It would appear then that the current terms of the lease and the very low cost of it probably represents a positive selling point to any potential buyer?
To the best of my recollection, the sub-lease cost doesnt vary depending on what division we are in (although obviously there are other implications if we fall below a certain division). As for what we pay, not sure if it has ever been made public, but it is a very small amount (not 12k though) and you could probably rent a large family home in a decent area for not much less than Notts pay. Haydn Green was an astonishing benefactor to Notts. He wanted no fame, no adulation, not even any thanks and it still makes my blood boil thinking about how shoddily his estate and family were treated. Sorry, I know that's not what we are talking about but it was the most shameful time in Notts history.
Wasnt the lease paid for up front to the Council?
It would appear then that the current terms of the lease and the very low cost of it probably represents a positive selling point to any potential buyer?
If the potential buyers are under NDA's, why would they confirm if they were one of the biders anyway?
Until the potential new owners have had a chance to look through the books with a fine toothcomb, I can't see any of them coming forward. Should they see something they don't like, they'll walk away from the deal anonymously.
It wouldn't be the first time a newspaper reporter has been misinformed and it won't be the last. When was the last time any local journalist uncovered something the club didn't want anyone to know about? They couldn't really find anything on the Munto debacle, which the National press seemed to uncover first.