Jump to content


Photo

Tesco's Tenants?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,612 posts

Posted 09 Jun 2008 - 21:03

Knowsley Council will be the stadium operators and they will directly negotiate the sub-lease terms with Everton.
Keith Wyness has called it a "peppercorn rent" but has still not given an exact sum. Tesco will sign a 999 year lease for the land from Knowsley Council and Everton FC will sub-lease from Tesco. So we will be paying Tesco rent for using the stadium. Also any maintenance that the stadium requires will be Everton's responsibility and not Tesco or KMBC.

No one mentioned this before..

From official questions - http://stadium.evert...ns-answered.php :

Andrew O’Neill: You state in the FAQs you will have a 999 year lease which is free hold and as far as I am aware. Any lease be it 99 or 999 years is classed as lease hold and therefore subject to a yearly payment. Can you advise what this cost per year would be?

Keith Wyness: It will be a peppercorn rent which is yet to be determined. Peppercorn rent is a very small amount.

and from http://stadium.evertonfc.com/faq.php:

7. Will we own any new stadium?

We will have a 999-year lease which is, effectively, a freehold ownership.


He didn't lie but I don't think he told the whole truth ;)
  • 0

#2 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 09 Jun 2008 - 22:08

A peppercorn payment could be 1, so a total of 999 hardly going to break the bank. BUT aprreciate what you are trying to say, choice of words used was very clever, never actually commits to whether it is freehold or not.
  • 0

#3 Rubecula

Rubecula

    COFFIN DODGER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,350 posts

Posted 09 Jun 2008 - 23:29

My argument on this has always been that a football club owns the ground and it's name. Nothing else. Managers come and go, players come and go, even directors come and go. But the ground and the name are sacrosanct. Everton are giving away one of the things that make them Everton.

No I do not want to leave Goodison, but I will go with the vote as it is. I just wish that for two reasons it was not the Kirkby project.

1) I want Everton to retain ownership of the stadium.
2) I do not want to leave Liverpool, it is like running away from the 'other lot'
  • 0

#4 john_webby

john_webby

    Mick Lyons

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts

Posted 10 Jun 2008 - 01:55

they are the same 2 reasons i am against moving to kirby but i am not against a move. we need a move but i dont think this deal is right one for the club (money wise yes but for the club no).

i've just had a quick look and had to register but found out that a peppercorn sauce in tesco is worth 44p so that means we would get the lease for 439.56 which soesn't sound to bad lol
  • 0

#5 Randomness

Randomness

    My Last Avatar Was Cursed

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 10 Jun 2008 - 02:25

well that fact was strangely ommitted from the propagander given with the ballot form!
  • 0

#6 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 10 Jun 2008 - 08:31

My argument on this has always been that a football club owns the ground and it's name. Nothing else. Managers come and go, players come and go, even directors come and go. But the ground and the name are sacrosanct. Everton are giving away one of the things that make them Everton.

No I do not want to leave Goodison, but I will go with the vote as it is. I just wish that for two reasons it was not the Kirkby project.

1) I want Everton to retain ownership of the stadium.
2) I do not want to leave Liverpool, it is like running away from the 'other lot'


Agree with number 1.
Don't agree with number 2.
What if you took the other view that we have now grown and there simply is not room for both clubs in the city - the council already biased towards liverpool, so lets move home.
  • 0

#7 Rubecula

Rubecula

    COFFIN DODGER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,350 posts

Posted 10 Jun 2008 - 15:50

Agree with number 1.
Don't agree with number 2.
What if you took the other view that we have now grown and there simply is not room for both clubs in the city - the council already biased towards liverpool, so lets move home.


I can see your point there, however Manchester have two top flight teams and there is room for them both in Manchester.

(Obviously I can not comment about Birmingham as they are a bit short of top flight teams. And London is a different kettle of fish altogether.)

I do think there is room for two big teams in Liverpool. But perhaps two top stadiums is a bit tight. I don't think this is the case myself, but I bow to the opinion of others. I have always thought that as the East Lancs goes right up to Queens Drive in all but name, and it is a dual carriageway. Why not build along there? Walton Hall Park? Liverpool have Stanley Park. Or even a little further along. The site of the old English Electric factory is pretty big. And there are other places between these. I may be a bit suspicious here but I am certain there is some ulterior motive for this Kirkby move. I simply can not put my support behind it. AND there is the question of Stadium ownership that really annoys the hell out of me.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users