The ground thing just won’t go away. Just about every problem we’ve had in the past 30 years can be traced back to one thing: we don’t own the place where we play. It puts us at the mercy of the land owners or – apparently in this case – the leaseholder. What’s the difference? Either way, our lemon gets squeezed.
What I love about these wrangles is there is always somebody who claims to be “a friend” of the offending lemon squeezer, and obligingly makes their case for them. I suppose it makes a change from “sources close to…” Apparently we were stupid for not resolving the lease issue (i.e. paying over the odds to stay at a UCL facility) rather than pushing for promotion, like we splurged huge amounts of money in assembling a team featuring Tommy Hull.
I don’t particularly like the thought of returning to Corby for an indefinite period. Nor do I like the thought of being held to ransom by a tinpot chancer. Given the choice – if it is the only choice – I’d take Corby, even though it would feel like a backward move. However perhaps there is a wider game being played here. Rockingham Road has unexpectedly re-entered the equation. Whatever was in those sealed bids evidently wasn't enough. Were they all unrealistic, or does somebody need to adjust their expectations. The council could still play a part by indicating a preference for how the site is used: a few more cereal box starter homes, or a regenerated community stadium? If in doubt about which is the right answer, contact me for an unbiased opinion.
Whatever path we take I hope people have seen enough of the present club regime to back their judgement and trust their motives. The last thing we need is more tedious factionalism. United we stand, divided we fall (other cliches are available).
* NB need to check whether this is still allowed under international law.