Post from KUMB that seems to acknowledge the reality and have some actual awareness of the issues:
We won't lose our 'ground' the political fallout would be to damaging for any government ... but we may find that the cost of staying increases dramatically ... yes we have a lease, however that lease is in essence with the government. As with every lease in the UK it is subject to the UK Lease Laws, these allow for a renegotiation of the rent by either the landlord or the tenant via a tribunal and a rent officer ... either party can bring a case if they can show that the lease is not set at a 'fair rate' ... the government (our landlord) is the final arbiter in any dispute ... ergo they win ...
Break clauses
http://www.gov.uk/terminating-a-commercial-property-lease-early are a requirement of any commercial lease, not 100% sure what ours are but we will have them ...
Very hard to argue that our rent 2.5m a year represents a 'fair rate' when you compare that to the average London commercial lease at around 8.8% yield. On a 700m property that would be 62m a year .... we may argue that we only 'rent' the stadium for 35 days so just 10% of the time ... that would still be 6.2m ... but as it takes 30 days to move us out and 30 days to move us back in so we in effect block the use of the stadium for 95 days ... thus a 'fair rent' would be closer to 27m ... (you could in fact argue that for the entire season the ground is 'blocked' to other users, that's 300 days so 50m a year rent) ... it could also easily be argued that the 'management costs' of having us in the ground should be included in the rent, security, lighting, cleaning, etc. so a 'fair rent' is probably nearer to 35m a year rather than the 2.5m a year we pay ... press, rivals, MP's have all been saying this ever since the deal was announced, it's a case we can't hope to win and a rent increase is inevitable ....
Rather than pay this increased rent for the next 99 years .... that's could be as much as 3 billion .... far better to borrow the cash, use the 35m a year as debt payments (in essence do a deal with the government) and take over the whole f***in' mess ... if we then spent 200m on fixing the f*** ups we would end up with a proper football ground ... and crucially one which we own ...
alternatively ...
make the government an offer to get them out of a s***storm ... buy the ground for 350m, knock it down and build a proper ground for another 350m (all the services and foundations are in place so cheaper than a 'build from scratch' ).... sadly we already know the cost of this because it was the f***in' Spuds plan all along ... play at wembley/arse/spuds for a couple of years whilst the new ground is being built ... we know this works because our rivals are doing exactly that ... again we end up with a ground that we own ...
Selling our 'home' on the back of the 'deal of the century' was as many, many people pointed out fell under the category of 'to good to be true' .... that naive thinking is now biting us badly ....
We can and indeed must make the best of what we have, sitting in a stadium that's very obviously not 'fit-for-purpose'? blaming everyone but ourselves? getting ripped a new one by the media on a daily basis? in essence doing nothing? ... that's just not an acceptable solution ......
