What Newcastle's Leazes Terrace purchase means for St James' Park and stadium plans

AFC BournemouthArsenalAston VillaBrentfordBrighton & Hove AlbionBurnleyChelseaCrystal PalaceEvertonFulhamLeeds UnitedLiverpoolManchester CityManchester UnitedNewcastle UnitedNottingham ForestSunderlandTottenham HotspurWest Ham UnitedWolverhampton WanderersScores & ScheduleStandingsFantasyThe Athletic FC NewsletterPodcastsAnalysisWhat Newcastle’s Leazes Terrace purchase means for St James’ Park and stadium plansLeazes Terrace in front of St James' Park Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images Share articleA consequential property purchase by Newcastle United — but not necessarily one that was expected. As The Athletic revealed, the club is believed to have spent between £20million-£25million ($26.8m-$33.5m) to acquire a significant portion of the buildings on Leazes Terrace, part of which sit directly opposite the East Stand of St James’ Park. The Grade I-listed Georgian buildings on Leazes Terrace have long been a critical factor in restricting the expansion of Newcastle’s stadium. So what does this deal actually mean for Newcastle? Has a decision been made as to whether the club will enlarge St James’, or move to a new ground nearby? And what are the benefits of purchasing properties on Leazes Terrace? The Athletic has spoken to people with knowledge of the situation, who asked to be kept anonymous to protect relationships, to understand the key issues. The club have bought the majority of Leazes Terrace, which is an enclosed, ring-shaped crescent adjacent to the East Stand of St James’. Sources say Newcastle are believed to have spent between £20m-£25m to acquire the western section (closest to the East Stand), plus the majority of the northern and southern elevations, as well as part of the eastern side of Leazes Terrace, via one transaction from the previous owner. Much of the eastern side, which faces the tennis courts on Leazes Park, remains privately owned, however. They add that a cash injection from Newcastle’s ownership — Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) has an 85 per cent majority stake, while the billionaire Reuben Brothers have a 15 per cent minority share — has at least partly funded the acquisition. A subsidiary company, used to purchase properties, has bought the buildings on Leazes Terrace, rather than Newcastle United Limited itself. Brad Miller, the chief operating officer, oversees infrastructure developments and purchases, although David Hopkinson, the chief executive, is the ultimate day-to-day decision-maker at the club. No, even if that is the obvious and understandable conclusion that many will jump to. The firm message from inside the club is that the focus has not suddenly shifted towards prioritising the expansion of St James’ over moving to a new state-of-the-art stadium. Newcastle sources insist this purchase offers the club “optionality” when it comes to the stadium-future question. They view it as being of strategic benefit, whatever they ultimately decide to do, and are adamant that no final decision on staying or relocating has been made. But, at least theoretically, this should make expanding the East Stand slightly easier, should Newcastle choose to do so as part of a wider enlargement and redevelopment of St James’. Leazes Terrace’s listing is the primary reason why the East Stand has not been expanded since 1972. The Gallowgate End, the Leazes End and the Milburn Stand have all been redeveloped multiple times since, but the East Stand has not, leading to the iconic, if lopsided, nature of St James’. UK Government Grade-I listed buildings are of “exceptional interest” and architectural/historical significance. The striking Georgian buildings — featuring sandstone facades and cast-iron balconies, and covering numbers one to 59 — on Leazes Terrace, which form part of a crescent, were designed by the architect Thomas Oliver and then built by Richard Grainger, the famous developer, during the 1830s. They have been protected with a Grade-I listing since the 1950s, while they are also part of the wider Leazes Conservation Area, which offers further preservation protections. Essentially, because the buildings behind the East Stand are listed — there are also Grade-II listed buildings, which are of “more-than-special interest”, on the perpendicular adjoining St James Terrace — they cannot be demolished (or at least it is extremely difficult, and historically and culturally extremely undesirable, to do so). While there is theoretically some space to expand on to the road itself, given there is a gap as wide as 30m at some points between the East Stand and Leazes Terrace, it is narrower to the western end of St James Terrace. Meanwhile, Magpie Lane, which Leazes Terrace runs into and then connects down to Strawberry Place (and comes out opposite the famous pub, The Strawberry), also goes along the East Stand and by the side of the Gallowgate End but that is even tighter (although not all of the buildings on Magpie Lane are actually listed so do not face the same restrictions as Leazes Terrace and St James Terrace). Beyond that, as The Athletic outlined in October 2024, a