• ****Join the YF Fantasy EFL League: HERE. ****

New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Planning

Ian Middleton, a Kidlington councillor who has been critical of the club and its plan, told Mr Levy that some residents “see this as a betrayal in their trust of this council”.

No ian some of us have been telling you since day 1 that occ don't have the power to close the road try listening for once
 



Hopefully councillors are finally coming to their senses. It will only be a temporary closure anyway.

Buses, taxis and emergency vehicles will still be allowed access.

A very short 3 minute diversion via the underused Freize Way.

Building a bridge is clearly totally unnecessary, a waste of money and not at all ‘green’

Just for the high attendance matches, so that will be fewer than 23 times a season the vast majority of those at quiet times of the day/weeks.

If we remain in the championship there isn't going to be many 3pm Saturday ko by the looks of it
 
A councillor who said he would not allow Oxford United’s proposed stadium if it meant a road was closed on match days said that is no longer the case.
Last year, Dan Levy, cabinet member for finance, said Oxford Road must not be closed on match days but said on Tuesday the council has no powers to order that.
On BBC news website
Ha! It's almost like it was all a façade to get people on side before an election!

Who'd have thought it🤣
 
Ian Middleton, a Kidlington councillor who has been critical of the club and its plan, told Mr Levy that some residents “see this as a betrayal in their trust of this council”.

No ian some of us have been telling you since day 1 that occ don't have the power to close the road try listening for once
"A Kidlington councillor"

Wait, he didn't become an MP?
 
Not sure I've seen much discussion of this yet in here, but what does everyone think about the protective covenants that are being put in place, and which OxVox announced recently? In particular do we think they are watertight for all eventualities? I would be particularly interested in hearing what @Colin B thinks about this too.

If as a fanbase we feel there is a potential loophole, now would presumably be the time to push for an addition/change via OxVox.
 
For reference, this is what OxVox said recently:

The main points of the contract we covered were:
  • The lease option has a five-year timescale once planning is granted, so the club have that long to take up the option after planning. That five year period could be extended if there were any delays in planning.
  • The terms agreed in the lease remain in place for that period.
  • The lease term is for 250 years from the point of being triggered, so effectively from when we wish to commence building.
  • An agreed upfront payment will be made on activation of the lease and then a small nominal rent would apply.
  • Match day activities take precedence over all other activities on site either now or in the future. This includes our women’s team and academy if needed.
  • A clause protects the club from an owner, present or future, from barring the club entry to the ground.
  • Any sub-letting of facilities or ancillaries on site cannot interfere with any football related activities such as match days.
  • The stadium cannot be taken away from the club or used for non-football purposes. This, as with all protections, carries over no matter the owner or sub lease. Oxford United own the sole right to play their games at the new stadium, not the owners.
  • In the event of the land ever going up for sale, Oxford United have a pre-emption clause to buy, and whoever it was sold to, the 250-year lease terms would still apply.
  • Once planning is obtained, the club hold the right to trigger the lease when they see fit within the 5 year period agreed.
In effect these conditions and others have tried to cover every eventuality and effectively ensure that no matter what happens in the future regarding owners, money, or league, Oxford United will have a place to play football for the next 250 years.
 
For reference, this is what OxVox said recently:

The main points of the contract we covered were:
  • The lease option has a five-year timescale once planning is granted, so the club have that long to take up the option after planning. That five year period could be extended if there were any delays in planning.
  • The terms agreed in the lease remain in place for that period.
  • The lease term is for 250 years from the point of being triggered, so effectively from when we wish to commence building.
  • An agreed upfront payment will be made on activation of the lease and then a small nominal rent would apply.
  • Match day activities take precedence over all other activities on site either now or in the future. This includes our women’s team and academy if needed.
  • A clause protects the club from an owner, present or future, from barring the club entry to the ground.
  • Any sub-letting of facilities or ancillaries on site cannot interfere with any football related activities such as match days.
  • The stadium cannot be taken away from the club or used for non-football purposes. This, as with all protections, carries over no matter the owner or sub lease. Oxford United own the sole right to play their games at the new stadium, not the owners.
  • In the event of the land ever going up for sale, Oxford United have a pre-emption clause to buy, and whoever it was sold to, the 250-year lease terms would still apply.
  • Once planning is obtained, the club hold the right to trigger the lease when they see fit within the 5 year period agreed.
In effect these conditions and others have tried to cover every eventuality and effectively ensure that no matter what happens in the future regarding owners, money, or league, Oxford United will have a place to play football for the next 250 years.
We will be playing on the moon by then
 
  • React
Reactions: m
But we will be champions of the galaxy, with Blarf up front, the 10ft alien, who has just scored his 764th goal of the season ten games in. We'll need a bigger stadium anyway!

In seriousness though, potential eventualities that I don't quite see covered are the potential for the 'nominal rent' to be increased arbitrarily, and potential for the club to be liquidated as an entity and the above agreements not carrying over to any pheonix club. Maybe I'm being paranoid though!
 
Ha! It's almost like it was all a façade to get people on side before an election!

Who'd have thought it🤣

Politics is a brutal business.

Once the LibDems have got what they want from the Greens ( a new MP for Bic & Woodstock) they’ll cut them lose.
 
Not sure I've seen much discussion of this yet in here, but what does everyone think about the protective covenants that are being put in place, and which OxVox announced recently? In particular do we think they are watertight for all eventualities? I would be particularly interested in hearing what @Colin B thinks about this too.

If as a fanbase we feel there is a potential loophole, now would presumably be the time to push for an addition/change via OxVox.
This would need good lawyers with ecoertise on tjese kind of covenants looking at this. I believe that Oxvox suggested that this was the case ( lawyers had gone through and challenged assumptions to make aure that they are
comfortable ?)
 
Not sure I've seen much discussion of this yet in here, but what does everyone think about the protective covenants that are being put in place, and which OxVox announced recently? In particular do we think they are watertight for all eventualities? I would be particularly interested in hearing what @Colin B thinks about this too.

If as a fanbase we feel there is a potential loophole, now would presumably be the time to push for an addition/change via OxVox.
As I'm not a lawyer, and am no longer involved in the stadium, I wouldn't be the best person to answer that question.

What I can say, though, is that from the time that Stratfield Brake was first considered (and then defaulted to The Triangle) those of us involved at the time always favoured a long term lease, rather than a freehold purchase of the land. The reason was that clauses and covenants, similar to those we are now seeing, could be inserted to give the club extra protection in the future. A freehold would not have given as much protection.

That the covenants are with the County Council carries so much more weight too, and it's fair to say that the council also wanted to protect the club from a Kassam Mk II situation. We had lawyers looking at this from the start, to make sure the club had as much protection from a wrong'un pitching up at some time in the future and asset stripping us (again!). Not everyone at the club wanted this, some preferred a freehold, but that's another story..........
 
This is BBC, but I expect an even bigger comment in the Fail article.

A mere 11 words for the BBC.

The OM gave him 250 on it ahead of the GE, over 100 more words than the Labour candidate on the issue.

I let @OUSP know about that.

Glad to see a common sense override has been enacted. I hope that the bridge application - if it ever existed - has been shelved for now.
 
Back
Top Bottom