Freehold of the Park

[Alistair20000]

There’s neither the will nor the expertise at the Club to buy the freehold - after all we‘ve been trying to renew the lease without success for at least the last eight years. We’ve got 4 years left on the existing lease but what is currently being done about it?

I believe there is merit in buying the freehold of the St. James’ Centre – it’s certainly available at around £800k. This would give a secure hold on the centre of the whole site as the deal would include Red Square and even part of Stadium Way. In combination with the Fountains Centre and car park, which is already effectively in Club ownership, this would put together a decent enabling site which could finance a major stadium upgrade.

Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.

Absolutely spot on. Why is this not being pursued ?

 

[rightwing]

Since the time Beazer Homes bought the ground, a council registered covenant you mean ?

It would have had to be imposed by the Council after it bought the ground because Beazers previously would have used the site for housing.

I think any covenant would have been imposed on the whole site. However the Council has sold some of the site as a freehold sale to Yelverton, ergo I think there is no existing covenant.

 

[rightwing]

Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.

There is no real gain to the Club in owning the freehold if such a covenant is imposed as it restricts what the Club could do in future. Should the Club want to move to a larger purpose built stadium at some future time it would effectively be emasculated in not being able to realize the difference in the value between sporting land and housing land.

The safeguards that the Trust ought to build in to prevent any takeover would be first to gain 100% shareholding and secondly build a directive into the constitution that the ground could only be sold to finance a move to another stadium. Additionally the membership would have to approve any such move with a stipulated high majority vote.

 

[conker]

I believe covenants can easily be moved as long as the same amount of area is found to replace it.

Registering the ground as an Asset of Community Value might be worth doing.

Dunno.

 

[Saint James]

There is no real gain to the Club in owning the freehold if such a covenant is imposed as it restricts what the Club could do in future. Should the Club want to move to a larger purpose built stadium at some future time it would effectively be emasculated in not being able to realize the difference in the value between sporting land and housing land.

The safeguards that the Trust ought to build in to prevent any takeover would be first to gain 100% shareholding and secondly build a directive into the constitution that the ground could only be sold to finance a move to another stadium. Additionally the membership would have to approve any such move with a stipulated high majority vote.

Whilst what you say Adrian makes perfect sense anything that allows the club to benefit from a sale equally allows an asset stripper to do the same. I would love to believe that the vast majority of Trust members would block any sale but equally when money is tight and an offer is made which promises x£'s to each Trust member for a yes vote I wouldn't want to see that tested either. I also see no benefit in moving away from SJP as regular crowds in excess of 10,000 a game wont happen in my lifetime therefore why is their any need to even consider a move?

 

[Avening Posse]

Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.

Been banging that drum for years, there always seems to be a negative answer whenever this is raised, last time it was the Chief Exec of the Council not being "up" for it, even though he is an employee as opposed to a member.....

 

[rightwing]

I would love to believe that the vast majority of Trust members would block any sale but equally when money is tight and an offer is made which promises x£'s to each Trust member for a yes vote I wouldn't want to see that tested either.

I'm not sure if this would be legal. There would be no direct contractual relationship between individual Trust members and a prospective buyer. Wouldn't this then be classed as bribery?

 

[Terryhall]

I'm not sure if this would be legal. There would be no direct contractual relationship between individual Trust members and a prospective buyer. Wouldn't this then be classed as bribery?

I would say yes. This would be a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010 for the party offering the payment, the party accepting the payment, as well as a corporate criminal offence for any party knowingly facilitating the payment.

You could potentially try to argue that the individual Trust member to whom the money is paid in exchange for their vote was not performing a "relevant function or activity", but I would say anyone who stood to benefit from a deal that was subject to a vote, and who paid the voters to secure a decision in their favour, would find it pretty much impossible to make that argument stick (as would anyone who took the money and voted as they were told)

 

[John William]

I would say yes. This would be a criminal offence under the UK Bribery Act 2010 for the party offering the payment, the party accepting the payment, as well as a corporate criminal offence for any party knowingly facilitating the payment.

You could potentially try to argue that the individual Trust member to whom the money is paid in exchange for their vote was not performing a "relevant function or activity", but I would say anyone who stood to benefit from a deal that was subject to a vote, and who paid the voters to secure a decision in their favour, would find it pretty much impossible to make that argument stick (as would anyone who took the money and voted as they were told)

Also to the point, as the vote would be a secret ballot of all paid-up voting members of the Trust (approaching 3,000 over-16s) how would any potential briber know who to bribe? Furthermore the Trust could not (Data Protection Act) and would not reveal the membership list.

 

[ECFC Music]

Agree with all of that but there is an easy solution and one which I know to be agreeable to those in political power is for the Trust to buy the freehold with an agreed covenant requiring the land to be held for sporting purposes only. Solves both issues.

Which would mean the club paying monies to the Trust who do not have the funds to buy the freehold. Repayment of loans would be a means of doing this but were not some loans provided by the Trust converted to a non repayable status.