Beechwooddragon wrote:
Is it not the case that the WRU as landlords have been very patient and lenient in their application of the terms of the lease, allowed us plenty of leeway in terms of late ( very late) payments, have tried to help by allowing us use of the RP Facilities above and beyond what is required in the lease, and only now have reached the end of their tether and are reigning in the favours and bringing it back to the letter of the lease so to speak?

Not from what we've been told so intrigued to know why you think so.

George Street-Bridge wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: GSB takes the view that my analogy of a home owner taking in a lodger to help pay the mortgage but ten years later just wanting the stranger out of his home is not a valid one. I think it is. Take a while, think about it, and then see what you think.

It's a superficial analogy, because the only options for the WRU are an income stream from this particular tenant or no income stream at all. I'll repeat my point from the last time this came up.

For the analogy to work, the lodger would need to be the only one you could ever conceivably have should you change your mind. And with your own future enjoyment of the place totally dependent on a planning authority which might feel its own best interests were served by the tenant staying and eventually taking on shared ownership.

Plus, of course, the WRU "resides" 15 miles up the road.

We will just have to agree to differ. You see you are as usual missing the point. When I had my first mortgage I had a tenant, I had very little money. When as it does, my financial situation improved, I no longer wanted a tenant. The loss of income was outweighed by the ease of not having to share my property.

Amberexile wrote:

Beechwooddragon wrote:
Is it not the case that the WRU as landlords have been very patient and lenient in their application of the terms of the lease, allowed us plenty of leeway in terms of late ( very late) payments, have tried to help by allowing us use of the RP Facilities above and beyond what is required in the lease, and only now have reached the end of their tether and are reigning in the favours and bringing it back to the letter of the lease so to speak?

Not from what we've been told so intrigued to know why you think so.

Becuase the WRU are acting as landlords with far more substantial business acrumen and credentials than our boards, previous and current, and with far more invested in sound legal advice.

I detest them if I'm honest, and it pains me the ammunition and opportunity our total bungling of all things standard practice have provided them in recent years especially.

It's no secret the breaches of the lease have all been of our doing and not theirs recently, we have no high ground in this fight, and have no leverage at all.

What are the breaches?

Beechwooddragon wrote:

whoareya wrote:

daftasfxxx wrote:You really have to fear for professional sport in Newport, firstly doubling our rent and now playing hardball on facilities.
Dragons won't escape either and have already had any recognition with our city dropped from their name and if rumour has it will be shipped up to north Wales as soon as their licence runs out.
Well done NCC on allowing this to happen right under their noses.

I'd take all the whispers and gossip with a large pinch of salt. There is no provision or right in any lease agreement to simply double the rent for no reason. I would suggest the WRU are merely applying all rights for payment that the lease already contained.

Also this rumour about them not allowing the County the use of the Facilities (usually a capital F to identify a Defined Term) can easily be challenged by anyone with a reasonable understanding of lease agreements. It would be incomprehensible for both parties to have reached the point of Default and Termination without there being leaks from the ITK snides, because the club leaks information like a sieve.

Is it not the case that the WRU as landlords have been very patient and lenient in their application of the terms of the lease, allowed us plenty of leeway in terms of late ( very late) payments, have tried to help by allowing us use of the RP Facilities above and beyond what is required in the lease, and only now have reached the end of their tether and are reigning in the favours and bringing it back to the letter of the lease so to speak?

I'd qualify that, as the WRU have only been the 'landlord' for a short period of time, so I don't think they have shown any patience or leniency at all.

But they don't need to, and we shouldn't expect or rely on it either.

There is no excuse for significant breaches of leases/licences, you shouldn't have to carry out periodic reviews, somebody (Club Secretary, Director of Operations, or at the very least a Board member with responsibility for) should be conversant with all of the requirements of the lease and should be flagging up issues as and when they arise - particularly if the landlord breaches the terms.

I am still amazed that we went through the season before last with the worst pitch in the football league, suffered postponements, cash flow difficulties, potential league sanctions etc, yet appear to have had no redress with the landlord failing to provide a suitable playing surface.

Has anyone actually checked I wonder?

We seem to have a significant amount of legal expertise on this message board! Does anyone know who advises County day-to-day? (Purely out of interest...)

Where can a copy of the RP Licence be found (if it is in the public domain)?

Amberexile wrote:What are the breaches?

When I was told about the 50 odd violations last year a lot were minor parking ones and drinking ones. None were late payment ones.

frostyjohn wrote:WRU took over RP and the Dragons with a 3 year plan. They have spent heavily on the pitch, made significant changes/recruitment to Dragons playing and other staff for the coming season, and are pursuing development (but not sale of ) proposals for the clubhouse/cabbage patch to provide long term income support for the Dragons. I see no role for the Council in this except as local planning authority to determine any planning application in accordance with adopted plans. I also see no need for the WRU to sell RP or any part thereof in the short to medium term if ever.

The pitch cost £750,000 we have to pay £50,000 a year for 5 years £250,000 so not quite as heavily spent as you make out as we will pay a third of the cost for the pitch .

frostyjohn wrote: They have spent heavily on the pitch

There was I thinking that the County are having to contribute to a third of the cost!

£500,000 on a pitch rugby didn't need is quite a heavy cost by anyone's standards!

frostyjohn wrote:£500,000 on a pitch rugby didn't need is quite a heavy cost by anyone's standards!

So why do you think they did it - good will, or because they had to?

If you recall, right up to our day of survival, the Landlord was looking at 3G alternatives, so there must be something in the lease that would trigger a landlord default if they couldn't provide us with a pitch that met football league standards.

My point is that any analogy between a householder taking in a lodger and a commercial arrangement of this complexity can only be too superficial to have any merit in a serious debate.

frostyjohn wrote:£500,000 on a pitch rugby didn't need is quite a heavy cost by anyone's standards!

A perceived under market price purchase certainly helps!

Bush wrote:

Amberexile wrote:What are the breaches?

When I was told about the 50 odd violations last year a lot were minor parking ones and drinking ones. None were late payment ones.

If there are Tenant's lease conditions concerning parking etc, then there should be Service Level Standards for the Landlord's provision of services and facilities as well.

Think about how many times over that period the toilets didn't have hot water, had taps running constant, no toilet paper or soap, lights failed, rainwater pooling and trip hazards on the terraces, no lights along the approaches to the stadium past the cabbage patch etc etc.


The club should be monitoring these things, then every month they pay the lease, less X amount (the Disputed Amount) for failure to provide the Service Level Standards, or whatever it might be called.

Call it a Lease or a License, but that's the basic mechanics of how they work.

WE can’t honestly be thinking about having the ticket office at the neon can we? That’s the rumour I just heard. I’m hoping that’s fake news. What a terrible idea.