General New Stadium Plans - Stratfield Brake

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless they are meticulous in their practices, there is always a way to claim that your tenant has in some way breached the terms of the tenancy and thus terminate the lease. IIRC Thame United were locked out and subsequently evicted fromtheir old Windmill Road ground by the landlord (who then sold to a housing developer) because they had missed a VAT payment to HRMC and the lease contained a clause that they should not default on any payments.

Obviously not the way I'd like to see business done, but.....
Yep, that's correct with regards to Thame United. My brother's company was operating out of Windmill Road at the time, and he wasn't allowed entry to get his equipment out. All because ££££ was wanted by selling off the land for development right in the centre of Thame, where property isn't exactly cheap.
 
Unless they are meticulous in their practices, there is always a way to claim that your tenant has in some way breached the terms of the tenancy and thus terminate the lease. IIRC Thame United were locked out and subsequently evicted fromtheir old Windmill Road ground by the landlord (who then sold to a housing developer) because they had missed a VAT payment to HRMC and the lease contained a clause that they should not default on any payments.

Obviously not the way I'd like to see business done, but.....


It’s a pity the roles couldn’t be reversed where the landlord has breached the terms of the lease…..resulting in hime giving the remnants a discount in the lease.
 
If the landlord breaches the T&C, then the tenant always has recourse to the law to obtain compensation. I believe Thame United managed to cut a deal with the developer to not obstruct the sale with challenges that their eviction was unlawful, which partially funded the new ASM stadium.
 
If the landlord breaches the T&C, then the tenant always has recourse to the law to obtain compensation. I believe Thame United managed to cut a deal with the developer to not obstruct the sale with challenges that their eviction was unlawful, which partially funded the new ASM stadium.

Why didn’t we then over Kassams neglect of the stadium?
 
Why didn’t we then over Kassams neglect of the stadium?
If the owners thought it in their interest to pursue FK through the courts, then I'm sure they would.

When two teams of expensive lawyers go head to head, there is normally only one winner....
 
Last edited:
Why didn’t we then over Kassams neglect of the stadium?
We have to be able to deal with him and in fact may want to negotiate a short extension of the lease. I'm not sure he's neglected the stadium to the extent that a court would definitely find in our favour - we are able to play games there.
 
In what way is the difference between the two?

Lease would be we have full control of the stadium on non matchdays as welll as all the facilities within the quadrangle.

License Is that the stadium is available to use on matchdays.
 
I think there's gonna be a lot of busy bodies and NIMBY's desperate to throw as many spanners in the works as possible throughout this whole process.

After all the club have been through, and all the hard work that's been put in, over such a long period of time, just to get to this point, for this not to come to fruition, would be disastrous, and doesn't bear thinking about.

With that in mind, and although I'm usually against such practices, I think this is one of those times when a "big brown envelope" might be required to "help things along"
 
Lease would be we have full control of the stadium on non matchdays as welll as all the facilities within the quadrangle.

License Is that the stadium is available to use on matchdays.

Fare enough but who is in receipt of the service charge? As I think we lost a court battle under Eales over the service charge with maintenance not being carried out. A total travesty.
 
Fare enough but who is in receipt of the service charge? As I think we lost a court battle under Eales over the service charge with maintenance not being carried out. A total travesty.

Firoka I'm guessing and basic maintenance is normally all that is required in contracts like this. Hence why we lost at court.
 
We have to be able to deal with him and in fact may want to negotiate a short extension of the lease. I'm not sure he's neglected the stadium to the extent that a court would definitely find in our favour - we are able to play games there.
Correct and the fact that more than one arbitration has resulted in OUFC 'settling' suggests this to be the case.
 
Blame Nick Merry he was the one who signed on the dotted line.
Yep dam tosser.
But I would have thought the service charge no matter how basic would have included cleaning pigeon s**t of our seats.
 
We (forum members) need to move away from talking about (all) Kidlington Residents do not want the stadium. It simply is not true.

There are a some residents that do not want it. Concerns over parking is their number one concern.

...but there are also so many residents that are happy and even excited to be the new home of our county team.


It is my opinion that the majority of Kidlington residents are currently kind of natural to the move (yes, they love sport and yes they will go to matches but they have parking concerns). Kidlington has many Kassam exiles and I believe that the Kidlington fan base will see a mini explosion once the move is complete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom