Interview with Caroline Molyneux (SC Chair) | Page 4 | Vital Football

Interview with Caroline Molyneux (SC Chair)

Griggs goals said:
I wonder if them and Hull City have all the same issues we have with fans
Click to expand...
I think it's just a Wigan thing tbh.
Not sure what these RL clubs are bleating about tbh were would they play otherwise their sport is bankrupt and on it's knees financially, most of the clubs only survive due to support from local councils 😉 and other beneficial historic low rent deals 😂
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Although LMB disagrees with me I am still certain that it would go to tribunal or court and a fair rent set, which could go either way.

The reason I am confident on this is because a similar thing happened to a business I ran where mid way through my lease the landlord decided to increase my rent in an effort to persuade me to vacate. I took him to a tribunal and won the case, the tribunal decided that the increase was not in line with current rises in the costs of rent in the area.

The first point I made was in regard to the ground lease assigned by the council on the ground which clearly stipulates that the stadium must be occupied by both clubs. If we are deemed to be forcing the rugby out by means of a rent rise outside of normal terms they could construe that to be against the spirit of the assignment and foreclose the lease.

If my reading of the situation is correct then to answer your final question, that is correct, in that the old stadium company no longer exists, however I believe that as part of the negotiations for the new lease granted by the council there will have been discussions regarding the subject of rent and that the council will have put in place guarantees as to a fair rent being charged. That will of course then be down to both parties to discuss and agree the terms, once again though we will not be in a position to unilaterally raise the rent, it will have to affect both clubs equally.
Click to expand...

Another factor in with that is despite the council no longer owning shares in the stadium due to the previous company going bust they still own the lease hold on the land the stadium sits.

I believe they have waived their right to charge any ground rent since the stadium opened, but if we started to behave unreasonably towards Warriors and tried to force them out with excessive rent demands that deal could be put at risk.

They represent the whole town and both clubs, so they will clearly want to avoid either club ending up homeless. So if it looked like it was potentially coming to that i imagine they would possibly leverage future ground rent payments to encourage a solution to be found.

But reality is we need to find about another 1m a year with Warriors currently paying rent. If we increased their rent we'd still be hundreds of thousands short of breaking even, so they aren't going anywhere.
 
Griggs goals said:
I wonder if them and Hull City have all the same issues we have with fans
Click to expand...

No i don't think so, i believe we played Hull away on a day their rugby team were playing in the Challenge Cup Final and they were making a bit of a fuss about it pre match and half time wishing them well.

I believe it was the day we smashed them 5-0 under Bruce with Zaki-mania running wild. Those were the days!
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Another factor in with that is despite the council no longer owning shares in the stadium due to the previous company going bust they still own the lease hold on the land the stadium sits.

I believe they have waived their right to charge any ground rent since the stadium opened, but if we started to behave unreasonably towards Warriors and tried to force them out with excessive rent demands that deal could be put at risk.

They represent the whole town and both clubs, so they will clearly want to avoid either club ending up homeless. So if it looked like it was potentially coming to that i imagine they would possibly leverage future ground rent payments to encourage a solution to be found.

But reality is we need to find about another 1m a year with Warriors currently paying rent. If we increased their rent we'd still be hundreds of thousands short of breaking even, so they aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

As for not needing the warriors playing at the DW they could be an essential part, when the takeover is done we should close down the DW altogether, build some temporary stands(like at the golf) on the Robin Park arena and both teams play there, submit a planning application to convert it into a 15 seater stadium.

NO business rates would be payable on the DW and under current law no more could be charged on Robin Park, that may bring the land valuation office back to the table to negotiate a fair valuation on the DW, therefore we both benefit.

I think one of the reasons the rugby pay less rent is to offset the extortionate amount paid in business rates which was calculated based on our premiership income and parachute payments.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Although LMB disagrees with me I am still certain that it would go to tribunal or court and a fair rent set, which could go either way.

The reason I am confident on this is because a similar thing happened to a business I ran where mid way through my lease the landlord decided to increase my rent in an effort to persuade me to vacate. I took him to a tribunal and won the case, the tribunal decided that the increase was not in line with current rises in the costs of rent in the area.

The first point I made was in regard to the ground lease assigned by the council on the ground which clearly stipulates that the stadium must be occupied by both clubs. If we are deemed to be forcing the rugby out by means of a rent rise outside of normal terms they could construe that to be against the spirit of the assignment and foreclose the lease.

If my reading of the situation is correct then to answer your final question, that is correct, in that the old stadium company no longer exists, however I believe that as part of the negotiations for the new lease granted by the council there will have been discussions regarding the subject of rent and that the council will have put in place guarantees as to a fair rent being charged. That will of course then be down to both parties to discuss and agree the terms, once again though we will not be in a position to unilaterally raise the rent, it will have to affect both clubs equally.
Click to expand...

I didn't agree with your reasoning over rent reviews because it too high. Yes you probably went to arbitration via a court I have no doubt about or argument with that, but that was because, in your own reply, the landlord broke the terms of your lease, the arbitration stopped an unjust rent demand, they cannot reduce what you agreed to pay in a signed and witnessed lease.

The only time it would go to arbitration would be if your lease had an upward rental increase clause in it mid term, usually every 3 or 5 years on long term leases, if at this time the parties cannot agree the amount of the increase it would go to arbitration to stop what happened to you, this is not happening at the DW.

As for leases the council lease is about ground rent and terms and rules for the use of the property standing on the ground, they have no say whatsoever in what agreement has been made between two commercial companies on how much rent one pays the other.

Lastly the existing lease remains in place whoever is the lease holder, if the lessor (WAFC) sells the business or as in our case goes into administration the lessee (WRFC) still has protection of the terms of the existing lease, the new company cannot suddenly decide to increase the rent to force them out, we can only increase rent if there is a rent review pending.
 
Last edited:
TRUE BELIEVER said:
I took him to a tribunal and won the case, the tribunal decided that the increase was not in line with current rises in the costs of rent in the area.
Click to expand...

This really is the key, if you base it on commercial property we'd lose. If you get someone who can have the judge look at it like a stadium and compare to others you'd have a chance.

Lets be honest if the new owners allow the rugby to play on the pitch, with a clear agreement that the groundsmen/management have a veto of them playing based on the pitch itself and a number of other reasons, it'd be a fantastic deal for us. The minute it has issues you chuck them off to Leigh and give it time to recover.
 
Wlatic said:
This really is the key, if you base it on commercial property we'd lose. If you get someone who can have the judge look at it like a stadium and compare to others you'd have a chance.

Lets be honest if the new owners allow the rugby to play on the pitch, with a clear agreement that the groundsmen/management have a veto of them playing based on the pitch itself and a number of other reasons, it'd be a fantastic deal for us. The minute it has issues you chuck them off to Leigh and give it time to recover.
Click to expand...
As much as we all would like the scenario in some way the new owners cannot do anything other than what is written into the existing signed lease.
 
hindleymonwafc said:
You sure Jeff ?....didn't DW get a grant because it was multi-sport usage ?
Click to expand...
I think Dave got a grant from The Football Trust. They gave grants for new football stadiums rather than doing your existing one up. Also as you know Dave didn't own WRL when he said he was to construct a new stadium and still at the onset of construction didn't own them.
 
jeffs right said:
I think Dave got a grant from The Football Trust. They gave grants for new football stadiums rather than doing your existing one up. Also as you know Dave didn't own WRL when he said he was to construct a new stadium and still at the onset of construction didn't own them.
Click to expand...
Mostly football grants with whelan putting 5m towards it
But even that 5m might have come from sale of Springfield park
Don't think we owed anyone anything from sale of springy
Don't know if council put anything into building of stadium
Don't think they could have put people's money into it
So mainly grants and what bit whelan put in
But correct me if I'm wrong
 
loudmouthblue said:
As much as we all would like the scenario in some way the new owners cannot do anything other than what is written into the existing signed lease.
Click to expand...
The existing lease is gone, and a new one was wrote up. Plus we know from the existing lease there were provisions to stop the rugby playing on the pitch when it needed repair / too many games over x days etc.
 
Wlatic said:
The existing lease is gone, and a new one was wrote up. Plus we know from the existing lease there were provisions to stop the rugby playing on the pitch when it needed repair / too many games over x days etc.
Click to expand...


Who said the existing lease has gone and a new one written, who would do that and how, a new lease would have to be agreed and sanctioned by both parties, we have had no one to make that kind of decision for nine months.
 
loudmouthblue said:
I didn't agree with your reasoning over rent reviews because it too high. Yes you probably went to arbitration via a court I have no doubt about or argument with that, but that was because, in your own reply, the landlord broke the terms of your lease, the arbitration stopped an unjust rent demand, they cannot reduce what you agreed to pay in a signed and witnessed lease.

The only time it would go to arbitration would be if your lease had an upward rental increase clause in it mid term, usually every 3 or 5 years on long term leases, if at this time the parties cannot agree the amount of the increase it would go to arbitration to stop what happened to you, this is not happening at the DW.

As for leases the council lease is about ground rent and terms and rules for the use of the property standing on the ground, they have no say whatsoever in what agreement has been made between two commercial companies on how much rent one pays the other.

Lastly the existing lease remains in place whoever is the lease holder, if the lessor (WAFC) sells the business or as in our case goes into administration the lessee (WRFC) still has protection of the terms of the existing lease, the new company cannot suddenly decide to increase the rent to force them out, we can only increase rent if there is a rent review pending.
Click to expand...

I think we are at cross purposes here LMB. I agree with everything you have said in your post, including the fact that the lease between the ex stadium company and the new one will transfer.

The point I was making is that we cannot just hike the rent to the rugby club as some are suggesting. As you say they have a lease and it must be honoured. I believe there is a rent review period written into it and that would be the time to look at raising the rent. However we cannot just force up the rent and say take it or leave it, again as some are suggesting, as that would not be legal and would force a challenge from the rugby in line with the challenge I made when faced with a similar situation.

As I say I am in total agreement with what you are saying and my original point is simply we cannot just force out the rugby by raising their rent nor can we cancel their lease. My other point is that the council would also raise objections under the terms of the stadium ground lease.

All of this however is in my opinion a moot point as without the income from the rugby rental the stadium is not likely to be a sustainable asset. Like it or not as it stands we have symbiotic relationship with the rugby and the survival of the stadium depends on both clubs being successful and being able to pay their share of the rent. Neither club can solely support the outgoings of the stadium at present.
 
Wlatic said:
The existing lease is gone, and a new one was wrote up. Plus we know from the existing lease there were provisions to stop the rugby playing on the pitch when it needed repair / too many games over x days etc.
Click to expand...

LMB is correct, the existing lease is still valid and will be taken over by the new company unless both parties agree to terminate the lease and draw up a new one, and I very much doubt the rugby would agree to that.
 
How can the rugby dictate any
TRUE BELIEVER said:
LMB is correct, the existing lease is still valid and will be taken over by the new company unless both parties agree to terminate the lease and draw up a new one, and I very much doubt the rugby would agree to that.
Click to expand...
How can the rugby dictate Anything they are only rent payers
Squatters cuckoos tolerated trespassers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.