Who owns their own clubrooms?

[RumourMonger]

Wholetruth, in short Nedlands Council could give NRUFC 30 days notice to vacate the building because of some indiscretion, misdemeanor or other non-compliance they can think of. Nedlands members paid for the new club rooms in full. This did include grants that were applied for and given by both State Govt. and Nedlands council did give $50K as a grant as well. There are no loans or borrowings outstanding against the buildings. Nedlands council have been very supportive and awesome to work with. By encouraging other community sports to use the facilities as well ( junior soccer, and tee ball ) NRUFC are hoping Council will continue to support them.

A quiet word to my contact at the city of nedlands and watch the fun begin ! Then for the ultimate, the eviction and obliteration of Cott!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Political BS]

The big issue for Clubs is that there are some policy changes afoot in which the State Govt is driving Councils to get a better return on investment for the land and premises on that land. They are talking about moving to Commercial rates over time. So the days of the $1 per annum lease over land and clubhouse may be about to disappear.
I think this is completely crazy as land like what Cott and Paly sit on are worth $$MMMs and the facilities (often built by the clubs adds a few $$$ more.) Its madness to expect a suburban Rugby club to pay a commercial rent. Not just rugby clubs will be affected.
If clubs can lock in a peppercorn rent in thgeir lease now would be a good time to do that.

[Ecky]

Exactly. And those with such leases will be thankful they are on 20 or 25 years (typically) before things can change.

[Ralto]

The big issue for Clubs is that there are some policy changes afoot in which the State Govt is driving Councils to get a better return on investment for the land and premises on that land. They are talking about moving to Commercial rates over time.

Yayyyyyyyyyyy - Pokies

[andrewM]

There was a story in the west a couple of years ago about what private golf clubs pay for the land they use exclusively and what would happen if they had to pay full value for the land. Most would become very exclusive or fold

Given that apart from on match and training days, sports fields are available for use by the public, it would only seem fair to me that should councils poursue this path the clubs would only have to pay for the time they used them.

To me this sounds contradictory to public health messages of encouraging participation in sport

[fulvio sammut]

the clubs do only pay for the grounds for the time they use them. It's the clubrooms that the clubs lease on a year long exclusive basis.

[shasta]

It's the clubrooms that the clubs lease on a year long exclusive basis.

That being the case; it would be interesting to see how a "commercial" rent would be calculated, given that it's unlikely there would be too many alternative tennants prepared to pay much more than what's currently the case.

Hope it's OK for me to comment on this thread.
Posted via Mobile Device

[fulvio sammut]

Depends, Shasta.

Clubs like Palmyra have location and comercially viable club facilities. Rockingham have facilities but no location. Cottesloe have location but no facilities. Kala have no location and no facilities.

[Ralto]

Kala have no location and no facilities.

Ouch, "Backyard Blitz", or even "The Block" wouldn't know where to start. Or maybe that's because I have been inside Joondalup's "million dollar club house at the Arena Joondalup complex" (another beauty off their website"