Town could face legal action regarding unpaid rent dating back to 2004 relating to the 643% rise revealed by Blues chief executive Simon Clegg yesterday. After the club and Ipswich Borough Council were unable to settle on a new rent, the matter went to an arbitrator who recommended that the figure jump from £15,000-a-year to £111,000 and, it has now emerged, backdated it to 2004.

Council deputy leader John Carnall says the club have so far not paid them back rent of just over £500,000 and that the situation could ultimately result in legal action: “We have been reasonable with them. We have said we would be prepared to accept it in three instalments.

“We felt we had to put up the rent, we have a duty to council taxpayers, and we set up an independent tribunal to which the football club came to work out a reasonable rent.”

Carnall has said Town offered £1 million for the freehold of the ground — although they already own the actual stadium — but the council felt that that valuation was well below its true worth and it wasn't considered.

The Blues have not added to Simon Clegg’s comments on the increase made at yesterday’s season ticket press briefing.

Photo: Action Images

Manic_Blue added 18:50 - Mar 22 Rent increase is one matter - is the council ripping the club off or were the club underpaying before? Don't know enough to comment, although 743% is ridiculous either way. But how can they get away with backdating it that far? If it needed to be reassessed and wasn't, then that's the councils fault and they should pay for the mistake.
0

lunatic38 added 19:45 - Mar 22 We need to put up the rent to pay for the missiles we are launching at Libya to save their lives.
0

Worcester added 19:50 - Mar 22 Pay up and vote them out in May
0

coco_the_clown added 19:52 - Mar 22 Any weapons being deployed on our once good friend and BP shareholder in Libya have probably been supplied by our owner - he can pay the twittering Tory Council with these funds, having studied the excellent advice delivered by us TWTD'ers.
0

alfromcol added 20:02 - Mar 22 £110,000, peanuts compared to the wage bill!!!!!!!! If the club is worried about this then they should be really worried about how much is handed over the the players. Cost to the supporters per match is £110,000/17000 tickets sold per match/23 home matches equals 28p per match. I wouldn't set the lawyers loose for such a small sum of money!!
0

Fatcatevans added 20:09 - Mar 22 What a shambles . Yet again the club makes headlines for the wrong reasons. Pay up like all us other ratepayers have to. £15k was laughable. When you think of the annual salaries of our so called stars £110k is a drop in the ocean, We have had moths to get this sorted and the club havent taken up the councils offer to pay back over 3 years. We really are a laughing stock these days

0

stonojnr added 20:21 - Mar 22 yes and actually as an IBC tax payer, Im livid the council are treating the club like this given how much extra money and people it brings into the town, fair enough review the rent, increase it even, but back taking the taxes like this is ridiculous, especially given how much money the council fritter away on pointless stuff anyway, its not like its going to a good worthy cause. fortunately Mr Evans didnt get to be in the position he's in by quietly paying up to every tom,dick and harry who demanded payment like this

0

WREXHAM_BLUE added 20:41 - Mar 22 Scandalous! Another example of scant disregard for a football club by their local Council.
0

shropshiretractor added 20:58 - Mar 22 It pains me to say it, but the previous rent we were paying for a fairly central location wasn't reasonable. People wonder why under the last government who were clueless and bankrupt the country, they had problems! Thankfully these things are being resolved now. Just very unfortunate it has to happen to ITFC! Glad the Tories understand finance, and how to run the country instead of the past cowboys who thought they could employ everyone with no education in pointless jobs in the public sector!

0

confoosed_dot_com added 21:05 - Mar 22 It is not a question of how much a 'reasonable rent' would be, it is how much the council values and safeguards its prize asset. For what other reason has anyone heard of Ipswich? That said, not a good news day for the running of this club
0

shropshiretractor added 21:09 - Mar 22 Oh yes, Ipswich does help the local economy, so there should be tax breaks, but then again we only bring in a few hundred away fans every other weekend, so it's not huge is it?
0

CavendishBlue added 21:15 - Mar 22 Which councillor you have standing in your ward has absolutely nothing to do with an independent valuers true estimate of the rental value. The club have been swinging the lead for years over this,which is why there has been a back dated element to the valuation, as have dozens of other organisations in the town who were allowed under the previous wrotten administration to get away with it for over 25 years! If you are a IBC taxpayer be reminded that every £100,000 adds 1% onto your council tax and then see how many diehard fans would object to this market valuation. Secondly the BC don't benefit from any of the business rates directly generated by extra trade into the town so BalhamBlue you have this aspect wrong.

