And we are talking about a company that has had a billion+ net income for the last five years.
They don't need our subsidies.
If they want to rebuild the stadium on the current site - OK fine. I disagree with that, as I think it is a waste of resources.
But they aren't entitled to any profits from redevelopment of the existing land.
I am not a hard 'no' - I think the site calls for a bit of flexibility - and unlocking it for additional uses complementing an underutilized and aging asset isn't a bad thing (it's even potentially good planning). But the underlying principle has to be - what's there, in terms of monetary and community benefits for the public? It's impossible to judge without seeing the plans, and there should be no carte blanche.