• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Millwall potentially forced to relocate to Kent

on NFL relocations, surely the local councils wouldn't be so desperate to get a franchise if it wasn't a boost to the local economy?
 
on NFL relocations, surely the local councils wouldn't be so desperate to get a franchise if it wasn't a boost to the local economy?
Politics will come into it - if you are on watch when they move you may not be voted in / if you get a franchise you are more likely, also some may benefit even if it leads to a negative to the economy - just a quick google search :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taxpayers-nfl-stadiums_us_55f08313e4b002d5c077b8ac
"The new report links the subsidization of new stadiums to higher poverty rates and lower median incomes in their home cities, and it found that most NFL cities fared worse by both measures after paying for a new stadium.....

There is, however, a “strong consensus” among economists that publicly financed stadiums are not worth their price, and the benefits stadiums bring do not align with their costs. Baade pointed to some of his earliest research, which found that cities that pursued what he called a “sports development strategy” indeed performed worse on a host of economic measures than similarly sized cities that did not build new stadiums to keep or lure pro teams.
"
perhaps brings in revenue but not at the best return so fails the opportunity cost http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/12/how-taxpayers-keep-the-nfl-rich/418971/

"Documents supporting the Inglewood plan claim that a $1.9 billion NFL stadium, mostly funded by taxpayers, would cause $3.8 billion in local economic expansion. This “magic multiplier” fails the giggle test. Many studies have shown that for any dollar of civic investment, building roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure has far more multiplier effect than building NFL fields.

In a 2015 study, Ted Gayer and Alex Gold of the Brookings Institution concluded, “Despite the fact that new stadiums are thought to boost local economic growth and job creation, these benefits are often overstated. Academic studies typically find no discernible positive relationship between sports facility construction and economic development. Most evidence suggests sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth, or job creation.”"

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayers/
 
is it true that the land in question doesn't actually overlap with the current stadium?

i've seen that in a couple of places but there doesn't seem to be a straight answer

Lewisham planned to issue a CPO for the land around The Den, leaving the club’s community trust homeless and imperilled, with the land due to be sold to opaque offshore-owned developers Renewal, a company founded by the last Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan.
 
Lewisham planned to issue a CPO for the land around The Den, leaving the club’s community trust homeless and imperilled, with the land due to be sold to opaque offshore-owned developers Renewal, a company founded by the last Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan.

ok, does it actually affect the stadium though, is it that they will absolutely have to move out, like archway steel, or is it that it blocks development plans that millwall fc have for the den?
 
ok, does it actually affect the stadium though, is it that they will absolutely have to move out, like archway steel, or is it that it blocks development plans that millwall fc have for the den?

It doesn't look like anything is happening to the stadium, so probably just scare tactics on their behalf to get more interest and stop it. I can understand if they feel they are being forced out though.
 
Some of the people involved were up to their necks in dodgy stuff. They need to stop the CPO to stop further investigation. I hope the Guardian keep pursuing the case.
 
Some of the people involved were up to their necks in dodgy stuff. They need to stop the CPO to stop further investigation. I hope the Guardian keep pursuing the case.

The whole thing was shady as all hell. Renewal and their allies on the council tried to pull off the dodgiest of deals by counting on people's apathy and ignorance of their true nature - thankfully the Graun's investigation and the increasing public interest in the case put paid to that. But it's scary how far stuff like this can get just by relying on the fact that people are often too apathetic to stop it happening.

Football fans have a hard lot in England - they're often utterly powerless spectators watching their clubs get thrown around like a piece of meat between wealthy buyers, praying that they can just get to their ground on a weekend and follow the team they love without having it taken from them. But at the same time, there's something about them that inspires respect - while the people running their clubs might not care, when people outside the club try to do them over (as was evidently the case here), they can really band together to take them on and save the institution they love. Might not always win, but it's inspiring to watch.

And we need that sort of spirit to ward off predatory f*ckers like Renewal. Credit to the Graun for their reporting, credit to the Millwall fans for making their voices heard enough to spur public interest in the affair, and credit also to the people who were threatened with eviction by Renewal when the CPO looked set to pass, but stayed on and outlasted this farce. For now, anyway.
 
I got all excited seeing this thread bumped, for a minute I thought it was good news and they were being kicked out after all.
 
Back