Paul Youane wrote:
Sadfish bare with me on this one but:
The Section 106 Agreement has the following definition with a linked obligation on Langtree:
“Agreement For Lease” means a contractual deed to be entered into by the Owner [Langtree Group Plc] and the Club [St Helens Rugby Club Limited] which shall provide for the Occupation [this is a defined term that means what it says not ownership] of the Stadium by the Club within 6 months of it being Practicably Completed to Superleague Standard; in a form approved by the Council”
That doesn’t suggest Saints will own the Stadium.
Clause 10.5 of Schedule 3 of the S106 contains the following provisions:
“…. To allow the Council to be the direct landlord of the Club pursuant to the lease entitling the Club to occupy the Stadium…”
If the Club owns the Stadium why is the Council their Landlord within a lease permitting the Club to occupy the Stadium. You should note the Stadium Land is separately defined and the lease referred to is very much for the facilities not the land. So again why would the Club enter a lease if they own the building?
I understand that you probably think I’m “muck-raking” however I am intrigued why you are so certain you are right yet publicly available, legally binding executed contracts suggest different? Why do you think these provisions have been included within these documents in the manner they have?
Thanks for that Paul, very interesting since I can't be ar*ed trawling the docs myself!
Couple of questions (pardon my ignorance):
1) If Langtree are the Owner, why are St Helens Council the Landlord? Are we subtenants with a head lease between Langtree and the Council?
2) Are there any more details re: lease terms (for the lease between the cluyb and the council, or any head lease between the council and Langtree?), specifically term and rental?
