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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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!