Ground issue needs resolving

The reaction to last week's accounts publication provoked some large debate across the various media outlets and internet forums,

.

Most encouraging however was the fact that it appears that the penny might just have dropped with one prominent local journo who despite incorrectly labelling us all as curmudgeons produced an astute column raising a number of issues that many of us have been asking and wondering for a while.

Indeed apart from completely missing the main bone of contention that I feel a number of fans have with our majority shareholder, chairman, sympathetic landlord and biggest creditor – namely an unwillingness to engage in open bi-directional dialogue – Martin Swain's article made informed and intelligent reading.

As ever the constant lead weight around our necks, namely ground rent, provoked the majority of debate elsewhere.

For many a year discussions about the rights and wrongs of how much we are required to fork out, the annual growth in value and difference between the price paid initially for the land and the cost to the football club year on year have been debated.

Indeed, when producing fanzines (seemingly a lifetime ago) the topic of ground rent and the efforts to ensure that every Saddlers fan became aware of the situation was never far from the top of our editorial agenda.

For me now however the question of how much we pay is no longer the main question. More pertinent to now are the questions of why the football club has never (publically at least) sought to purchase the property it trades upon and if uniting club and property is truly impossible then what has to happen to the property in order to make a club that has apparently been well run and available for well over a decade to make it attractive to any suitable investor?

Personally I think that it's a travesty that the club has not found itself or managed to position itself into a position to purchase the Bescot site on which it conducts its business.

When questioned atsSupporters meetings Roy Whalley always straight batted the issue away by pointing out that under the current status quo we have a landlord that would always be sympathetic should we be unable to meet payment deadlines, a point that on the surface it is extremely hard to argue with.

However given that we are continually reminded that we are a club that does not spend money that we do not have and that the present directors of the club would never risk the future of the club it is difficult to visualise a scenario where we couldn't afford to pay our ground costs whether these be to a landlord in terms of rent payments or a bank in terms of a mortgage or loan.

Indeed it is far from conceivable that had we been offered and been brave enough to accept the opportunity at any time in this decade (or the last) to purchase the property then the amount of money required to service this repayment could and probably would be significantly lower than the rent required at present.

And despite Whalley's defensive rhetoric had the impetus from the board ever been there I am sure we could have found a solution to this issue. Sadly the larger turkeys are never likely to vote for Christmas however.

Clearly as Martin Swain's article noted both the club and the majority shareholder in search of an escape route appear doomed to be locked in limbo until the extremely complex issue of club and land ownership can be resolved.

The previously published notion of local council taking over the land ownership highlighted the fact that the current board have identified the problem and tested the water with regard to the most suitable and appropriate solution for the Football Club.

However the notion of a local authority continually strapped for funds investing in such a venture was always sure to end in disappointment despite it being a near perfect resolution for one of the town's most prestigious brands and premium employers.

Quite where the club and owner go from here in order to free themselves the shackles of this problem is anyone's guess.

Much will obviously depend on how keen Bonser really is to move the club on. Two things are for certain however; firstly had the club and land been united it'd be a far more attractive proposition for the kind of ambitious businessman that Jeff is awaiting to succeed him and secondly on order to move the club out of stagnation it desperately needs resolving sooner rather than later.