Interview with Caroline Molyneux (SC Chair)

[Wlatic]

You posted "the lease has been rewritten" with a degree of certainty, now you claim that it "may have been tweaked" , there will have been no change whatsoever in the terms of the lease unless it is to the benefit of both clubs.

The lease has been rewritten, because the old lease was with a company that will no longer exist soon. At a minimum they'll have been sent a deed of variation (or something akin to that which notifies the tenant of the new ownership) which forms part of the lease.

Sorry mate I disagree, unless both parties agree to change any part of the lease it will remain as it was originally drawn up, and I cannot see the rugby wanting to change any of the terms at present,

It really depends on the lease itself, with DW being such a "handshakes man" I can imagine the initial lease he provided gave him enough wiggle room to really do what he wanted (hence warriors being kicked elsewhere when we needed to redo the pitch or their games being re-arranged). I'd be very surprised if the terms of them having to move games etc. were fully laid out within the actual lease agreement vs a very generic "Maintenance Term" being in the lease and an addition document/verbal agreement being in place for what that currently means.

If you consider commercial leases have terms which include the responsibilities of both sides and its impossible to come up with definitive language within the lease. What DW / IEC considered acceptable under pitch maintenance will hopefully be different to what the new group do. I understand you feel that wouldn't constitute a rewritten lease, but from my point of view the same terms being treated differently based on either the new definition of those terms or simply enforcing them in a different way would mean a fundamentally new relationship.

I'm willing to accept I could be wrong, the lease may not have any wiggle room and we are very limited in scope as to what can be done. If we extended the lease by 25 years in 2007 and didn't have wiggle room / termination agreements I'd think less of DW!

One interesting thing about the wording of the legal requirements from the council is:
"contained a requirement that two sporting clubs be granted a licence for use of the stadium by the tenant." (taken from a Wigan Today article). I always thought it had to be a multi sport venue, if the above is true, we get back to the prem and warriors are causing issues which we can take care of with "Wiggle" provide Latics Ladies with a lease!

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

The lease has been rewritten, because the old lease was with a company that will no longer exist soon. What you are saying is yes the lease has been rewritten but the terms are the same.

No, the lease has been transferred.

There is no reason to re write the lease as it is still valid, as it was when IEC took over and as it was when Choi sold out to Au Yeung.

 

[Hampton]

The lease has been rewritten, because the old lease was with a company that will no longer exist soon. What you are saying is yes the lease has been rewritten but the terms are the same.

The long term lease will include a rent review clause I hope.......!

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

The long term lease will include a rent review clause I hope.......!

Yes it does. It always has.

 

[loudmouthblue]

The lease has been rewritten, because the old lease was with a company that will no longer exist soon. What you are saying is yes the lease has been rewritten but the terms are the same.

Absolute rubbish, I bought a property less than 2 years ago at auction, it had been repossessed by the bank that was owed money on it from a property company that had gone into liquidation, all that happened was both solicitors mine and the vendors added a signed page into the original lease that showed my company as the new property/leaseholder.

 

[Wlatic]

Absolute rubbish, I bought a property less than 2 years ago at auction, it had been repossessed by the bank that was owed money on it from a property company that had gone into liquidation, all that happened was both solicitors mine and the vendors added a signed page into the original lease that showed my company as the new property/leaseholder.

Point taken, rewritten was bad usage of language. Updated?

Happy to admit I was wrong and my language was misleading.

But see above for fundamental changes in "terms of a lease"

 

[loudmouthblue]

Point is could more revenue be made from the stadium than currently/ previous ?
Well the only way is up as it's been used for pretty much jack all to date so yes must be the answer.
That said our new owner may not be bothered and run it solely as a sporting venue. If he can afford to that's his choice

If I am not mistaken I think he will do just that, there are plenty property investments worldwide for him to look at if he feels the need.