Ipswich Borough Council have warned Town that patience is running short regarding the disputed back rent due on Portman Road. In March, Blues chief executive Simon Clegg revealed that the rent on the land on which the stadium stands had risen by 743% with the new figure backdated to 2004 and with reports that the matter could potentially lead to legal action.
Since the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition was replaced with a Labour regime in May talks have continued, but current Borough Council leader David Ellesmere warns that patience is running out with their executive due to meet next week to talk about their options should the situation continue with legal action not ruled out.
He said: "You cannot have one rule for Ipswich Town and one for all the other businesses. We do want to be as helpful as possible but this has been going on for a long time.”
For the Blues, chief executive Simon Clegg, who will be given the opportunity to address next week's IBC executive meeting if he wants to present the club's position, says discussions still continue: "This is an ongoing situation with the council and we are continuing to have dialogue with them over the matter. There is nothing more we can add at this time.”
Town have been paying the revised figure for the last year with the back rent remaining the point of contention.
Speaking to TWTD in August, Clegg outlined how the impasse developed with the rent rising from £15,000 to £111,000, the overall back rent now totalling around £650,000 with interest: "[IBC] could have initiated a rent review in 2004, but they didn’t.
"Instead, they initiated it after Marcus acquired the club and they wanted a rise significantly larger than the 743% increase.
"So, we went to independent arbitration over the issue. The arbitrator decided to come down somewhere in the middle, considerably greater than the increase we had indicated we thought was appropriate and considerably less than the figure IBC was seeking.
"IBC then indicated that they wished to backdate that to when the rent review could have taken place in 2004.”