Ground Ownership in the eircom League

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Partizan

Recently the FAI gave the RSC a grant worth 600k but that was only on the plans that Waterford City Council submitted to them so in all likely not once cent of that will be spent on the soccer ground but in another part of the complex itself or perhaps on replacing the athletics track.

---

That sounds a bit dodgy. How would the FAI be paying for non-football bits to be built?

I think Partizan is showing his suspicion of the city council there which isn't surprising as nothing has been done to improve the ground by them for years.Even basic things like the toilets need improving.However I couldn't see the FAI letting money to improve the ground being spent on something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

That sounds a bit dodgy. How would the FAI be paying for non-football bits to be built?

---

I think he means toilets and facilities like that as distinct from any work on the pitch.

It wouldnt surprise me Trevy if the Council squandered the money on the jacks and the turnstiles and claim it cost €500,000 and used whatever left over to erect some stupid bloody statue on the Quay that no one really wants.

[QUOTE=Peadar]I'm certain that Sligo Rovers FC don't own the ground.
In the sense that it's listed in the clubs assets.
I know this sounds like nit picking but we've got to establish the facts here.

/QUOTE]

Sligo rovers own the ground under conditions layed out by the trust who secured the ground for the club. Think of it as being much the same as being left land or a house, with a stipulation that it couldnt be sold. Now you'd still own the land or house. The way in which rovers have done it ensure that the ground will always remain. being defined in club assets is not the sole barometer of ownership in this case. I know it's a bit different but we do own the ground. and that is factual.

You tell him Gary ;) , cos poor aul Peader doesn't seem to be listening:mad: :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garykelly

Sligo rovers own the ground under conditions layed out by the trust who secured the ground for the club. Think of it as being much the same as being left land or a house, with a stipulation that it couldnt be sold. Now you'd still own the land or house. The way in which rovers have done it ensure that the ground will always remain. being defined in club assets is not the sole barometer of ownership in this case. I know it's a bit different but we do own the ground. and that is factual.

---

so can the board of sligo rovers decide that they are going to sell the ground, and then keep hold of the proceeds.?

if yes, then it appears they do own it, if they have to get approval from a trustee etc., then no they dont own it no matter what sligo rovers fans think ;)

obviously, sligo rovers have 'complete control' of the ground, but drogs have 'complete control' of united park, but we don't own it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinR

so can the board of sligo rovers decide that they are going to sell the ground, and then keep hold of the proceeds.?

if yes, then it appears they do own it, if they have to get approval from a trustee etc., then no they dont own it no matter what sligo rovers fans think ;)

---

Not true. You can own a house but if you're married then you can't sell the house without a declaration from your wife that it's not the family home. Does that mean you don't own your house? Of course not.

On another point, I think it's a good thing that a club can't sell its ground off that easily. Prevents a takeover just so someone can get their hands on the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chippie0001

No it is not held as collateral anywhere, only banks do that and we owe the banks nothing. However some of our board use it as collateral in their heards for the incompatance they have delivered on us.

---

so what did the bank look for as a guarantee for your E1.8M of debts ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinR

so can the board of sligo rovers decide that they are going to sell the ground, and then keep hold of the proceeds.?

if yes, then it appears they do own it, if they have to get approval from a trustee etc., then no they dont own it no matter what sligo rovers fans think ;)

obviously, sligo rovers have 'complete control' of the ground, but drogs have 'complete control' of united park, but we don't own it.

---

Who cares we have one of the biggests ground in Europe circa 12 acres and don't pay a penny rent for it , it can never be sold or mortgaged , if the sh1t hits the fan again the banks can't touch it , great foresight by the club in the sixties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinR

so can the board of sligo rovers decide that they are going to sell the ground, and then keep hold of the proceeds.?

---

Our board isn't like some other clubs boards either AFAIK we are a Co-Operative any one who buys a share in the club (it used to be £500 old money) can get on the board if elected at our AGM's.

Sligo Rovers F.C. the peoples club :D

Kilkenny City own Buckley Park 100%

Well the University own Belfield Park and also own the Bowl home of the rugby club which is mooted to be the new home of the soccer club when Belfield Park is demolished and apartments are built on it :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anto eile

so what did the bank look for as a guarantee for your E1.8M of debts ?

---

Anto you obviously didn't read my previous post, we owe the bank nothing so they never looked for gaurantees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmy-boy

which gos to prove that the blues are named owners of the rsc because the fai dont give ground develope grants for stadiums which are only rented.

---

You've proved me entirely wrong, jimmy-boy!
How could I have been so clueless!? :rolleyes:
Cork City FC have been telling me some terrible lies about getting grants from the FAI. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmy-boy

waterford united as good as own the rsc,
the rsc was built by waterford city council for the people of waterford and gave waterford united first preference to the use of the pitch for life free of charge.

---

Not sure about that, I was under the impression that WUFC paid rent to the corporation but that there was an agreement for a number of years whereby rent was reduced/eliminated as a result of Waterford putting in the floodlights. Maybe one of those people who have shares in the PLC could enlighten us on this?