New stadium vs redeveloping UP vs OS

[ekavall]

Anyone that has been inside the OS? As a photographer I know how pictures can mislead you. In this case my guess is that the horror photos shown are not giving the whole picture. But on the other hand the facts are there for all to see, that the stands are not steep enough and there is not just the tracks in between the pitch and the stands. Because of the oval form there is also quite a distance from the tracks to the stands as well. Not to mention the situation on the short ends...

So I guess we will have to wait until the 23rd to see what our bid looks like.

[Aztec Hammer]

Anyone that has been inside the OS? As a photographer I know how pictures can mislead you. In this case my guess is that the horror photos shown are not giving the whole picture. But on the other hand the facts are there for all to see, that the stands are not steep enough and there is not just the tracks in between the pitch and the stands. Because of the oval form there is also quite a distance from the tracks to the stands as well. Not to mention the situation on the short ends...

So I guess we will have to wait until the 23rd to see what our bid looks like.

I've been inside the OS. Seats are way too far from the field. Especially behind the goals. It will not work for football if it stays like this. We need to make the government sweat. They have made the vital mistakes in this 'legacy' and yet they still think that we are going to bend over backwards to move in under whatever conditions they wish to put in place. We don't need the OS if it's going to be like that.

Would you move out of a decent sized house that you own and have full creative influence over to move into a bigger but unpractical house that you have to rent, can't redesign in anyway and could be kicked out of at any time? Loads of your mates quite enjoy going to your current house, but you don't know for sure if they'd like your new house. The TV might be too far away for them to see.

[adie]

Gold and Sullivan don't care what the view is like for fans, running track or not the view from the director's box will be the same and all they can see is £ signs, it's all about corporate sponsorship for them, they see the Olympic Stadium as a much more attractive place than the Boleyn and they believe sponsors will be fighting each other to get their names on our shirts, if this club cared about what we think they would have asked us a long time ago. They have spent £1,000,000 on the first bid and the second bid, their mind is made up, they want to move end of and will compromise with the OPLC, all that bullsh!t about only moving if it's fit for football is just that, bullsh!t

[War Pony]

Not sure if this has been said, but the parcel force site got a no no due to health and safety grounds with the gas silo's next to the site. Personally i dont see why, but thats what i heard.

[Hammer110]

............................... could be kicked out of at any time?

Why? The lease could be for up to 99 years and will no doubt have renewal clauses built in, you cant just kick out business tenants!

[paulhs1]

Why? The lease could be for up to 99 years and will no doubt have renewal clauses built in, you cant just kick out business tenants!

The lease could quite feasibly have no right to renew and business tenants could be kicked out assuming the correct notice was issued.

[Mr_Andersonn]

The lease could quite feasibly have no right to renew and business tenants could be kicked out assuming the correct notice was issued.

In which case the board would probably not agree to that.

[taffhammer]

But on the other hand the facts are there for all to see, that the stands are not steep enough and there is not just the tracks in between the pitch and the stands. Because of the oval form there is also quite a distance from the tracks to the stands as well. Not to mention the situation on the short ends...

Just a point of fact, no matter how steep a stand is you would still be the same distance from the pitch whatever row you were sat in.

[bobcar]

Just a point of fact, no matter how steep a stand is you would still be the same distance from the pitch whatever row you were sat in.

You're actually further away if they are steeper, the horizontal distance will be the same. (I think you probably knew that but you never wrote it).

You may well get a better view with the steeper stand though.

[ekavall]

Not sure if this has been said, but the parcel force site got a no no due to health and safety grounds with the gas silo's next to the site. Personally i dont see why, but thats what i heard.

Surely there is a way around this problem if the site is interesting. To dig up this kind of facts is exactly what they did just because it was just a lot of talk. Did anyone see any concrete plans for this stadium?
Isn't the OS built on some kind of swamp like ground? The new arena in Stockholm, close to where I live, is built on soil that I believe needed to be descontaminated before constructions could start. The gas silos must be possible to move, at least if they aren't owned Daniel Levy and he will say no

[Pedant]

The lease could quite feasibly have no right to renew and business tenants could be kicked out assuming the correct notice was issued.

Wrong. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (as amended) contains automatic right to renew which has to be explicitly negotiated away. Even if the right to renew is not exercised, the lease simply goes into "holdover" until negotiations are concluded.

If the landlord wants the stadium back from WHU it would have to buy them out.

Will you people get through your heads that the UK's L&T law gives the highest level of protection to business occupiers in the world.

The own vs rent debate is a complete red herring.

[Hammer Smith]

We need to make the government sweat. They have made the vital mistakes in this 'legacy' and yet they still think that we are going to bend over backwards to move in under whatever conditions they wish to put in place.

It was Labour that made this mess.... Jowell and Livingstone are the two main culprits, ' ordering consultants working on the stadium business model to ignore Premier League football.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -2006.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems our board are very willing to bend over backwards. They have already signed on the dotted line once without any proper consultation of fans They will do so again.

[paulhs1]

Wrong. The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (as amended) contains automatic right to renew which has to be explicitly negotiated away. Even if the right to renew is not exercised, the lease simply goes into "holdover" until negotiations are concluded.

Actually as long as the landlord/freeholder gives the required notice then the tenant can be asked to vacate.
Assuming that the 1954 act will apply to this type of letting agreement then the tenant will have the right to extend a lease for an additional 90 years at a peppercorn (zero) ground rent.

With the exceptions being that you can't force the freeholder to extend a lease if:

- The majority of the leaseholders have applied to obtain the freehold
- Your lease has already ended
- You have sublet the property on a lease of at least 21 years
- The lease was originally granted for less than 21 years
- The freeholder is a charitable housing trust, the National Trust, the Crown (although they may agree), or the property is in a cathedral precinct
- If the freeholder wants to employ a developer to demolish and rebuild the property (in which case we would be entitled to compensation)

The own vs rent debate is a complete red herring.

If only this was the case. Owning is always more desirable then renting, you only have to look at Coventry City, Portsmouth and Darlington to appreciate that the banks will be less likely to lend to a club if they don’t have a stadium(main asset) to borrow against. This may not be a problem right now with our owners, however, this could be a problem in a few years/owners time.

[IronMaiden123]

Not owning your ground, the first step towards losing control of your destiny on the long road to folding. Wimbledon FC.

[beckton]

Us moving to Milton Keynes would be handy for me.

[Pop Robson]

Us moving to Milton Keynes would be handy for me.

Na, move out to Essex

[Pedant]

Actually as long as the landlord/freeholder gives the required notice then the tenant can be asked to vacate.
Assuming that the 1954 act will apply to this type of letting agreement then the tenant will have the right to extend a lease for an additional 90 years at a peppercorn (zero) ground rent.

Wrong. The right to renew under the L&T Act is automatic unless negotiated away - "Contracted outside the Act", in the parlance (which no organisation would do without a compelling reason). All of your exclusions only apply after 99 years (or whateve rlease term is agreed) and the only one that matters is if the freeholder intends to redevelop - in 99 years. As long as the tenant is not in breach it is impossible to force one out before expiry notice periods start to kick in.

If after (say) 5 years the landlord decided it wanted WHU out it would have to pay compensation pretty much the equivalent of the freehold (assuming WHU were not in breach).

Very unlikely since, on the whole, UK L&T law does a pretty decent job of balancing risk and reward for large occupiers.

The own vs rent debate is a complete red herring.
If only this was the case. Owning is always more desirable then renting, you only have to look at Coventry City, Portsmouth and Darlington to appreciate that the banks will be less likely to lend to a club if they don’t have a stadium(main asset) to borrow against. This may not be a problem right now with our owners, however, this could be a problem in a few years/owners time.

Wrong, again. Any lease with more than about 30 years unexpired has an investment value. Any lease with more than about 75 years unexpired has a value not that different from the freehold. In the case of the OS I would imagine WHU's occupancy would make up something like 80% of the total value. If a bank felt it could re-let that lease it would have no problems lending against it.

[paulhs1]

Wrong. The right to renew under the L&T Act is automatic unless negotiated away - "Contracted outside the Act", in the parlance (which no organisation would do without a compelling reason). All of your exclusions only apply after 99 years (or whateve rlease term is agreed) and the only one that matters is if the freeholder intends to redevelop - in 99 years. As long as the tenant is not in breach it is impossible to force one out before expiry notice periods start to kick in.!

Pedant...there seems to be some confusion, I replied to the following;

Why? The lease could be for up to 99 years and will no doubt have renewal clauses built in, you cant just kick out business tenants
!

With;

"The lease could quite feasibly have no right to renew and business tenants could be kicked out assuming the correct notice was issued".

I was actually stating that you could be issued notice at the end of the lease should the required notice be issued, you seem to suggest the same in your post. I also said t'if the 1954 Act applies to this type of agreement, indeed there is every possibility tht the landord tries to exclude this from the agreement.

Wrong, again. Any lease with more than about 30 years unexpired has an investment value. Any lease with more than about 75 years unexpired has a value not that different from the freehold. In the case of the OS I would imagine WHU's occupancy would make up something like 80% of the total value. If a bank felt it could re-let that lease it would have no problems lending against it.

Gonna have to disagree on this, it may well have an investment value, but I doubt very much that the banks will look kindly when trying to borrow against it, especially if shared with other tenants. Coventry city’s stadium has a 50 year lease and the banks won’t even entertain a loan!

[WHURS]

Paulhs

Why do you keep banging on about being able to borrow against the stadium. When this is one of the biggest reasons we find ourselves in such dire straits with our finances at present. While it is a way of accessing funds all it is, is a bigger shovel to dig yourself deeper into debt.

[Hampshire Hammer]

I love the fact that you guys are arguing about whether club will be able to renew the lease after 99 years on a stadium that seems to have been designed with a 25 years lifetime in mind at the most. Just wait until the stadium needs major refurbishment then see how good it is to be playing in a government owned asset.