0

comrade_blue added 21:28 - Mar 22 The club should pay the rent- a years rent is what Dyer earns in 10 days!! The Back pay is also low but is a sepaertate argument - I am sure the council could agree to pay less. It is not just the Football club that is in this position, local Scout groups have also been threatened with back rent on scout huts and unlike the football club don't pay out a years rent in 2 weeks wages. The club should pay the rent The Council should not ask for the full half a million in back rent - that seems fair

0

Mark added 21:42 - Mar 22 > Glad the Tories understand finance, and how to run the country instead of the past cowboys who thought they could employ everyone with no education in pointless jobs in the public sector! The Tories understand finance to the point that they make lots of it for themselves and their rich friends, but never mind the ordinary people. As for running the country, I don't think £9K p.a. tuition fees, selling forests and spending £1bn+ reorganising the NHS are policies most people support. As for the public sector, Ipswich is more reliant on these jobs than most places and the unemployment that will be caused through job losses is bound to affect ITFC's gates for the next few seasons sadly.

0

Papa added 21:47 - Mar 22 Yep, damn Tories eh? Some people should look to see who actually does run Ipswich Borough Council.
0

hollywoodginge added 21:50 - Mar 22 Just imagine if you rent a house for years and years then all of a sudden your landlord says "iv just just had the house valued, it's worth more than I thought, ur rent has gone up and I want back pay from 7 years ago!" imagine your reaction!! This smacks to me that the council have cottoned on to the fact that we have a rich owner and they can get a piece of that cake, and the notion town have been underpaying for so many years, um, I think the revenue itfc generates for the local economy more than makes up for that, that's why it's been so low.

0

ITFC_Budapest added 21:58 - Mar 22 That's an outrageous price hike! Guess the council need the money so they can pay all their staff bonuses etc!
0

Mark added 22:07 - Mar 22 > Yep, damn Tories eh? Some people should look to see who actually does run Ipswich Borough Council. It is a Conservative / Lib Dem joint administration. Liz Harsant (Conservative) is the leader and John Carnell (Conservative) is the deputy leader - he is the one in the article above.
0

shropshiretractor added 22:19 - Mar 22 Mark: 'The Tories understand finance to the point that they make lots of it for themselves and their rich friends, but never mind the ordinary people. As for running the country, I don't think £9K p.a. tuition fees, selling forests and spending £1bn+ reorganising the NHS are policies most people support.' -I'm sorry Mark, but you cannot justify this statement with that fact that the Tories kept the 50% taxation rate, -hurting the rich, if you look into the £9k tuition fees, the only people it benefits are the poor due to only paying it back when you earn over 21k, and the fact that the Tories are increasing the NHS budget! -I'm a low earner, but I would prefer it if the Tories did do what they are being accused of and looked after the rich, as they rich are the ones that fund the country by paying all the taxes, and they're the ones that don't use the services. Fair?! I don't think so!

0

Moscow_Blue added 22:39 - Mar 22 Seems a tiny proportion of the Club's total operating costs to me. Perhaps we should ask Kieron Dyer to pay the back rent as he has says that he is keen to help Town and money is no object to him.
0

comrade_blue added 23:00 - Mar 22 Shropshire Tractor So why are Ipswich Tories also asking local Scout groups for more rent? Why ate Suffolk Tories sacking lollipop ladies and closing libraries - because they do not care about anyone but themselves! Vote them out in May - only blue in Ipswich should be ITFC
0

shropshiretractor added 23:18 - Mar 22 Comrade_blue - I'm arguing for the the principle, which is important here, I'm not based in Ipswich, but my local library is closing, and so it should, - it's not being used so that's what happens. Also, lollipop ladies are nearly always voluntary, so I don't see how that works? I don't see the point of Ipswich being secured mid table mediocrity, and then bringing on K Dyer on what must be a few thousand of his wages when we could be giving experience to youngsters to prove themselves for their new contracts come the summer? That's wasting money!

0

WeWereZombies added 23:43 - Mar 22 I agree with Ant, never sell the land to the club - the pitch will be covered with some nancy penthouse development within a couple of years and a new stadium thrown up on some godforsaken industrial estate miles from the train station.
0

Marshalls_Mullet added 23:50 - Mar 22 It amazes me how people can get this so wrong, the facts are; 1. The rent has been awarded by an arbitrator whose role is impartial. 2. The rent will have been decided in accordance with the provisions in the lease. This will either be an agreed mechansim or a market rent. 3. The club knew full well that this day was coming, I assume the council were seeking a higher settelment and therefore the club should have been accruing monies for such an outcome. 4. The Council have a duty to seek best value for their local tax payers. This is a priority ahead of ITFC. 5. The club will only face legal action if they dont agree to pay on the terms offered by the council. The council are not taking them to court as yet. 6. In terms of the clubs overall turnover a liabilities the additional £95,000 per season is actually a fairly small percentage. It really is a simple situation and I cant believe people are getting so worked up about it. ITFC pay your dues. I hope this has cleared the situation up.

0

Jesney_Havoc added 05:26 - Mar 23 The council should thank their lucky stars there's a football club in this otherwise dying town. The net amount of trade the club brings to the town should be enoughin itself. Tory Pigs - Nasty Party.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls