Is the problem with all this though not that, as frustrating and unfair as we/the owner of OUFC finds it, if the contract between the StadCo and the football club dictates the payment of certain charges, and those charges are outlined in that contract, the club is obliged to pay them? Eales objecting to the club paying for things it doesn’t use, as was suggested earlier, is understandable, but if the club is contractually obliged to pay them there’s not much that can be done. The principles of contract law in this country are pretty clear: the courts will void a contract if one of the parties has been dishonest or made a misrepresentation, for example, but it’s not the court’s responsibility to step in to save a party from a bad deal. That seems to be what’s happened here. Perhaps the club are trying to argue the former, hence the arbitration?