The Newcastle District Tennis Association (NDTA) might fold if it is forced to pay Newcastle City Council rates back-dated to 2000 and totalling $96,000, unless a public voice next Tuesday can overturn the decision.
Competition tennis has been played at the District Park headquarters since 1900 and some of Australia's greatest players have graced the Broadmeadow courts in that time.
But more than 100 years of history will be lost if a decision, described by tennis officials as "greedy, unwanted and unprecedented", stands.
The tennis centre was assessed by the office of the Valuer General when nine courts were replaced and other repair work was completed in 2008 after the June 2007 floods. Notice of the levies was served in 2009.
Once the property was valued it gave council the right to charge levies that dated back to April 1, 2000, when the lease was signed by the (NDTA).
"Legally the council has the right to levy rates now and we can live with that," NDTA member Gavin Smith said.
"But to back-date those rates 10 years is just grossly unfair, greedy, unwanted and unprecedented.
"We have accepted a payment plan but in all reality we will never be able to pay it back.
"The short answer is we're gone if we have to pay it back."
Mr Smith will speak on behalf of the association in front of Newcastle councillors next Tuesday night and plead for the decision to be overturned.
The tennis centre is on Crown land, but the NDTA is a non-profit organisation that puts all money raised from the licensed club and centre managers into replacing courts and general maintenance.
Replacing worn courts is a 10-year cycle that costs about $30,000 per court. The association said it was trying to re-surface two of its 24 courts but had enough money only to do one.
"Under the government act we can't waiver or write off the rates," Newcastle City Council director of city assets Steve Edmonds said.
"We have offered the [NDTA] a 20-year repayment period which works out at $1400 a quarter.
"There is also the provision to waive any interest rates in the time and we chose to do that.
"Technically we could have gone right back because they've been leasing it for 80 years, but we've only gone back to when this lease agreement was signed."