Stevenage: Chairman Phil Wallace urges council to act over ground development - BBC Sport
Complaining as usual, thats what you get with southern councils
Complaining as usual, thats what you get with southern councils
Stevenage
- Thread starter st06nc2
- Start date
for once in my life i,m on the side of a council.
I could not disagree more with your statement MH. Yes funds are scarce, but at the end of the day the land and buildings on the that land are owned by the council and they have a duty of care to make the facilities 'Fit for purpose' as well as complying with various rules and regulations. The club has funding available for upgrading the stand and are asking the council for a one third commitment. Much as I do not like the club because they seem to have a hoodoo over the Stanley, equally I would not like them to shut up shop (the statement by the chairman to do this is utterly abhorrent, it is a direct threat to the council). Whilst this is only MY opinion and I fully expect others to say I am wrong on this, maybe as Stanley fans we are lucky in the ownership of our proud little club.
just another threat that will never happen. a child who,s stamping his feet if he doesn,t get his own way. don,t want any club to fold but if there has to be one please let it be them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not necessarily so. The Council may own the land and the buildings but Satanage FC, as tenants, have the responsibility of making sure their customers are safe and sound. And, as tenants, the football club leased the premises knowingly, however 'unfit for purpose' they now claim they are.
Being an ex new town, the Council probably own lots of land and buildings but its ratepayers can't be expected to pay for refurbishing every one of its tenants' premises.
If you are in social housing owned by the council, then it is the council's responsibility to do the repairs to the rented property, not the tenants. In this case, the club are saying to the council, we want to upgrade the facilities, we will contribute two thirds of the funding from the club and FL will you contribute the other third. I agree Satanage have a duty of care to the paying hoards that watch them, but remember Edgar Street, Hereford, how dilapidated that was, didn't the council shut a stand down for being dangerous?
Wrong analogy. A football club is a business, just like many others in Council premises, not a resident in social housing. Satanage's tenancy will have clear terms as to who is liable for what. And that club are not proposing 'repairs' but improvements, presumably to increase their turnover.
As for Hereford, the ground was/is owned by the County Council but again there was no legal obligation on that Council to divert public funds to subsidise a private business. However, in that case it was the Council that 'saved' Hereford from total demise. If the ground wasn't owned by the County Council, the spivs who tried to take over Hereford would have shut the club down and flogged the site to Tesco.