No, it is a planning clause, not a contractual one. To develop Belle Vue for housing, you would need to get it removed, plain and simple. To do that, as Sandal Cat points out, is by no means certain and will be time consuming and costly. Also, and lets be clear here, the club don't want to move, they just want to pay a fairer rental value and that is what they have already offered to do and still hope will happen.
I would be very, very surprised if a new lease deal is not agreed in the coming fee weeks, which will see all getting something out of it, maybe not what they had before, but still better than the alternatives for all parties!
Just being devils advocate, if we have served notice of our intentions to leave BV and intend taking residency elsewhere, can it not be deemed unfair on the landlord to be held to rights over what are now unnecessary caviats? If we had been booted out, it might seem unfair on us as tenants, but as we have exercise our rights to look elsewhere woulnt it now look unfair "holding the landlord to ransom"? A subtle change of events could lead to a subtle change in perspective of how this case is now viewed??
Surely, all the interested parties cannot be held to ransom by a club who made themselves voluntarily homeless.
Surely any legal professional worth their salt would have confidence in their ability to argue this. They can't use the excuse of artificially high rent to say they were forced out. Rent does not work that way. As current legislation stands, the owner can charge what they deem fit and if you don't agree, you vote with your feet.
Also, Wakefield Council have been bitten by something similar to this before.
They placed a covenant on the old ABC Cinema on Kirkgate, stating it could only be used for showing films. This then led to a very valuable piece of real-estate falling into disrepair and remaining empty for fifteen plus years. This has spread around the surrounding buildings making it a visual and financial eyesore. An architect I know has told me that by the end, WMDC would have pretty much agreed to anything being built there.
My point is, things can change quickly and very laudable ideas that absolutely seemed correct at the time can soon look like terrible decisions.
Also, purely just my point of view but, I haven't heard of too many people who engaged a bank in a very high stakes game of brinksmanship and came out on top.
Surely, all the interested parties cannot be held to ransom by a club who made themselves voluntarily homeless.
Surely any legal professional worth their salt would have confidence in their ability to argue this. They can't use the excuse of artificially high rent to say they were forced out. Rent does not work that way. As current legislation stands, the owner can charge what they deem fit and if you don't agree, you vote with your feet.
Also, Wakefield Council have been bitten by something similar to this before.
They placed a covenant on the old ABC Cinema on Kirkgate, stating it could only be used for showing films. This then led to a very valuable piece of real-estate falling into disrepair and remaining empty for fifteen plus years. This has spread around the surrounding buildings making it a visual and financial eyesore. An architect I know has told me that by the end, WMDC would have pretty much agreed to anything being built there.
My point is, things can change quickly and very laudable ideas that absolutely seemed correct at the time can soon look like terrible decisions.
Also, purely just my point of view but, I haven't heard of too many people who engaged a bank in a very high stakes game of brinksmanship and came out on top.
I would be delighted to be proved wrong though.
I bet you would, starting to show our true colours now and I doubt they are red, white and blue
I bet you would, starting to show our true colours now and I doubt they are red, white and blue
Do you lot never get bored, bet the Mods do.
I genuinely don't know what your problem is Sir but, I feel you have some real issues here.
You seem to feel the need to personally attack anyone who dares to express an opinion that in any way differs from yours.
Are your thoughts and beliefs so unsteady and poorly founded and based on blind hope that you cannot accept a perceived (on your part) challenge to them? Can you in no way debate and discuss them like an intelligent adult would? Are you so blinkered and narrow minded that you must assume that anybody who disagrees with you must be a troll?
I hope not and that this is just an aberration. I really do hope not.
I genuinely don't know what your problem is Sir but, I feel you have some real issues here.
You seem to feel the need to personally attack anyone who dares to express an opinion that in any way differs from yours.
Are your thoughts and beliefs so unsteady and poorly founded and based on blind hope that you cannot accept a perceived (on your part) challenge to them? Can you in no way debate and discuss them like an intelligent adult would? Are you so blinkered and narrow minded that you must assume that anybody who disagrees with you must be a troll?
I hope not and that this is just an aberration. I really do hope not.
Perhaps it comes with years of practice spotting one.
Perhaps it comes with years of practice spotting one.
You maybe right.
Or then again maybe deciding that everyone you don't agree with is one and as a consequence, leading a very sad, bitter and insular life because of it.
Still, that's entirely your prerogative.
Hope it's working out for you the way you thought it would.
Or then again maybe deciding that everyone you don't agree with is one and as a consequence, leading a very sad, bitter and insular life because of it.
Still, that's entirely your prerogative.
Hope it's working out for you the way you thought it would.
I am right, and I'm sure it will work out the way I think it will, you just can't help yourself, vasty's seen through you as well, Oh and fwiw I'm all for people having the right to an opinion, sometimes it's the motives behind them that are questionable
Oh and fwiw I'm all for people having the right to an opinion, sometimes it's the motives behind them that are questionable
Ok. I'm not entirely sure what motives I could have where an end-game could be reached by leaving an opinion on an open and free to join forum. Then again I don't have to, you seem more than capable of coming up with them on your own. Also, you say "Vasty has seen through me as well". Yep, the guy is a regular oracle.
Anyway, I'm going to leave all that there before I'm accused of trying to derail the topic.
Though I would genuinely be interested in knowing what you and Vasty (For whom you seem to be an unofficial spokesman) found so disgusting about my post that you felt the need to try and call me out.
O/T slightly. Cas stadium not getting called in. No surprise given the new Sos's stance on localism. Now we'll see what lateral are made of. From what I've heard everything is in place for them to get cracking.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...