Why would the WRU move the dragons to an area of wales where they show no interest in the egg sport whats so ever? Think that rumour can be shot down straight away.

Ive said it since the day of the takeover that Newport County should have a representative on the rugby board and the rugby should have a representative on the football board. That's the only way to form relationships. Will still never understand how after all these years there is still not one club shop and one ticket officer covering all clubs.

whoareya wrote:

Amberexile wrote:The license clearly states
The Club shall permit NCAFC to sell their merchandise in the Club shop.
If they refuse to do so, in my opinion we should deduct the cost of proving our own shop from our payments under the license.

Of course if there is no Club shop, that confused matters somewhat

Thanks for that, is there anything in it about Disputed Amounts that the licensee can withhold regarding payments, or the Dispute Resolution Procedure that both parties have to follow to conclusion before Default and Termination, not going straight to lock-out/exclusion from premises.

I've been through both situations in real life, whereas others just post Googled examples of Case Law.........

Bear in mind I am reading a hard-copy between closing a rather large deal of my own and being admitted to hospital later today so can't really give this the appropriate amount of time to trawl through at length at the moment. i.e. I may be missing things I would pick up given more time and/or an electronic version.

There is no specific disputed invoices clause and while non/late payment is covered by "penalty" interest being charged, we can also be terminated for non-payment after 14 days and while both parties would be in breach, an argument between legal teams while we are unable to use the ground would be pointless.
Of course the WRU being in breach means very little as we have no effective remedy unless such a time comes when we want to terminate for cause.
There is an Expert Determination clause but the document does try to limit this to specific circumstances.
My way forward would be to try to agree that disputed amounts will be paid into escrow while Expert Determination is sought. That would have to be weighed with he risk of being locked out, we would have very little leverage on the WRU to get them to agree.

EDIT I think that's enough about the content of the license on a public messageboard.

I was told in November that from the start of the season up until that day in November we had 0ver 50 violations of our contract with the egg. I can see why the rugby might be upset with us last season.

As I have said a lot of it is postering on both sides. Both sides need heads banged together and sorting out. Maybe the council can act as mediators.

Bush wrote:I was told in November that from the start of the season up until that day in November we had 0ver 50 violations of our contract with the egg. I can see why the rugby might be upset with us last season.

As I have said a lot of it is postering on both sides. Both sides need heads banged together and sorting out. Maybe the council can act as mediators.

The difficulty for me is this. Clearly in the six years we have been playing at Rodney Parade there have been any number of disputes. In those circumstances and regardless of fault why would the WRU not simply choose to say, contracts up in 2022, you'll have to find a new home then?

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.

Amberexile wrote:

whoareya wrote:

Amberexile wrote:The license clearly states
The Club shall permit NCAFC to sell their merchandise in the Club shop.
If they refuse to do so, in my opinion we should deduct the cost of proving our own shop from our payments under the license.

Of course if there is no Club shop, that confused matters somewhat

Thanks for that, is there anything in it about Disputed Amounts that the licensee can withhold regarding payments, or the Dispute Resolution Procedure that both parties have to follow to conclusion before Default and Termination, not going straight to lock-out/exclusion from premises.

I've been through both situations in real life, whereas others just post Googled examples of Case Law.........

Bear in mind I am reading a hard-copy between closing a rather large deal of my own and being admitted to hospital later today so can't really give this the appropriate amount of time to trawl through at length at the moment. i.e. I may be missing things I would pick up given more time and/or an electronic version.

There is no specific disputed invoices clause and while non/late payment is covered by "penalty" interest being charged, we can also be terminated for non-payment after 14 days and while both parties would be in breach, an argument between legal teams while we are unable to use the ground would be pointless.
Of course the WRU being in breach means very little as we have no effective remedy unless such a time comes when we want to terminate for cause.
There is an Expert Determination clause but the document does try to limit this to specific circumstances.
My way forward would be to try to agree that disputed amounts will be paid into escrow while Expert Determination is sought. That would have to be weighed with he risk of being locked out, we would have very little leverage on the WRU to get them to agree.

EDIT I think that's enough about the content of the license on a public messageboard.

No offence meant, but the document has been leaked to a poster on here and subsequently shared, so it's already in the public domain.

No offence meant, but if it is in the public domain, you can read it for yourself.

whoareya wrote:

whoareya wrote:
I've been through both situations in real life, whereas others just post Googled examples of Case Law.........

No offence meant, but the document has been leaked to a poster on here and subsequently shared, so it's already in the public domain.

Two points.

Like everyone else who has passed an examination in land law in the past 30 years I have no need to Google Street v Mountford. We all know the case backwards.

Secondly the licence was not leaked. It was put into the public domain by Newport County as part of the trial bundle for the litigation brought by Mr Redwood.

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.

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.

You may be right. In which case we are f@cked.

However anyone who has ever dealt with any Local Authority re planning permission knows that if the Local Authority doesn't want it, it doesn't happen.

.... and anyone dealing with local planning authorities knows that if their proposals are refused for anything not material to the provisions of adopted plans then a successful appeal to the Planning Inspectorate is possible as are substantial costs award against the council. Newport City Council will be well aware of this.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:
Like everyone else who has passed an examination in land law in the past 30 years I have no need to Google Street v Mountford. We all know the case backwards.

Secondly the licence was not leaked. It was put into the public domain by Newport County as part of the trial bundle for the litigation brought by Mr Redwood.

Well if you are going to pull the law card, you would also concur with (https://www.blasermills.co.uk/lease-or- ... ifference/) that a licence must be carefully drafted. If the terms of the licence actually make it, in substance, a lease, then the courts will treat the agreement as a lease. This creates a danger that licences, which are not correctly drafted and granted for longer than six months, could earn the tenant a claim for protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. This protection provides security of tenure to business tenancies, granting them the right to remain on the premises following expiry of the contract, and to request a renewal on the same terms.

A court will always look at the substance of an agreement rather than just its name, in order to interpret the true intention of the parties.

newgroundrodney wrote:

Harvey Pekar wrote:

newgroundrodney wrote:
At the last open meeting we were told that shirts (including the third kit design chosen by fans' votes) would be on sale during the first or second week of July. So next week or the week after was the target, any delay after that I guess we can put down to the late announcement of the sponsors.

Yes, I think so. Looking at my FBT shirt from last season (black away shirt) it looks like the sponsor's name is printed INTO the shirt cloth itself, so if that's how FBT do things (as opposed to iron-on etc) then the delay COULD, and I stress could be longer....
I have no knowledge of shirt printing, but can the sponsor's name be added AFTER the shirt itself has been produced, if they use the same way as last season?
Perhaps they go for the more simple transfer on......otherwise, it looks like we might have to wait while the ENTIRE SHIRT is made.

So the answer to this is yes, you can print onto the shirts if you wanted to after they have been produced however an easier and more time effective approach would be a vinyl application.

On the current shirt, the reverse side has a vinyl application with an advert for STANDARD SIGNS. So they could use such an application and it'd be quicker and easier?... so presumably no delay in production?.. if so, that's good news.

our deadline for confirming the design ( which includes logos of sponsors) with the supplier was many months ago. we were not ina position to confirm sponsors then as we had a long term illness in the commercial department and our directors hadn't secured sponsors despite best efforts. So the shirts will not be what they call "sublimated" which is the printing into the shirt design you speak of. They will have a patch or vinyl application of the sponsor placed on after the finished shirts are received,.

newgroundrodney wrote:

flat4 wrote:I hope this is fake news, but i fear it is just another nail in the coffin, i just wish people would listen when some one stands up in the meetings we have, 2 days after i stood up and asked the question about the redevelopment of Rodney Parade, ( which was denied by the top table) the WRU announced there plans for Rodney Parade.
If FIFA deemed Spytty fit for purpose for a World Cup match, then why do the FA deem it not suitable for our football club.

In fairness, the 'World Cup' game was one of little significance. Had it been of any importance, with the anticipation of any kind of sizeable crowd, then Newport Stadium would not have been anywhere near suitable. Frankly they could have played that game at almost anywhere.
For the EFL, whose standards we're required to meet, Newport Stadium also falls short at the moment. How FAR short I'm not certain, but have we made any kind of APPROACH with a view to going back if necessary?..... would they have us back? who would pay for any upgrading to EFL standards?

a good post and to add to it, the issue we are facing now as a club and one that our directors have dsicussed, but are only shaking their heads about with no answers, is the greater issue of Precedence of Lease. FA ( EFL) requirements have always been that the a participant club must have precedence of fixtures for their home. this was tightened also at the recent EFL meeting AGM and added that all clubs must have precedence beginning next season, and cannnot ground share with more than one other sport. Hybrid pitches are also now mandated from next season going forward.

Playing devils advocate, funding will always be the issue in future. Unless the FA AND the WRU contributed to funding our pitch and any uprages and maintenence, why would the WRU do us any favours? And with the FA very clear they will only fund hydbrid pitches for sole Football use and not in anyway fund facilities that other codes will use......our position at RP is dubious to say the least.

we need an alternative but have not a pot to piss in to get there. Years of negligence and failure to act have seen as arrive here, it is the job of the new board to get us there. sadly, the recent appointments they have made lack experience or demonstrable skills or results that suggest they have any chance to securing us new status or gravitas with the local council and WRU, and no commercial nouse or clout to achieve a new home through private channels.

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.

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?