is the council acquiring an asset at no cost to the CT payer. What's wrong with that.
Councils should not aquire assets unless there is true market failure. The problem here is the other local authorities crowding out private enterprise.
-
If the council can't stump up small amounts of money to fix potholes on its major roads or replace small items of play equipment in children's playgrounds, why is it borrowing large amounts of money to prop up a private sports club?
Some confusion here. Borrowing to repair potholes is (literally, almost) pouring money down the drain. Borrowing to acquire an asset which is likely to appreciate in value is sensible investment, and if it also helps a local sporting organisation to keep going, so much the better.
The domestic equivalent, which we will all understand, would be borrowing from a payday lender to go to the pub (bad idea!), versus borrowing from a bank to buy a house (good idea).
That said, unless County can get their act together, I can see the ground being sold on for housing within the next few years - but it is likely to be at a profit to us council tax payers.
-
Hmmm, this no cost to taxpayer phrase has come up many a time. A lot of office space has been bought / sold & leased back by the council and every time it's said not to cost any money. The result has been a lot of empty buildings and a cost to the tax payer.
Local authorities aren't good at investment
-
Councils are able to borrow at very low, almost non-existent interest rates which is always helpful, sometimes even profitable, when they themselves are offering loans.
There is little wrong with borrowing for an extensive road repair programme which brings roads up to an acceptable standard and thus reduces expensive regular maintenance costs incurred when roads are of a poor standard. This not pouring money down the drain, it is in theory, good business. Although I have to say that in practice I see no evidence of this programme in Marple, where roads deteriorate week by week.
I see little wrong with bailing out a sports organisation which is apparently very community minded. Although if SCFC is to survive then it needs to survive as a football club, something it has seemingly been unable to do for at least twenty years.