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.”

Photo: Action Images

rosseden added 16:09 - Oct 6 watch out IBC, keep playing these games and if we go up to the EPL, watch ME build an all singing all dancing new stadium somewhere out of the town centre on privately bought land, thatd be a huge shame for everyone......and then you have the issue of a stadium to deal with, which either costs a load of money to remove & redevelop, or gets sold on to a big supermarket at vastly reduced sums or something......

0

MJallday added 16:10 - Oct 6 send them a signed photo of Jimmy Bullard, valued at £700k . see what they do then.
0

olimar added 16:15 - Oct 6 They cant sell the stadium to a supermarket. The land is only able to be used for a sports and recreation facility. Or something like that. And that agreement stands for another 100 years or whatever. So, in essence, without the club on the land, IBC dont have much chance of revenue. Equally, without the land, ITFC would face a huge bill to buy land outright for the same purpose.

0

tractorboybig added 16:19 - Oct 6 perhaps its time to look elsewhere outside the borough and stuff them. olimar, it only takes a majority vote by the council to change the land useage. there probaly looking for ways to pay the ex chief exc they paid off recently.
0

marcusevans added 16:34 - Oct 6 £650,000 would make a decent downpayment on a bit if land elsewhere. And given that my old employer Bob Murray built Sunderland's Stadium If Light ground for 26 million pounds (on budget as I understand it) perhaps someone of Marcus means and business acumen would prefer to buy his own land, build his own stadium and have his own football club paying himself rent. This is not a man to hold to ransom I am certain.

0

robdaful added 16:44 - Oct 6 Come on M.E just buy it off them.
0

dirtydingusmagee added 17:11 - Oct 6 M.E you need to get ya'self the same lawyers as the Dale Farm travellers, and the council can whistle ! COYB .
0

toxtethblue added 17:13 - Oct 6 Stadium of light cost safc 26mill?! How did two stands cost us about the same?!
0

brogansnose added 17:18 - Oct 6 So if the arbitrator decided the figure that must be paid then I assume that the amount that is in dispute is the bachdated bit which to my mind is sharp practice by the council seeing as they were clearly incompetant in not initiating this in the first place in a timely fashion. It also smacks of " hello , they have got a few bob now, let's go and milk them". Seeing as ME donates to the LIb Dems I would take it out of their pot and watch the fallout.

0

Mark added 17:26 - Oct 6 As an ITFC season ticket holder and IBC Council Tax payer, this is bad news as the money I pay to the two organisations is being wasted as they squabble. Please sort it out and avoid going down the route of wasting a fortune on legal fees!
0

delias_cheesy_flaps added 17:31 - Oct 6 Definitely a case of having your cake and eating it from the IBC, but no different to any other council I'm sure! I've heard of retrospective planning but not rental payments, perhaps this is something I should consider proposing to my tenants as well ;-)
0

alexsmith111 added 17:32 - Oct 6 I fully agree, 15k rent just shows how poor labour really was, i cant beleive how short sighted half this country is, they want more for less! Maybe marcus evans will buy us all season tickets next year!!
0

comrade_blue added 17:34 - Oct 6 some stupid comments on here- IBC did not pay their chrief executive off- it was SCC, try to get planning permision to build a stadium outside Ipswich- green belt/Tory run! Back rent is money owed to a council and is peanuts fwhen you think of player wages and what we got from Sunderland for Wickham. Love the club but we should just pay up and get on with it, had cheap rent for years and the rent was decided on by an independent organisation. New stadium? We can't fill this one. Bet the rent owed is less that we had to pay Roy and his coaching staff,

0

fourth added 17:45 - Oct 6 IBC can't afford to do this sort of stupid thing. They need to work in partnership with the Town's most important contributor. Obviously their organisation is pretty unprofessional. If I had let this sort of "debt" accumulate over this sort of period I would not be surprised if I were sacked. IBC need to do a SWOT analysis and come to the inevitable conclusion that if ITFC get into the premiership, morale and income in the town increases. And if the team don't do so well but an investor is willing to risk his cash, they should put support behind him. I'm not saying much. Just that given the commitment of others the IBC should at least match it in its own best interests

