Ipswich MP Ben Gummer’s suggestion that Ipswich Borough Council should sell Portman Road to the club in order to finance the compulsory purchase of waterfront land for redevelopment is “stupid and naïve”, according to Borough councillor and ITFC Supporters Trust committee member Alasdair Ross.

While the Blues own Portman Road's stands and other buildings, IBC own the land on which they are built with Town having signed a lease on the 8½ acre site in August 2001, the term lasting 125 years from the start of a previous agreement in June 1969.

Former Town chief executive Simon Clegg revealed to TWTD that in 2011, during a lengthy dispute relating a backdated rent rise, club owner Marcus Evans had had a bid to buy the stadium rebuffed by IBC.

Town’s offer, believed to be in the region of £1 million, was, Clegg said, a long way from IBC’s valuation: “I don’t really want to go into figures, but we did make a substantial offer to the council earlier in the year and they felt that the offer didn’t value the ground in the same way that they did. It is fair to say that there was some considerable distance between us.”

Now, MP Gummer says he believes the council should cash in on the ground in order to buy waterfront land close to Stoke Bridge for redevelopment: “I don’t want to tell the council what they should or should not sell, but we know the football club is keen to buy the freehold of Portman Road,” he told the Ipswich Star.

However, Labour councillor Ross says there is little to be gained from the sale with the current arrangement protecting Town from the sort of situations which have occurred at other clubs where grounds have been sold for development, in the case of Brighton with no new stadium in place.

“I think it’s rather stupid and naïve,” he told TWTD. “There’s no need to sell the ground, it’s of no benefit to Mr Evans the way we are to buy the ground.

“And with the council owning it we know the ground is secure. If Mr Evans were to sell the club in the future while owning the ground, who would own it then? The current situation is protection against anyone trying to develop the ground in the future.”

Photo: Action Images

gazzmac4 added 16:23 - Mar 12 I must come to congratulate @jonwillpott for a post which has received as many minus' as i can remember seeing on this fair site for many a month. COngrats on the especially bad post! It also poses one question, where has he recently moved to that he considers to be "quite near the ground" yet he still drives to matches? Surely a brisk walk could suffice old chap? I live in Watford at the moment and it took me an hour to get home from the Middlesborough match a few weeks ago! The fact of the matter for me is we dont want to end up like the Brighton's or the Watford's of this world; no land or no stand. Anyway we can avoid the above two scenarios should be pursued. For the time being it seems best to leave things as they are..

0

Marshalls_Mullet added 16:25 - Mar 12 @Ipswichbusiness Corporate hospitality in The Emirates playing european football and in one of the worlds primary financial cities is a little different to Ipswich.
0

h32 added 18:21 - Mar 12 ....... so many pros and cons with this debate (which many people would not understand - with due respect) - certainly not a discussion for this forum.
0

theobald1985 added 21:07 - Mar 12 JWM name a tax rise that has resulted in an actual loss of revenue for the goverment. Tax them til the pips squeak is the phrase if the top 10% payed 10% more tax we could remove the deficiet in 2 years without the cuts. Why defend the rotten excess of the ruling classes and idol rich. If you defend these people living in the laps of the gods while still cutting pay and conditions for working people you are a traitor and should be treated as such. and when the policies of these idiots mean they start suggesting stupid things like selling are ground to the private individuals to cover for the growth thet have stifled that really is the limit.WE should have nationalised the banks not bailed them out and re-nationalised key industry

0

rugbytomc added 09:26 - Mar 13 jonwilpot - have you thought about walking?! We must not move away from Portman Road and it makes no sense to anyway as the ground is big enough and the pitch is amazing
0

Doctor_Albran added 13:48 - Mar 13 Theobald, The answer to your question is quite a complex one as it depends on the economic factors used in calculating the perceived value of a tax rise. If you take into account the cost of implementing the tax and managing the tax going forward this will give you a view on how much profit it generates. If you just look at the revenue generated from the tax (irrelevant of the running costs - which seems to be the case with most taxes), it's a very different figure. Let's take the proposed mansion tax on £2m+ houses - you need to employ valuers to review ALL the houses within the UK to decide on the value of each house, then you have an ongoing cost to continually value houses and deal with disputes where people do not agree with the governments valuation. This may cost more to manage than it generates if you use the right formula - X (costs) + Y (Revenue) = Z (income) However, if you just look at people with £2m+ houses paying tax and say this generates Z then you are right in saying every tax increase has generated an increase in revenue - although the operational costs have still gone up creating an additional burden on the revenue. You have simply decided to ignore them. Y (Revenue) = Z (income) = welcome to the Public Sector!

0

LordMamu added 17:22 - Mar 13 If anyone is being stupid and naiive it's many of the posters above and Mr Ross! If you want to protect the ground from being sold for development then the Council can just impose a restrictive covenant preventing it when they sell. It's not rocket science. As for the gain for Marcus Evans, well that's glaringly obvious. Paying a minimum of £100k a year subject to review over a term of 125 years or £1m (actually if you capitalise it most would buy for a 7-8% yield so I think it's more like £1.25m as Marshall's Mullet says ) upfront to discharge any liability? Well it's a no-brainer, isn't it? And the Council could use the money for investement somewhere else right now.....

0

theobald1985 added 20:11 - Mar 13 Thank you Doctor_Albran for that lesson. Basically you awnser is a long way of saying you cant. With regards the masion tax I seriosly doubt it would be as hard as you are suggesting. In addition everybody employed to do the job of managing the tax will be paying tax themselves and earning money that they will spend on goods and services in there local area. LordMamu how many times have we seen these council conditions overturned.where everybody says oh no the pub wont go it has got conditions to stay as a public house only for it to be a house a year later.the safest way to ensure the future of our club is for IBC to retain ownership

0

theobald1985 added 20:19 - Mar 13 P.S i was actually advocating a basic rise in income tax for the very top earners and corparation tax as well
0

Ipswichbusiness added 18:04 - Mar 14 Marshals Mullet I know, but the point is that a new ground can generate additional revenue.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls