Re: The lease

31
Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:44 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:26 pm
Amberexile wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:58 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:09 am

Mr Buttress has shown himself to be a brilliant and extremely successful businessman, and it will be in his DNA to continue adding to his wealth. The change in the EFL rules no longer requiring a 10 year tenure at RP has, I fear, allowed the County Board to relax their focus, to the point where we now operate on a season to season basis. This weakness in our position is ripe for exploitation, particularly if the Dragons were to follow the normal route of continuous loss making concerns and fold.
The EFL rules have not changed but there does seem to be some confusion over what they actually are.

The 10 year rule applies to new clubs entering the league - " security of tenure of not less than 10 full Seasons following promotion"

Once you are in the league, the only requirement is - "The Club must have a security of tenure lasting beyond the end of the current season"

We had a 10 years agreement when we entered the league so met that criteria for the one time it has been relevant.

The agreement in place at that time runs just beyond the end of this season so if nothing has changed in the interim, it still meets the requirement for now but we would need to sort something out for next season because - "the League will request at the beginning of each season that each applicable club provide evidence (by way of a copy of a ground share agreement and lease) that they comply with these Regulations."
The question is what is a lease?
We know that it can't refer to a lease in the defined scense of the landlord and tenant act.

In the meeting that we had when we moved into Rodney Parade, we were informed that the basis of our occupation was use of facilities. For instance if a match was to have a likely attendance of 500 then only the Bisley stand would be open and suitable facilities required for that attendance.
If more were forecast to attend then more sections and more facilities, steward's, etc etc on a set scale. I would describe this as a facility agreement, but it could be classified as a lease in the sense that it provides for calculating the total sum required for hosting each match. I. E. an agreement is in place which details the costs at the start of the season.
If you really want to know what a lease is can I suggest you read the case of Street v Mountford.[1985]UKHL4.

I have even given you the citation.
In practical terms anybody wishing to enforce any form of agreement, licence, lease or contract has to use the relevant act of Parliament, not case law.

Re: The lease

32
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:56 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:44 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:26 pm
Amberexile wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:58 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:09 am

Mr Buttress has shown himself to be a brilliant and extremely successful businessman, and it will be in his DNA to continue adding to his wealth. The change in the EFL rules no longer requiring a 10 year tenure at RP has, I fear, allowed the County Board to relax their focus, to the point where we now operate on a season to season basis. This weakness in our position is ripe for exploitation, particularly if the Dragons were to follow the normal route of continuous loss making concerns and fold.
The EFL rules have not changed but there does seem to be some confusion over what they actually are.

The 10 year rule applies to new clubs entering the league - " security of tenure of not less than 10 full Seasons following promotion"

Once you are in the league, the only requirement is - "The Club must have a security of tenure lasting beyond the end of the current season"

We had a 10 years agreement when we entered the league so met that criteria for the one time it has been relevant.

The agreement in place at that time runs just beyond the end of this season so if nothing has changed in the interim, it still meets the requirement for now but we would need to sort something out for next season because - "the League will request at the beginning of each season that each applicable club provide evidence (by way of a copy of a ground share agreement and lease) that they comply with these Regulations."
The question is what is a lease?
We know that it can't refer to a lease in the defined scense of the landlord and tenant act.

In the meeting that we had when we moved into Rodney Parade, we were informed that the basis of our occupation was use of facilities. For instance if a match was to have a likely attendance of 500 then only the Bisley stand would be open and suitable facilities required for that attendance.
If more were forecast to attend then more sections and more facilities, steward's, etc etc on a set scale. I would describe this as a facility agreement, but it could be classified as a lease in the sense that it provides for calculating the total sum required for hosting each match. I. E. an agreement is in place which details the costs at the start of the season.
If you really want to know what a lease is can I suggest you read the case of Street v Mountford.[1985]UKHL4.

I have even given you the citation.
In practical terms anybody wishing to enforce any form of agreement, licence, lease or contract has to use the relevant act of Parliament, not case law.

That is total nonsense. The UK has a common law system. Let's examine lease v license. A licence differs from a lease in a number of ways but by far the most important is the right of exclusion. If I have a lease I can exclude you from the property. If I have a license can't.
So what happens if I give you an agreement and you agree to it and I call it a license. Is it a license or might it be a lease? And if the latter under what circumstances. Now you can read Hansard, you can plough through every Act of Parliament ever to have gone for Royal Assent and you will not find the answers. You will though if you read the case of Street v Mountford.

Re: The lease

33
Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 4th, 2022, 10:20 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:56 pm
Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:44 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:26 pm
Amberexile wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:58 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:09 am

Mr Buttress has shown himself to be a brilliant and extremely successful businessman, and it will be in his DNA to continue adding to his wealth. The change in the EFL rules no longer requiring a 10 year tenure at RP has, I fear, allowed the County Board to relax their focus, to the point where we now operate on a season to season basis. This weakness in our position is ripe for exploitation, particularly if the Dragons were to follow the normal route of continuous loss making concerns and fold.
The EFL rules have not changed but there does seem to be some confusion over what they actually are.

The 10 year rule applies to new clubs entering the league - " security of tenure of not less than 10 full Seasons following promotion"

Once you are in the league, the only requirement is - "The Club must have a security of tenure lasting beyond the end of the current season"

We had a 10 years agreement when we entered the league so met that criteria for the one time it has been relevant.

The agreement in place at that time runs just beyond the end of this season so if nothing has changed in the interim, it still meets the requirement for now but we would need to sort something out for next season because - "the League will request at the beginning of each season that each applicable club provide evidence (by way of a copy of a ground share agreement and lease) that they comply with these Regulations."
The question is what is a lease?
We know that it can't refer to a lease in the defined scense of the landlord and tenant act.

In the meeting that we had when we moved into Rodney Parade, we were informed that the basis of our occupation was use of facilities. For instance if a match was to have a likely attendance of 500 then only the Bisley stand would be open and suitable facilities required for that attendance.
If more were forecast to attend then more sections and more facilities, steward's, etc etc on a set scale. I would describe this as a facility agreement, but it could be classified as a lease in the sense that it provides for calculating the total sum required for hosting each match. I. E. an agreement is in place which details the costs at the start of the season.
If you really want to know what a lease is can I suggest you read the case of Street v Mountford.[1985]UKHL4.

I have even given you the citation.
In practical terms anybody wishing to enforce any form of agreement, licence, lease or contract has to use the relevant act of Parliament, not case law.

That is total nonsense. The UK has a common law system. Let's examine lease v license. A licence differs from a lease in a number of ways but by far the most important is the right of exclusion. If I have a lease I can exclude you from the property. If I have a license can't.
So what happens if I give you an agreement and you agree to it and I call it a license. Is it a license or might it be a lease? And if the latter under what circumstances. Now you can read Hansard, you can plough through every Act of Parliament ever to have gone for Royal Assent and you will not find the answers. You will though if you read the case of Street v Mountford.
In practical terms Stan, no one is going to court over what constitutes a lease. It is the football league rules we are discussing.

Re: The lease

34
Nobody is going to court I agree. The reason being that if at anytime the WRU believe it is in their interests to dismiss Newport County then there is nothing that can be done.

Your argument is predicated on the belief that this doesn't matter because the rugby need Newport County as much as Newport County need them.
I hope you're right. But I don't think that you are.

Re: The lease

35
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:53 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:15 pm AFAIK he doesn't, it's the managing company for the facilities, the owners are still the WRU.
I can see no reason why the WRU or County are in a better position with an agreement that you can't enforce without taking the court route. A solicitor would disagree, but they don't deal with the practical issues that arise between companies that basically have the same problem I. E. a mutual intrest in keeping costs down, and making RP viable.
I suggest that you look at the balance sheet for WRU Gwent Stadiums Limited. In that you will note that the ownership of RP sits within that company. You will also note how pivotal Mr Buttress is within that business, also until November 2021 the other influencer was Mr Buttress’s wife.
It states in the accounts that the parent company is the WRU who are continuing to provide financial support during covid 19, and that the financial results of WRU GWENT Stadiums is included in the financial results of the WRU. Therefore the company and all of its assets are wholly owned by the WRU.
I’m not arguing that WRU Gwent Stadiums is a subsidiary of the WRU, I’m merely debating that Mr Buttress has executive powers within this separate legal entity. I’m equally certain that if he was of the mind to secure a deal with Newport County now then he could, but chooses not to. Why and what’s he waiting for?
Meanwhile the County Board have to try and run a business where our security of tenure at RP is currently on a season by season basis. I just hope that any forward planning now includes the contingency of an alternative ground!

Re: The lease

36
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 5th, 2022, 8:10 am
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:53 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:15 pm AFAIK he doesn't, it's the managing company for the facilities, the owners are still the WRU.
I can see no reason why the WRU or County are in a better position with an agreement that you can't enforce without taking the court route. A solicitor would disagree, but they don't deal with the practical issues that arise between companies that basically have the same problem I. E. a mutual intrest in keeping costs down, and making RP viable.
I suggest that you look at the balance sheet for WRU Gwent Stadiums Limited. In that you will note that the ownership of RP sits within that company. You will also note how pivotal Mr Buttress is within that business, also until November 2021 the other influencer was Mr Buttress’s wife.

It states in the accounts that the parent company is the WRU who are continuing to provide financial support during covid 19, and that the financial results of WRU GWENT Stadiums is included in the financial results of the WRU. Therefore the company and all of its assets are wholly owned by the WRU.
I’m not arguing that WRU Gwent Stadiums is a subsidiary of the WRU, I’m merely debating that Mr Buttress has executive powers within this separate legal entity. I’m equally certain that if he was of the mind to secure a deal with Newport County now then he could, but chooses not to. Why and what’s he waiting for?
Meanwhile the County Board have to try and run a business where our security of tenure at RP is currently on a season by season basis. I just hope that any forward planning now includes the contingency of an alternative ground!
I just hope the County Board deem it necessary to inform the supporters, at the very least, what the current situation is.

Re: The lease

37
OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: August 5th, 2022, 8:37 am

I just hope the County Board deem it necessary to inform the supporters, at the very least, what the current situation is.
That's it in a nutshell. They haven't.

If it were true that the rugby need Newport County as much as Newport County need the rugby, then there could be no reason for a simple holding statement, which could have been made anytime in the last few years along the lines of 'The board recognize the understandable concerns of some supporters with respect to security of tenure at Rodney Parade. And are delighted to announce that agreement has to all intents and purposes been reached. A few minor points still need to be clarified and we will publish full details within..........'

If that is not the case then there is a problem. And as a fans owned club it will be for all of us to resolve it. And whilst I don't know what the solution would be, unless or until we are told there is a problem then there is nothing that can be done.

We have been informed by Bangitinthenet that Dave Buttress has said he won't be signing any agreement without a new Dragons owner in situ'. Whilst Banginternet is not the most reliable source this is in conflict with what I have been informed of by an extremely reliable source that in the Royal Box at Wembley v Tranmere, Gavin Foxall was confident that a deal would be announced in short order. That was over three years ago and nothing since announced.

If there are problems then they are clearly not caused by the incumbent board. However I have reservations about the level of secrecy. The attitude of your trust your club, when the club either want money or to take credit contrasts badly with the you'll be told when we tell everyone else when the news is not so good.

I bang on because for 30 years the issue of ground security has been an issue we as a club have never taken control of. And sooner or later that issue will rear up and sink it's fangs into our backsides.

Re: The lease

38
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:26 pm

The question is what is a lease?
We know that it can't refer to a lease in the defined scense of the landlord and tenant act.

In the meeting that we had when we moved into Rodney Parade, we were informed that the basis of our occupation was use of facilities. For instance if a match was to have a likely attendance of 500 then only the Bisley stand would be open and suitable facilities required for that attendance.
If more were forecast to attend then more sections and more facilities, steward's, etc etc on a set scale. I would describe this as a facility agreement, but it could be classified as a lease in the sense that it provides for calculating the total sum required for hosting each match. I. E. an agreement is in place which details the costs at the start of the season.
We have been able to fulfill this requirement to the satisfaction of the EFL in each of the last 9 seasons with the agreement we have in place so not something to get hung up about in my view.

Re: The lease

39
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 5th, 2022, 8:10 am
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:53 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: August 4th, 2022, 1:15 pm AFAIK he doesn't, it's the managing company for the facilities, the owners are still the WRU.
I can see no reason why the WRU or County are in a better position with an agreement that you can't enforce without taking the court route. A solicitor would disagree, but they don't deal with the practical issues that arise between companies that basically have the same problem I. E. a mutual intrest in keeping costs down, and making RP viable.
I suggest that you look at the balance sheet for WRU Gwent Stadiums Limited. In that you will note that the ownership of RP sits within that company. You will also note how pivotal Mr Buttress is within that business, also until November 2021 the other influencer was Mr Buttress’s wife.
It states in the accounts that the parent company is the WRU who are continuing to provide financial support during covid 19, and that the financial results of WRU GWENT Stadiums is included in the financial results of the WRU. Therefore the company and all of its assets are wholly owned by the WRU.
I’m not arguing that WRU Gwent Stadiums is a subsidiary of the WRU, I’m merely debating that Mr Buttress has executive powers within this separate legal entity. I’m equally certain that if he was of the mind to secure a deal with Newport County now then he could, but chooses not to. Why and what’s he waiting for?
Meanwhile the County Board have to try and run a business where our security of tenure at RP is currently on a season by season basis. I just hope that any forward planning now includes the contingency of an alternative ground!

While he does have executive powers his main responsibility is to try to get the Dragon's separated from the WRU. However no one is interested in purchasing. R. P. and the Dragon's.
Therefore as you mentioned why would you sign a contract with terms agreed by two parties if you hope one of those parties is to change.
Let's say the success of England ladies inspires the
FAW to take a stake in RP for Ladies internationals, who knows? Then the terms might not be particularly suited to one party.
It's not about taking advantage, it's about making the facilities suitable for all, while trying to make the company as non profit as possible, as that is mutually benificial to all. Thats how it works elsewhere.
Stan says that Newport Rugby were based at RP for 100 years without a problem. However they played far more home games than the Dragon's and didn't invest a penny in things that could make money. They didn't even install any drainage, they just sat on their hands waiting for the windfall development that never happened
Coventry City didn't require the whole cost of the Rioch and moved to cheeper elsewhere. Now they can make use of more of the facilities and they are back, making money from those same facilities that cost them so much as they became a millstone. That's why in my opinion, I wouldn't want a lease, or if we have to have one, one that can be changed annually to adapt to changing needs would suit best.

Re: The lease

40
Another club who share with a rugby team, Coventry City, had their match today postponed because the pitch is not suitable. It is in a real bad state and deemed unplayable by the EFL. Work promised by the owners to improve the pitch has not been carried out. So Coventry are up the creek without a paddle. The club chief executive, Dave Boddy, is trying to sort it out.

Re: The lease

41
G Guest wrote: August 7th, 2022, 9:19 pm Another club who share with a rugby team, Coventry City, had their match today postponed because the pitch is not suitable. It is in a real bad state and deemed unplayable by the EFL. Work promised by the owners to improve the pitch has not been carried out. So Coventry are up the creek without a paddle. The club chief executive, Dave Boddy, is trying to sort it out.
EFL rules now state that if ground share involves a rugby team then the pitch has to be a hybrid. That pitch doesn't appear to tick that box and looking at the photos Dave Boddy has got a hell of challenge getting this surface sorted.

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/e3 ... peg/Medium

Re: The lease

42
Wow, that's a mess. Is it a very recent photo, or taken at the end of last season? If it's like that after summer remedial work then what next? I remarked to my mate on Saturday that our pitch looks superb, but then again you'd expect it to be so. The important thing is that it also looked superb at the end of last season.

Re: The lease

43
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 7th, 2022, 9:34 pm
G Guest wrote: August 7th, 2022, 9:19 pm Another club who share with a rugby team, Coventry City, had their match today postponed because the pitch is not suitable. It is in a real bad state and deemed unplayable by the EFL. Work promised by the owners to improve the pitch has not been carried out. So Coventry are up the creek without a paddle. The club chief executive, Dave Boddy, is trying to sort it out.
EFL rules now state that if ground share involves a rugby team then the pitch has to be a hybrid. That pitch doesn't appear to tick that box and looking at the photos Dave Boddy has got a hell of challenge getting this surface sorted.

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/e3 ... peg/Medium
Dave Boddy 😂 that’s a blast from the past. I know Standards have changed but why couldn’t you play on that. Think back to the 50s and 60s - that’s an effing bowling green!

Re: The lease

44
Apparently they held the Commonwealth Games Rugby Sevens there, lots of games over a three day period. That must have caused the problems, as last time we played there, they had sprinklers out after the game, and a light gantry overnight. I know because I stayed at the hotel which is part of the ground.

I assume they are hopeful that the games will pay for a new pitch to be laid.

Re: The lease

45
lowandhard wrote: August 7th, 2022, 10:25 pm
Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 7th, 2022, 9:34 pm
G Guest wrote: August 7th, 2022, 9:19 pm Another club who share with a rugby team, Coventry City, had their match today postponed because the pitch is not suitable. It is in a real bad state and deemed unplayable by the EFL. Work promised by the owners to improve the pitch has not been carried out. So Coventry are up the creek without a paddle. The club chief executive, Dave Boddy, is trying to sort it out.
EFL rules now state that if ground share involves a rugby team then the pitch has to be a hybrid. That pitch doesn't appear to tick that box and looking at the photos Dave Boddy has got a hell of challenge getting this surface sorted.

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/contentassets/e3 ... peg/Medium
Dave Boddy 😂 that’s a blast from the past. I know Standards have changed but why couldn’t you play on that. Think back to the 50s and 60s - that’s an effing bowling green!
I wrote that the EFL had deemed the pitch unplayable. On reflection I think I was wrong to say that. The word they actually used was "unsuitable". Taunton may have hit the nail on the head by pointing out that it should be a hybrid pitch. It isn't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: butlinsamber, daftasfxxx, KingOfGwent, Trigger