FearTheVee wrote:
Can you explain what you mean there? Not being funny, just have no idea what that's meant to imply?
The S106 Agreement is what binds Langtree into providing the facilities that could be in a crude manner considered to be the town's "kick-back" for allowing Tesco to have their new superstore. All perfectly normal and often includes the likes of new schools, leisure centres, etc being funded by the likes of Tesco for the greater benefit of the town.
In this instance Langtree (no doubt with funding contribution from Tesco either through capital or rent) are committing to providing a stadium (as well as up-graded bus-stops, money for mucky mountain(?), etc.). The S106 agreement obliges Langtree to provide a stadium to "Super League Standard". To ascertain what this means you need to look at the definitions in the agreement that defines this as being to the minimum standard required by a Super League Stadia Guide. A quick glance at the architect drawings released of the proposed stadium would immediately indicate that the stadium is some way above "Super League minimum standards".
Looking further into the S106 Agreement there is a definition of "Tenants Enhancements" (you are by the way tenanants and will not own the stadium, although if you get a 999 year lease with total rights over the stadium at a peppercorn rent you may as well be) that refers to add-ons that the club may require over and above "Super League Standard". You would normally therefore expect to see an obligation on Langtree within the S106 to provide these "Tenants Enhancements" as part of the "kick-back" to the town. However there is no reference (that I can see) of "Tenant Enhancements" within the document that suggests to me that there use to be but that Langtree have negotiated out of the obligation to provide. I guess they argued these wouldn't be benefits to the town (as you'd expect to see in a S106 and a Super League Stadium considered to be) but are add-ons for the benefit of a private company (St Helens RLFC) that would be used to generate revenue/profit for the sole benefit of that company and not the town as a whole.
I am presuming that this argument held water and the obligation removed and unfortunately the lawyers weren't quite diligent enough when giving the document a final sanity check and left the definition in. Obviuosly this is all complete and utter guesswork (although you may say educated guesses) by myself.
I re-iterate the point that having the detailed planning (although heavily conditioned) and a signed S106 Agreement is a massive plus and hurdle crossed in working towards the stadium. I would like to see the "approved drawings" for the stadium as the drawing numbers differ from those on the planning portal (although again this could be procedural). If the drawings are the same as previous then this negates all the above paragraphs of drivel and I guess that St Helens RLFC will themselves have to find the money to fund everything considered above Super League Standards.
Again apologies for any "doom-mongering" in the above but if I was a Saints fan (God forbid) there are answers I would like just for peace of mind if nothing else.