0

Jesney_Havoc added 17:56 - Oct 6 That's total gibberish from the council. How to get yourself voted off in one easy lesson. Of course there should be a separate rule. The club has attracted more revenue to the area than any other business, let alone done more for it's reputation. Jobsworths...
0

hollywoodginge added 18:13 - Oct 6 as i posted on the last thread in relation to this, i cant see how anyone can justify backdating a rent increase, just imagine if you rented a house via the council or private and they turned around and said to you, "erm actually, I could have got away with charging you more for the past 6 years, you owe me an extra £10,000!" you wouldnt "accept" it and just pay up. im pretty sure it would be illegal for a land owner to do it in that case so why should it be legal in this one? they are just trying to fleece M.E and take advantage, and as for the low rent its because its only a relativley small patch of land they own (the club owns the bricks and mortar) and the fact that ITFC makes such huge revenue for the town I believe. it was never unreasonably low.

0

marcusevans added 18:15 - Oct 6 Toxtethblue. Sorry mate, I got the figure wrong. It was actually 23 million. But Bob Murray did own a building company! Also the fitted furniture company that I worked for (owned by Bob Murray) made quite a few of the interior fittings. Just shows it CAN be done!
0

jas0999 added 18:30 - Oct 6 What's the issue - this was one of the drivers for putting season ticket prices up. Just pay what you owe. £15k was ridiculous - ITFC should be treated like any other business. End of story.
0

HighgateBlue added 18:59 - Oct 6 Why do idiots on here presume that they understand about the law of landlord and tenant when they do not? The rent review provisions are in the lease. They are agreed by the tenant. The Council are entirely eithin their rights to trigger a rent review, and seek backdated rent. It is in the lease, and it is standard. No amount of "I'm pretty sure" and "or whatever" from the cretins above is going to change that. Whether or not the Council /should/ be doing this, as a matter of politics, and as a matter of policy, is quite a different question.

0

fourth added 19:19 - Oct 6 Highgate Blue There is a huge difference between acting in your own best interest and acting like a jobsworth. The Council have both made back claims which are ridiculous (proven by their inaction for YEARS) and acted against their own interests Don't go pettifogging clerk on this , HB ,We could get to pay for one of our loan signings to make them permanent. This could make a big difference to ITFC and, lucky lads the Council too ,on the club's coattails.

0

fourth added 19:26 - Oct 6 Or to put it another way. If parties to the contract want to make integral amendments they can do so where both parties agree. Contracts are changeable on a mutual basis. In my work in translating French contracts into English , it is happening all of the time because of changes in economic circumstances.
0

churchmans added 19:35 - Oct 6 a rise of %743! takeing the f*****ng p**s theres is a good case against this besides think of how many voters the leading council party would lose about 18000,19000 voters!
0

rosseden added 19:47 - Oct 6 Jas - you say, What's the issue - this was one of the drivers for putting season ticket prices up. Just pay what you owe. £15k was ridiculous - ITFC should be treated like any other business. End of story. The uplift in pricing was to cover the new increased rent as agreed in the court of arbitration, if they had to add this back rent in too youre looking at something like an increase 4 or 5 times the size of the one they put through........ as a few people have said, its the way in which this has been done thats the issue, the new rent, fine, £111k, which is a lot, but its ok, but backdating it as they missed their window / opportunity to increase it when they had it.... theyre seriously having a laugh. I am surprised the IBC lawyers are even bothering fighting it, but then again, theyre getting paid so why would they stop....... IBC need a quick wake up call before they spend all the revenue they are getting on legal fees, it then might go to court and they could have to pick up the ITFC legals too when they lose...... that would be ironic if that happened.......

0

Gazelle added 20:08 - Oct 6 Lot of money but i'm afraid we'll have to pay then IBC can spend it on a centre for illegal immigrants or land for a travellers site.
0

BlueVelvet added 20:14 - Oct 6 What on earth have IBC being playing at - £15k per year - what a bunch of shop keepers you are, get real you should have been charging a real rate of rent for years - wake up IBC and smell the money, you,ve let council tax payers down, was it because the late CEO had very close with old boys of itfc? ITFC - now's ya chance to stick 2 fingers in the air and move to Sproughton Sugar factory site and build a stadium, sports village and community. PR can't be used for much else, it was the town rubbish tip so its contaminated land - be bold ME, let's change the name to Sproughton Village Football Club -- SVFC

0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls