Supporters’ Trust in bid to use legislation to protect ground from being sold off

Valley Parade

Valley Parade

First published in News Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , City Hall Reporter

A group of Bantams’ supporters hope to persuade councillors to put legal safeguards in place to stop Valley Parade from being sold off from under the club’s nose.

Bradford City Supporters’ Trust, which represents fans, is believed to be the first club in Yorkshire to try to use new ‘community asset’ legislation to protect the ground for years to come.

The Bantams pay £370,000 annually in rent to former chairman Gordon Gibb’s family pension fund as part of a 25-year lease that runs until 2029.

There is no indication that the landlords would want to sell the ground but the Trust has applied to have it recognised as a community asset as an added form of protection.

The application has now been recommended for approval at the next meeting of the Bradford West Area Committee on Wednesday.

The new legislation, which formed part of the 2011 Localism Act, means that communities can apply to have land or buildings which benefit the area named as an ‘asset of community value’.

This means that if the owner of such an asset were to put it up for sale, they would have to notify the Council, and community groups and parish councils would then be able to bid for the property if they wanted to.

The landowner has no objections to the move, the Council report says.

Manningham Mills Community Association has handed in a similar application, to list land and buildings to the back of Lister’s Mill in Lilycroft Road, Manningham, as an asset of community value.

This has also been recommended for approval, even though it fails one of four tests – whether it is used mainly for the benefit of the community.

The Council report says the land and property is currently unused and not open to the public.

But the report says Manningham Mills Community Association wants to turn the land into a community allotment, orchard and horticultural training project.

It says property owner Urban Splash would consider transferring the property to the community, and supports the application.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:17am Thu 16 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Well done theBC trust and by the sound of it well done Bradford Council if approved.
Well done theBC trust and by the sound of it well done Bradford Council if approved. bcfc1903
  • Score: 1

8:32am Thu 16 Jan 14

Freddy says...

*
I have often wondered if the Council could buy Valley Parade, from GG's Pension Fund.
*
If they use Council Tax money. Then the people of Bradford, and its catchment area, who pay Council Tax--WILL BE BUYING THE GROUND.
*
* I have often wondered if the Council could buy Valley Parade, from GG's Pension Fund. * If they use Council Tax money. Then the people of Bradford, and its catchment area, who pay Council Tax--WILL BE BUYING THE GROUND. * Freddy
  • Score: 4

8:49am Thu 16 Jan 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The council should not buy the ground. Essential services are being cut so it's a kick in the teeth to those who need these services if the council buys the stadium on behalf of what is a private business.

Thats why I object to the money loaned to the Bulls, some people will be blinkered by hate for one or the other but my stance for both clubs is the same. They are both private businesses and the council should not be giving money to either.

I would however welcome the councils involvement in protecting the ground for years to come via any kind of scheme availible to prevent the land and ground being sold on.
The council should not buy the ground. Essential services are being cut so it's a kick in the teeth to those who need these services if the council buys the stadium on behalf of what is a private business. Thats why I object to the money loaned to the Bulls, some people will be blinkered by hate for one or the other but my stance for both clubs is the same. They are both private businesses and the council should not be giving money to either. I would however welcome the councils involvement in protecting the ground for years to come via any kind of scheme availible to prevent the land and ground being sold on. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 4

8:56am Thu 16 Jan 14

collos25 says...

Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford.
Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford. collos25
  • Score: -22

9:09am Thu 16 Jan 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Personally I think the club should do everything it can to distance itself from Bradford Council. Everything associated with BMDC immediately turns to sh1t so please don't let them anywhere near one of the (ever diminishing) jewels in the Bradford crown. Recently they managed to some how f$ck up the building of a bus stop so they need to be kept well away.
Personally I think the club should do everything it can to distance itself from Bradford Council. Everything associated with BMDC immediately turns to sh1t so please don't let them anywhere near one of the (ever diminishing) jewels in the Bradford crown. Recently they managed to some how f$ck up the building of a bus stop so they need to be kept well away. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 8

9:12am Thu 16 Jan 14

collos25 says...

That's true
That's true collos25
  • Score: 2

9:36am Thu 16 Jan 14

Bradford geoff says...

collos25 wrote:
Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford.
Why move from a developed stadium, albeit rented, to another rented but undeveloped stadium?
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford.[/p][/quote]Why move from a developed stadium, albeit rented, to another rented but undeveloped stadium? Bradford geoff
  • Score: 10

9:49am Thu 16 Jan 14

Old Dave says...

Anything that costs nothing, but adds protection for the City's football club, should be done. So I Applaud the BCST for this.
The debate about the need for two stadia in the City is an irrelevant one. They are both there, neither is council run, and they are owned/leased by different parties. In a different time, under many different circumstances, a shared stadium could have worked like it has at Huddersfield, Wigan , Hull and others, but the very valid and understandable reluctance of City to leave Valley Parade has made this a non-discussion. This is compounded by the current economic climate. the three stadiums mentioned above were all built in very different economic times, and I am sure if they were not already in situ, none of them would be built now!
Anything that costs nothing, but adds protection for the City's football club, should be done. So I Applaud the BCST for this. The debate about the need for two stadia in the City is an irrelevant one. They are both there, neither is council run, and they are owned/leased by different parties. In a different time, under many different circumstances, a shared stadium could have worked like it has at Huddersfield, Wigan , Hull and others, but the very valid and understandable reluctance of City to leave Valley Parade has made this a non-discussion. This is compounded by the current economic climate. the three stadiums mentioned above were all built in very different economic times, and I am sure if they were not already in situ, none of them would be built now! Old Dave
  • Score: 2

10:30am Thu 16 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

Hmm, my comment on the fantastic facilities at Odsal has disappeared.
Hmm, my comment on the fantastic facilities at Odsal has disappeared. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 16 Jan 14

bingleymoor says...

Well done Supporters Trust and how did you get Mr. Gibb`s agreement as a Trustee of a pension fund with legal obligations to maximise investments to agree to this stupid scheme? I note BCFC are not quoted as agreeing and quite right too.
Lets say BCFC bought the ground, Bradford became boom City and the Club wanted to sell for development purposes near the City centre and move to wherever. They cant under this plan as the value of Valley Parade is limited, any interest BCFC might have had in purchase is now right out of the window and will never return. Brilliant move, just brilliant. If I was running City today I would be showing these people the door.
Well done Supporters Trust and how did you get Mr. Gibb`s agreement as a Trustee of a pension fund with legal obligations to maximise investments to agree to this stupid scheme? I note BCFC are not quoted as agreeing and quite right too. Lets say BCFC bought the ground, Bradford became boom City and the Club wanted to sell for development purposes near the City centre and move to wherever. They cant under this plan as the value of Valley Parade is limited, any interest BCFC might have had in purchase is now right out of the window and will never return. Brilliant move, just brilliant. If I was running City today I would be showing these people the door. bingleymoor
  • Score: -11

11:16am Thu 16 Jan 14

northern pig says...

The council should sell Odsal stadium for development,as it is no longer fit for purpose and build a new stadium.in close proximity to the motorway corridor for City and the bulls.also compulsory purchase part of Valley Parade for a memorial garden for the people who died that awful day.
The council should sell Odsal stadium for development,as it is no longer fit for purpose and build a new stadium.in close proximity to the motorway corridor for City and the bulls.also compulsory purchase part of Valley Parade for a memorial garden for the people who died that awful day. northern pig
  • Score: -8

11:44am Thu 16 Jan 14

Albion. says...

northern pig wrote:
The council should sell Odsal stadium for development,as it is no longer fit for purpose and build a new stadium.in close proximity to the motorway corridor for City and the bulls.also compulsory purchase part of Valley Parade for a memorial garden for the people who died that awful day.
It belongs to the RFL.
[quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: The council should sell Odsal stadium for development,as it is no longer fit for purpose and build a new stadium.in close proximity to the motorway corridor for City and the bulls.also compulsory purchase part of Valley Parade for a memorial garden for the people who died that awful day.[/p][/quote]It belongs to the RFL. Albion.
  • Score: 1

11:55am Thu 16 Jan 14

Michael Clayton says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Personally I think the club should do everything it can to distance itself from Bradford Council. Everything associated with BMDC immediately turns to sh1t so please don't let them anywhere near one of the (ever diminishing) jewels in the Bradford crown. Recently they managed to some how f$ck up the building of a bus stop so they need to be kept well away.
I think you are perfectly correct. Who is to say that the council would be a safer option? You have only got to look at any number of balls ups across the district to realise that level of incompetence that exists.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: Personally I think the club should do everything it can to distance itself from Bradford Council. Everything associated with BMDC immediately turns to sh1t so please don't let them anywhere near one of the (ever diminishing) jewels in the Bradford crown. Recently they managed to some how f$ck up the building of a bus stop so they need to be kept well away.[/p][/quote]I think you are perfectly correct. Who is to say that the council would be a safer option? You have only got to look at any number of balls ups across the district to realise that level of incompetence that exists. Michael Clayton
  • Score: -3

12:43pm Thu 16 Jan 14

northern pig says...

The council belong the land on which Odsal Stadium is built. The RFL belong the sporting venue. I am not sure what the legal implications are/? Yours pig.
The council belong the land on which Odsal Stadium is built. The RFL belong the sporting venue. I am not sure what the legal implications are/? Yours pig. northern pig
  • Score: -3

12:49pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

northern pig wrote:
The council belong the land on which Odsal Stadium is built. The RFL belong the sporting venue. I am not sure what the legal implications are/? Yours pig.
The council leased the land to the Bulls, who sold that lease to the RFL.

The council have to honor that lease, they can't just rip it up and do what they want with the land.
[quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: The council belong the land on which Odsal Stadium is built. The RFL belong the sporting venue. I am not sure what the legal implications are/? Yours pig.[/p][/quote]The council leased the land to the Bulls, who sold that lease to the RFL. The council have to honor that lease, they can't just rip it up and do what they want with the land. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 6

12:52pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center.
In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center. Bacon Bantam
  • Score: -7

1:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

brilliant news and even better the current owner agrees with the process
brilliant news and even better the current owner agrees with the process tyker2
  • Score: 3

1:42pm Thu 16 Jan 14

jamiejoe says...

The club is clearly more than just a business.

The clubs mean much more to the teams supporters than the loyalty most businesses or public organisations can muster.

In actual fact, financially the last decade has shown that both clubs are not good commercial operations .... Most business people would have closed them long ago. They are clearly much more than a private business to the people of Bradford and those still in touch with home!
The club is clearly more than just a business. The clubs mean much more to the teams supporters than the loyalty most businesses or public organisations can muster. In actual fact, financially the last decade has shown that both clubs are not good commercial operations .... Most business people would have closed them long ago. They are clearly much more than a private business to the people of Bradford and those still in touch with home! jamiejoe
  • Score: 5

1:43pm Thu 16 Jan 14

basil fawlty says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center.
Why should City leave a modern 25000 all-seater stadium at Valley parade that's just 15 minutes walk from the city centre?
And in case you don't know the City Park has been attracting thousands of visitors to the city centre and the contractors are back on site building the shopping centre.
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center.[/p][/quote]Why should City leave a modern 25000 all-seater stadium at Valley parade that's just 15 minutes walk from the city centre? And in case you don't know the City Park has been attracting thousands of visitors to the city centre and the contractors are back on site building the shopping centre. basil fawlty
  • Score: 1

3:03pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Bacon Bantam says...

basil fawlty wrote:
Bacon Bantam wrote: In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center.
Why should City leave a modern 25000 all-seater stadium at Valley parade that's just 15 minutes walk from the city centre? And in case you don't know the City Park has been attracting thousands of visitors to the city centre and the contractors are back on site building the shopping centre.
The City Park has been attarcting thousands of visitors. And what has it done to regenerate the City. Still empty shops here there and everywhere. The Park is a Cherry to put on the cake. It's the end product, there is no cake to put it on in Bradford. It's a cherry on a pile of dog doo. Don't count those Chickens with regards to Westfield yet either, they disappeared once after laying the foundations for the mall back in 2006. Who's to say it won't happen again?
[quote][p][bold]basil fawlty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: In my opinion, the best course of action from a bold council who weren't being bent over and given one from Westfield would have been to re-aquire the land, build a Stadium to house both the Bulls and City and also hold events like concerts and such on the Westfield site, and the entire area would have regenerated. Instead with have a novelty pond and a promise of a shopping center.[/p][/quote]Why should City leave a modern 25000 all-seater stadium at Valley parade that's just 15 minutes walk from the city centre? And in case you don't know the City Park has been attracting thousands of visitors to the city centre and the contractors are back on site building the shopping centre.[/p][/quote]The City Park has been attarcting thousands of visitors. And what has it done to regenerate the City. Still empty shops here there and everywhere. The Park is a Cherry to put on the cake. It's the end product, there is no cake to put it on in Bradford. It's a cherry on a pile of dog doo. Don't count those Chickens with regards to Westfield yet either, they disappeared once after laying the foundations for the mall back in 2006. Who's to say it won't happen again? Bacon Bantam
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Yorkshire Lass says...

It is a business and not up to the Council to fund with the tax-payers money. After all the fans that attend the games are hardly a large percentage of the people who live here.
It is a business and not up to the Council to fund with the tax-payers money. After all the fans that attend the games are hardly a large percentage of the people who live here. Yorkshire Lass
  • Score: -1

6:08pm Thu 16 Jan 14

collos25 says...

Bradford geoff wrote:
collos25 wrote:
Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford.
Why move from a developed stadium, albeit rented, to another rented but undeveloped stadium?
Perhaps the two businesses could built one purpose built stadium without tax payers money.
[quote][p][bold]Bradford geoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: Its purely a commercial asset should have nothing whatsoever to do with the council or tax payers money. It shows a lack of business sense when they pay so much for a piece of grass mind you if I was the owner I would sell the land for housing and then city would have to go where they should be at Odsal we only need one stadium in Bradford.[/p][/quote]Why move from a developed stadium, albeit rented, to another rented but undeveloped stadium?[/p][/quote]Perhaps the two businesses could built one purpose built stadium without tax payers money. collos25
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree