New Notts County Owners boot Nottingham Rugby out

thomond2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8165944.stm

Nottingham Rugby Club officials have said they could be left homeless after Notts County Football Club told them they can no longer play at Meadow Lane.
The clubs entered into a ground-sharing agreement when they both faced financial difficulties in 2006.

A Notts County spokesman said new owners Munto Finance were within their rights to end the agreement.

He said it was not commercially advantageous to Notts County and had a serious impact on the playing surface.


'Extremely disappointed'

The rugby club, known as the Green and Whites, began a major fundraising initiative after suffering financial troubles last season.
One of the club's directors, Alistair Bow, said they were "extremely disappointed" with the news.

He said: "As far as we are concerned we have a contract to play at Meadow Lane this season.

"By refusing to honour the agreement it could signal the end of professional rugby in the city and I think it would impact massively on the livelihood of our professional players and staff."

In a statement, Notts County confirmed the ground-sharing agreement was ended earlier this month when Munto Finance took over at the club and that is was "within their rights" to do so.

It said the agreement was "not commercially advantageous to Notts County" and "incompatible with their ability to maintain a pitch suitable for first class football".

Notts County made global headlines earlier in the week after Munto Finance, a Middle East-based consortium, signed former England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson to become director of football.

Another example of new owners flexing their greedy muscles.

Surely Nottingham have a long term contract with Meadow Lane stadium that can't be suddenly rescinded?

justsomebloke

thomond2006 wrote: »

Surely Nottingham have a long term contract with Meadow Lane stadium that can't be suddenly rescinded?

it depends on what the terms of the contract are

d'Oracle

thomond2006 wrote: »

Another example of new owners flexing their greedy muscles.

I really can't see how that can be called greedy.

Aidric

I am personally devestated by this huge story, a powerhouse like Nottingham RFC deserve better.

Stealdo

As above Thomond - it depends completely on the terms of the contract.

This should serve as a warning to all the other English RFC's to be careful when entering into these agreements.

If I bought a soccer club (I probably disband it) but if I did and intended running it, I wouldn't want to share the playing surface with a rugby club if I had any serious ambitions for the team. You can't blame them for the decision to boot them out, even if it's a bit crappy to do it mid-term of an agreement.

thomond2006

Nottingham were on the verge of administration last Autumn, this won't help matters.

It seems unlikely that any fair contract would have a clause that allowed Notts County F.C. to end Nottingham Rugby's use of Meadow Lane at any time.

Surely no rugby team would sign an agreement like that?

Stev_o

It's probably the biggest backstab of the year as Notts had actually loaned County money in 2005 when they were having financial difficulties and thus as a show of good will they signed a contract to use Notts stadium. New Owners come in and tell them to f*ck off.

Riskymove

Perhaps Forest might oblige

thomond2006

Stev_o wrote: »

It's probably the biggest backstab of the year as Notts had actually loaned County money in 2005 when they were having financial difficulties and thus as a show of good will they signed a contract to use Notts stadium. New Owners come in and tell them to f*ck off.

+1

Four-Percent

Dunno what the big problem is really.Sounds like Nottingham Rugby didn't properly flesh out the contract to make sure they weren't turfed out...

And the football team have every right to kick them out, i would say the pitch was in bits after every rugby match. If they're able to wriggle out of a contract, it's a scabby thing to do but no one can stop them really.

[Jackass]

That's harsh alright!!

But not only is giving them a home not helping the football club, but I'm sure rugby and football are in direct competition for fans, and seeing the rugby club go under is "commericall adventagous" to the football club.

That's life and one of the draw backs to professional sport unfortunatley. Hopefully they find alternative accomodation!

Amabokke

Are there absolutely no other pitches available for them to train on? There is a point in the impact on the playing surface. No point in fighting to play there if there is always going to be issues in future with the footballers managers. Move on.

Stev_o

Amabokke wrote: »

Are there absolutely no other pitches available for them to train on? There is a point in the impact on the playing surface. No point in fighting to play there if there is always going to be issues in future with the footballers managers. Move on.

See i dunno about this now, Reading and London Irish both play at the Madejski stadium and i have never ever seen that pitch in a bad state.

sm.org

Stev_o wrote: »

See i dunno about this now, Reading and London Irish both play at the Madejski stadium and i have never ever seen that pitch in a bad state.

A fair point. I imagine Reading make a decent return from the LI's games though as they're always decent crowds at the games. How many are at a Nottingham Rugby game?

Riskymove

sm.org wrote: »

A fair point.

many rugby teams share soccer grounds in england; I presume the soccer teams are making money out of it alright

Beau

I'd say it really depends on how much it costs to maintain the pitch.

thebaz

Riskymove wrote: »

many rugby teams share soccer grounds in england; I presume the soccer teams are making money out of it alright

rugby and soccer really shouldn't share pitches, it might be ok for rugby, but for soccer ?? rugby tears up the surface, and soccer needs a good surface - look at Wigan or old Trafford.
In this instance feal sorry for Nottingham rugby.

Riskymove

thebaz wrote: »

rugby and soccer really shouldn't share pitches, it might be ok for rugby, but for soccer ?? rugby tears up the surface, and soccer needs a good surface - look at Wigan or old Trafford.
In this instance feal sorry for Nottingham rugby.

top level silky passing football yes, it would be unlikely to see top clubs share their ground on a regular basis to rugby

but for lower level footie, if they can maintain pitch and still make money I would presume thats why they do it.