strange, small island on the road on Leazes Terrace outside turnstiles 42 and 43 of St James’ is owned by St James Terrace Land Ltd, a private company. Newcastle would need to purchase that roughly eight-metre to 10-metre plot of land if they were to consider expanding the East Stand. However, Newcastle sources do not view Leazes Terrace’s listed status as a ‘problem’ — at least not in how they view this transaction. The club is adamant that it will look to preserve the historically important architecture and that it wants to be a custodian of Leazes Terrace, rather than cynically purchasing the properties so that they can potentially be demolished. Seemingly, if Newcastle do stay at St James’, either the East Stand will still not be expanded, or it will be done so in a way whereby the listed buildings remain untouched. Firstly, forgetting about the stadium-future question for a moment, there is a financial dividend — especially on the UEFA SCR (squad-cost rules) front. In the club’s accounts for 2024-25, Newcastle confirmed that they were “in discussion with UEFA” in respect of compliance and a fine is anticipated. Newcastle believe UEFA’s financial rules are more challenging for their own compliance moving forward than the Premier League’s soon-to-be-introduced SCR rules, too, with the European squad-cost limit set at 70 per cent, while domestically it will be 85 per cent from next season. UEFA excludes asset sales and therefore will discount the £176.2m intragroup sale Newcastle made of St James’ to a subsidiary company last season. Yet the revenue gained from the rent of the Leazes Terrace properties — while Newcastle will own the buildings, the flats, student accommodation and offices will still be managed by the present property management companies — is expected to count towards their football income figure in UEFA’s calculations, potentially aiding compliance in future years. Interestingly, the actual capital outlay should not negatively affect where Newcastle stand in relation to meeting UEFA’s financial restrictions. Secondly, whether Newcastle stay or build a new stadium nearby, the club believes this transaction has partly removed, or at least slightly diminished, some of the key barriers to either. For example, were Newcastle to extend the East Stand, then what’s known as the legal “right to light” the property owners on Leazes Terrace hold would no longer be so much of an issue. Tenants would still have those rights, but Newcastle could opt to leave the buildings vacant or repurpose them, meaning that if the East Stand did increase in height and/or width and further block the sunlight, there would not be third-party objections citing “right to light”. Alternatively, if Newcastle were to try to build a new stadium on Leazes Park, then the club feels that owning the western side of Leazes Terrace potentially offers them a greater say in what the reimagining of the present St James’ footprint would look like. Returning the site to parkland has been mooted, though Newcastle may look to explore whether redevelopment is possible (something that is likely to prove complicated, given that the land is managed by the Freemen of Newcastle and the plot was set aside long ago for a recreational sports ground). Staying and leaving remain live possibilities — something the club is keen to stress. Newcastle are adamant that the purchase of Leazes Terrace does not signal that a decision has finally been reached on the interminable stadium question. The insistence is that what this does show is Newcastle are making moves towards creating “oven-ready options” either way, rather than merely continuing to run feasibility studies, as has been the case for much of the past three years, when material progress towards a final call has felt glacial. Despite the logical supposition many fans may make that an expansion of St James’ is now most likely following this news, a new stadium — in all likelihood next door in Leazes Park (a Grade-II registered historic park and garden which is also a protected area) — is still the more likely outcome. Or at least the route Newcastle are expected to try to take, given that any such move would be controversial and fraught with complications. That is not a fresh take, either. The same outcome has been anticipated since long before Hopkinson arrived, and while the CEO has been exploring both options, over the past few years, several senior figures at Newcastle have internally expressed the preference would be to move. At the Matfen Hall meetings last month, a 25-strong delegation from PIF, including club chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan, received updates from Newcastle heads of department, including on where the club presently stands with both prospective stadium options. No firm decision was reached, though plans for both have been formulated, and there is hope among some insiders that a call may be made within the next six-to-12 months. Supporters will be wary of any timescales, however, given that previous declarations of a decision being “imminent” or in “early-2025” have come and gone without any announcement. Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms