a reminder of what John Radford said at the fans forum in 2014https://www.stagsnet.net/news/newsdetai ... ewsid=7586
John Radford: I don’t think there’s any reason that the ground should ever be re-united with the club. There should be a peppercorn rental set for the club, but I don’t think the football club should have that asset. Football clubs get sued all the time. If that football club gets sued for a million pounds, we can’t have that football club have an asset that could go to someone suing them. So it’s basically for legal reasons. Ideally yes I’d like to say yes let’s join them back up but let’s say 10 years down the line I’m not here and MTFC gets sued or something like that then the ground can be attainable or can be taken as part of the assets of the football club. I’d rather keep it separate, keep it in a trust. If I’m looking at this as far as a business in concerned, to protect the football club, it’s better that the ground is safe in a trust.
Question (Darren): When you did reach a settlement with Mr Haslam you did have to sign this over-arch agreement where part of the deal was that you are not allowed to transfer the ground even to a supporters trust, unless Mr Haslam agrees to it. I think the agreement is that if you develop the ground in the next 20 years, 50% of the profits have to be paid to Keith Haslam.
John Radford: Yes that’s exactly correct. The reason I managed to get a reasonable price off Haslam was I was prepared to sign that this stays with MTFC at least for the next 20 years. He thought I was coming in as a property developer, but that’s not the case.