| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ 20:40 - Mar 17 with 1473 views | unstableblue |
If not my thoughts….
I like Kayden and he’s showed recent promise, he has some pace and can get behind defenders, buts he’s 28, I’m not sure he’s a natural finisher, and to get out of this league we need some serious fire power up front. So not really sure whether we should keep him.
It’s interesting that Gamechanger and Town don’t own the ground, and yet they’re investing in fixed assets related to the site. They must perceive the council have basically transferred the value of the ground to the club, in all but name. But I’m really still unclear what the land purchase is for?! More hospitality capacity? More parking? What revenue can be generated?
But one things for sure it seems something a long term and savvy investor would do, not an asset stripper, and that can only be good…
New dug ours and big screens are only the beginning |  |
| |  |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 20:59 - Mar 17 with 1405 views | HarryB |
im also intrigued as to what the land will be for. what do people think it is for? a bigger stand? a new hotel or something? |  | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:06 - Mar 17 with 1388 views | unstableblue |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 20:59 - Mar 17 by HarryB |
im also intrigued as to what the land will be for. what do people think it is for? a bigger stand? a new hotel or something? |
It’s definitely not a bigger stand… as Cobbold is one of the two new stands…
It feels like either it’s a property investment they may develop and then sell on
Or it will be perhaps for new hospitality or administrative/ training facilities and those already in place will be repurposed | |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:30 - Mar 17 with 1332 views | TresBonne |
I had it in my head that we DO now own the stadium? |  | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:32 - Mar 17 with 1328 views | jeera |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:30 - Mar 17 by TresBonne |
I had it in my head that we DO now own the stadium? |
Stadium yes.
The bit underneath it, no. |  |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:47 - Mar 17 with 1282 views | HighgateBlue |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:32 - Mar 17 by jeera |
Stadium yes.
The bit underneath it, no. |
Well, we have a lease of the land on which the stadium sits, and the stadium is part of the land by virtue of being annexed to it, so we have a lease of the stadium as well as the land on which it sits. One would have to examine the lease to determine how far below ground our demised land goes, but it clearly includes the foundations to the stands, and I can't see that there would be any real debate as to whether we have enough land to install under-soil heating. But we don't own the freehold to the land on which the stadium sits, or the stadium itself. |  | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 22:24 - Mar 17 with 1222 views | Churchman |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:47 - Mar 17 by HighgateBlue |
Well, we have a lease of the land on which the stadium sits, and the stadium is part of the land by virtue of being annexed to it, so we have a lease of the stadium as well as the land on which it sits. One would have to examine the lease to determine how far below ground our demised land goes, but it clearly includes the foundations to the stands, and I can't see that there would be any real debate as to whether we have enough land to install under-soil heating. But we don't own the freehold to the land on which the stadium sits, or the stadium itself. |
I thought it was exactly the same as a leasehold flat, where you own the buildings and the freeholder owns the land. The who lot only reverts to the Freeholder if the lease runs out r the terms of the lease are broken.
Either way it wouldn’t surprise me if Gamechanger bought the freehold. It’d be costly but would affect the value of the club hugely. |  | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 23:37 - Mar 17 with 1137 views | jeera |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 22:24 - Mar 17 by Churchman |
I thought it was exactly the same as a leasehold flat, where you own the buildings and the freeholder owns the land. The who lot only reverts to the Freeholder if the lease runs out r the terms of the lease are broken.
Either way it wouldn’t surprise me if Gamechanger bought the freehold. It’d be costly but would affect the value of the club hugely. |
The ground has a long-standing covenant on it to stop any dodgy owners knocking it down and building a Co-op and a brothel on there.
It has to remain as a site for a sports stadium as things stand, so to speak. A venue of community value or however one would like to word it.
It's not to do with cost. [Post edited 17 Mar 2022 23:44]
| |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 23:42 - Mar 17 with 1133 views | jeera |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:47 - Mar 17 by HighgateBlue |
Well, we have a lease of the land on which the stadium sits, and the stadium is part of the land by virtue of being annexed to it, so we have a lease of the stadium as well as the land on which it sits. One would have to examine the lease to determine how far below ground our demised land goes, but it clearly includes the foundations to the stands, and I can't see that there would be any real debate as to whether we have enough land to install under-soil heating. But we don't own the freehold to the land on which the stadium sits, or the stadium itself. |
Thanks for taking the time to repeat what I already said.
Always appreciated.
The club doesn't own the ground, it owns the stands etc.
Etc covers it, it doesn't need an entire rundown of individual items down to the cups in the kitchens. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 07:33 - Mar 18 with 989 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 21:06 - Mar 17 by unstableblue |
It’s definitely not a bigger stand… as Cobbold is one of the two new stands…
It feels like either it’s a property investment they may develop and then sell on
Or it will be perhaps for new hospitality or administrative/ training facilities and those already in place will be repurposed |
But the Cobbold isn't one of the new stands, it is the oldest stand now at PR, opened in 73, so it is very nearly 50 yrs old - and showing it's age. At the time it opened it was hugely impressive for a small club to replace the chicken run. But it is outdated - leg room insufficient, bar areas very cramped, and simply not a big enough capacity. My guess is that Gamechanger want to own the land needed to expand, possibly including a small re-route of Portman Road, so that the Cobbold can have increased depth. |  |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 08:02 - Mar 18 with 953 views | Churchman |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 07:33 - Mar 18 by LegendofthePhoenix |
But the Cobbold isn't one of the new stands, it is the oldest stand now at PR, opened in 73, so it is very nearly 50 yrs old - and showing it's age. At the time it opened it was hugely impressive for a small club to replace the chicken run. But it is outdated - leg room insufficient, bar areas very cramped, and simply not a big enough capacity. My guess is that Gamechanger want to own the land needed to expand, possibly including a small re-route of Portman Road, so that the Cobbold can have increased depth. |
It was a lovely stand when it opened. The lower section was standing so the original capacity was a lot greater. It was actually extended in 1975 at both ends and the extensions had orange seats.
But regarding its comfort, access, facilities, everything, it’s a long way out of date and definitely needs replacing. I can see all sorts of uses for the new piece of land, including corporate/conferencing facilities, accommodation for staff, gymnasium, restaurant, stable, bowling alley, dry ski slope, Nandos …..
Getting carried away now. I’m of course well wide of the mark and that’s why I’m curious to know what their plans are. Exiting times. | | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 11:45 - Mar 18 with 845 views | jayessess |
I think the KJ renewal is pretty straightforward really.
We have 4 senior centre forwards.
Pigott hasn't shown enough to be a regular starting number 9 and doesn't seem to thrive as a bit part player.
Bonne isn't our player and we're not going to go all out to make him our player when he has barely scored in the last 20 games.
Norwood is getting the wrong side of 30 and hasn't done much since his little Winter purple patch.
McKenna rates Jackson, sees ways he can make use of his skill set off and on the ball, he plays 2 positions in our current formation (down the middle, wide of a central striker), he knows what's required of him in our pattern of play. He'll be relatively cheap, keen to sign and has never mithered about being a squad player.
Renewing his contract means one less thing to do in a busy Summer. |  |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 11:54 - Mar 18 with 825 views | hoppy |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 23:42 - Mar 17 by jeera |
Thanks for taking the time to repeat what I already said.
Always appreciated.
The club doesn't own the ground, it owns the stands etc.
Etc covers it, it doesn't need an entire rundown of individual items down to the cups in the kitchens. |
Are the saucers not ours? |  |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 11:59 - Mar 18 with 807 views | PhilTWTD |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 22:24 - Mar 17 by Churchman |
I thought it was exactly the same as a leasehold flat, where you own the buildings and the freeholder owns the land. The who lot only reverts to the Freeholder if the lease runs out r the terms of the lease are broken.
Either way it wouldn’t surprise me if Gamechanger bought the freehold. It’d be costly but would affect the value of the club hugely. |
Exactly that, the council own the land, the club own the stadium. A new lease was signed in August 2001, the term lasting for 125 years from June 1969, which was the date of the start of an earlier agreement. |  | | |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 13:48 - Mar 18 with 720 views | jeera |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 11:54 - Mar 18 by hoppy |
Are the saucers not ours? |
I don't think those are included due to something in a clause about them being an outdated concept. | |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 14:03 - Mar 18 with 700 views | hoppy |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 13:48 - Mar 18 by jeera |
I don't think those are included due to something in a clause about them being an outdated concept. |
That said, the club do still use them. I've been to plenty of events and breakfast/lunches at the club to know they are still used. I've never enquired about the ownership of them though. | |
| |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 19:54 - Mar 18 with 571 views | EdwardStone |
| Have we done ‘should kayden get a new contract?’ and ‘what land is for?’ on 14:03 - Mar 18 by hoppy |
That said, the club do still use them. I've been to plenty of events and breakfast/lunches at the club to know they are still used. I've never enquired about the ownership of them though. |
The ownership of the saucers is very similar to the stadium
The club own the top bit of the saucer where the teacup sits....
And the club own the bottom bit which sits on the table....
But the club has a 199 year lease on the saucer undersides because they are deemed a Saucer of Community Value |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
