By Albatross
August 12 2005

The Hartlepool Mail has reported that HUFC are in discussions with the Council to purchase Victoria Park. While that may be no bad thing, there are still plenty of points up for debate for Hartlepool United fans. The issue of Football Ground Ownership is a highly convoluted one, with arguments on several sides about who is best owning a stadium. I'll try here and present some of the points of debate, and then make one or two comments about where I personally think we may end up. I should stress that this article mostly discusses the general case rather than the specific - I can claim no knowledge about what discussions are taking place about Victoria Park, who may end up owning it, or IOR's plans should they buy the ground.

First off, let's consider the arguments for a club owning the place it plays in. Considered by many to be the best way of doing things, there are plenty of advantages: no-one can kick the club out for starters, there's no rent to be paid, and there's no danger of losing improvements to the ground. While Pools may currently have Victoria Park on a longish lease, it is still that - a lease - and that may make IOR wary of doing too much with the ground, as should the Council at some point wish to remove the club they are not obliged to renew the lease - and any improvements made would potentially go with it. While there are cases of clubs owning the fixtures and fittings, taking down a stand and re-erecting it elsewhere is not something to be entered into lightly.

On the other hand, with the Council owning the ground there is a measure of security as well. Councils tend to be reasonable Landlords for the most part - and generally speaking, if they do want to redevelop the land of an existing ground they usually look to provide another. In extreme cases it can even be a great thing to have a Council Landlord - Hull City's new stadium was funded by their council, the largesse coming from the huge windfall they had received for their share of Kingston Communications. A strong council that's looking to support the club that lies within their boundaries can be a powerful ally.

If a club does own it's ground, there are other advantages beyond security of tenure. Money-making opportunites, possible grants from some organisations for development, and the like are sometimes open to a club that owns the land in a way that they may not be to a tenant. However there are other aspects that need to be thought about very carefully - specifically the opportunity to raise money through loans, or by a Sale and Leaseback of the ground. Mortgaging the ground may allow a club to borrow money - but, as with any loan secured on property, miss some repayments and all of a sudden the ground may be out of your control. Sell it and lease it back, and arguably you might as well have just stayed leasing the ground in the first place - quite possibly at better terms than the property company that buys the stadium will want in any case.

Sale and Leaseback in particular is an idea that is not popular with fans - and with some reason. Unless it's handled very carefully, and the money that's brought in is invested wisely rather than spent on the playing side in a risky attempt to climb the leagues, it can be a strategy that leaves a club with little in the way of assets and facing crippling leasing fees. Bournemouth fans for example have twice in recent seasons found a Sale and Leaseback scheme proposed - and it's something that causes a lot of them a lot of disquiet.

Mortgages or other secured loans may at least leave the club holding the title to their ground - but even that has to be approached with caution. Looking down the road to Darlington, one of the things that precipitated their crisis was a secured loan on their new stadium, taken out by George Reynolds in order to finish building it; and the Sterling Consortium wasn't exactly known for it's low interest rates, although their subsequent takeover of the club has - to their credit - seen Darlo put back on an even keel.

Then there's the situation where the club and the stadium are owned by one company or person - and that's one that has seen a number of teams facing some desperate situations. If IOR (or their parent company) were to buy Victoria Park and place ownership of it in a Stadium Company, seperate to HUFC, any number of alarm bells would start ringing in my head. While it's not automatically a sign of trouble, you end up in the situation where you are effectively reliant on the good will of the parent company for the club continuing to play there. And there are plenty of examples where that has turned out to be severely lacking.

Take Wimbledon for example. The start of their troubles really came when ownership of Plough Lane was transferred to a holding company of Sam Hamman: when he sold the ground, leaving them homeless, the club didn't see much of the proceeds and eventually their half-life at Selhurst Park made them a prime target for the people looking to move a club to Milton Keynes. Look at York City's problems when they were effectively told they were to be turfed out of their own ground. Or Wrexham last season, given notice to quit the Racecourse Ground by their owner Alex Hamilton, a property developer and speculator.

If Hartlepool United do buy Victoria Park, I would hope that the council will include a number of conditions in the sale agreement. Some form of covenant would seem to be in order: stating that the football club has to stay, or be moved to another suitable ground within the borough with the same condition applying, before the Vic could be flattened and used for other purposes. It's not so much I doubt IOR: but they are unlikely to be around forever, and our next owner may not be so altruistic. By all means let the club buy the ground - but in doing so, let's secure the future of the club in the town for the forseeable future.