Progress could be made regarding Town’s rent row with Ipswich Borough Council at IBC’s executive meeting this evening. In March, it was revealed that the annual rent on the land on which the Portman Road stadium stands had risen by 743% from £15,000 to £111,500, backdated to 2004.

While Town have paid the new sum since the rent review was carried out last year - an independent arbitrator setting the new figure - the club has dug its heels in regarding the additional £654,702 owed from the period back to 2004 when the rent review was initially due. Blues chief executive Simon Clegg has been invited to put the club’s case at this evening’s meeting.

IBC have offered Town the opportunity to make the back payments over a four-year period in 16 quarterly instalments of £40,918.88, although payable in full if the Blues are promoted to the Premier League. Another rent review is due this year and the council has indicated that it will not be looking for a further increase.

If no amicable solution is ultimately found, the matter could result in legal action. In a worst case scenario, IBC could issue a winding-up order against the club, leading to administration and a 10-point deduction, however, it appears inconceivable that either party would allow the issue to reach that stage.

Town agreed the lease on the 8½ acre site in August 2001, the term lasting 125 years from June 1969. Rent reviews are carried out at seven-year intervals.

Meanwhile, ASD (Europe), the Ipswich-based company which made the club's own brand Punch replica kits until 2006, has ceased trading.

Photo: Action Images / Matthew Childs

Photo: Action Images

Marshalls_Mullet added 12:40 - Oct 11 Not sure Town have a leg to stand on. They have been paying the new rent since the arbitrator made his award, which would suggest that they accept the level of rent that has been set. If the review dates back to 2004 then they owe back rent. The lease will state whether or not there was a certain time frame during which the review notice should have been served, I would have thought if IBC has acted outside the terms of the lease then this would have been thrown out long before now. The arbitrator's award will reflect the market rent that was prevailing as per 2004. Pay up Cleggy.

0

DiamondGezzer added 12:52 - Oct 11 They've put the rent up 743% and then say that they won't be looking for a rent renewall this year, I shouldn't bloody well think so ! We all know the rent was low, but backdating the rise is a real slap round the face with a kosher kipper !
0

Marshalls_Mullet added 12:54 - Oct 11 Diamongezzer - Its standard practice in the commercial property world. ITFC shouldnt act like its unexpected. £13,500 per acre per annum does not sound like a huge sum. Bear in mind also that ITFC did not have to drag the matter out.
0

Paulc added 12:59 - Oct 11 So £654k for 7 years at PR, or equivelent Lee Martin's right leg.......mmmmm tough one!
0

simonsays added 13:03 - Oct 11 Pay up or get taken to court. No choice really is there?
0

irishtim added 13:03 - Oct 11 i reckon pay it & move on
0

imalwayswrong added 13:10 - Oct 11 I know other companies who pay in excess of £100k rent for an office in ipswich, why should the club be any different? Pay up, the money will go to keep jobs in the public sector. Otherwise council tax bills will rise
0

Marshalls_Mullet added 13:16 - Oct 11 It does annoy me that football clubs seem to think there is one rule for them and another rule for others.
0

JewellintheTown added 13:37 - Oct 11 Do you think they'd take Priskin off our hands instead of the £654,702 - an old fashioned bit of bartering? No, wait, we'd still owe £654,701 though.
0

muhrensleftfoot added 13:55 - Oct 11 I wonder how common it is for clubs not to own their own ground? You'd think Marcus Evans would try to buy the land from the council. Then a very saleable near Town Centre asset which could be sold for redevelopment in the future when the economy finally improves, with ITFC moving out to edge of town alongside A14 or A12 one day. Not saying that's good for ITFC or us fans, but from a business point of view.

0

blueoxford added 14:35 - Oct 11 Legally, I wouldn't have thought we have got a leg to stand on. We have gone public in the hope that the Council may come under pressure locally to back down. We certainly don't want the Council to sell the ground to ME (or anyone else). As soon as you go down that route (having seen what Kassam did in Oxford and others have done elsewhere), the Club has nothing and ends up paying a very high rent on a long lease to be in a soulless out of town stadium

0

floridaboy added 15:31 - Oct 11 Pay up Cleggy, the council need the money to pay the over the top expenses for the well paid councillors that are ruining the town!
0

DiamondGezzer added 15:35 - Oct 11 Marshalls Mullet :- I may have this totally wrong, but I was given to understand that when the rent [rise ] renewall came about, the council made no overtures about putting up the rent, in which case my comment about backdating it. If I'm wrong I'll apologise in advance.
0

Doctor_Albran added 16:11 - Oct 11 DiamondGezzer, that's my take on the earlier stories as well. There was a rate review date scheduled in 2004, however, the Council didn't full fill it. The Council then instigated a rate review in 2009 (not 100% sure of the year) - from which point they have agreed (and paid the new rate). You would have thought that the lease between the two would suggest what happens when a rate review is missed and subsequently scheduled in later years. So if the arbitration amount stated that the figure should be back dated to 2004 then that should be paid, if it didn't then the contract should be reviewed and if there is nothing in there about back payments in these circumstances then they either reach agreement or head back to arbitration.

0

blueoxford added 16:18 - Oct 11 "Time is of the essence" = Key
0

Marshalls_Mullet added 17:47 - Oct 11 Diamond gezzer.... they probably didnt activate it in 2004 as the club didnt have two pennies to rub together so it probably wasnt a priority. Also can you imagine the headlines it would have caused at the time. As blueoxford states, unless the lease states that 'time is of the essence' the Council are probably acting within their rights and in accordance with the lease. The rental level awarded will reflect the open market rent as of 2004.

0

flashblue added 20:31 - Oct 11 Outrageous behaviour by IBC. ME is pouring millions into the club and by extension the town. This is charity. IBC have a duty to their constituents to support the club as well. If I was ME this is just the sort of thing at would make me tell them to shove it. Idiots.
0

Marshalls_Mullet added 21:17 - Oct 11 Ridiculous point of view from Flashblue there.
0

itfcjc added 21:40 - Oct 11 I hate the council threatening to put us into administration who do they think they are
0

ClassyCranson added 23:22 - Oct 11 IBC can not issue a winding up order in any circumstances they could only issue a winding up petition, there is a massive difference between the two. Only a Court with the relevant authority could grant a winding up order after considering a petition. A petition is usually a last resort and is a request to the Court at a hearing to make a winding up order where a debt has not been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the petitioner. A winding up order would mean the end of the club in the football league as without sanction of the Court, it would not be able to continue operating and the players would automatically become free agents. In Administration the players under contract would not automatically become free agents and requires no sanction from the Court to continue operating and is often taken out to prevent a winding up order. However totally agree with the writer, it is absolutely inconceivable that either party would let it get near that stage. Without sight of a copy of the lease it is pointless to speculate who is right or wrong in this argument. The football club makes heavy losses ever year and it is the owner who picks up the shortfall. Whether he is right or wrong legally, if he wants to dispute the validity of the IBC back dated rent claim then he is in his rights to do it. I am sure this problem will resolve itself relatively amicably. However given the prime location of the club in the town and the length of the residual lease I envisage that further rent disputes are on the cards in the future.

0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls