Interview with Caroline Molyneux (SC Chair) | Page 5 | Vital Football

Interview with Caroline Molyneux (SC Chair)

TRUE BELIEVER said:
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.
Click to expand...

I realised that on your second post, I would love to have the ground for our sole use but a touch of realism shows that is an impossible wish, the truth is we actually need one another to thrive.

The rugby is not the enemy in this instance, the problem is the amount we pay in business rates because of our recent past and the way it was calculated based on premier league and parachute payments income, that is why WAFC probably shoulder a greater burden of the grounds overall running costs and as I said in an earlier post both clubs need to do something radical to reduce that burden.
Representation could and should be made to government who set the criteria for calculating Uniform Business Rates in the first place.
 
Bickymon1 said:
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
Click to expand...

There were several sources of grants & I seem to remember one being related to dual purpose/community use
No money from the sale of Springfield Park went in to the building of the JJB.
I don't think the council put anything towards it - their contribution was the long lease on use of the land for no charge
 
loudmouthblue said:
I realised that on your second post, I would love to have the ground for our sole use, but a touch of realism shows that is an impossible wish, the truth is we actually need one another to thrive.

The rugby is not the enemy in this instant the problem is the amount we pay in business rates because of our recent past and the way it was calculated, that is why WAFC probably shoulder a greater burden of the grounds overall running costs and as I said in an earlier post both clubs need to do something radical to reduce that burden.
Representation could and should be made to government who set the criteria for calculating Uniform Business Rates in the first place.
Click to expand...

I have said before that the business rates are the killer on the stadium accounts.

There have been attempts to get them lowered previously but have fallen on deaf ears because of the trading company having been in the PL. The rates were set in the era of the PL and all attempts to reduce them have been rejected as the commissioners say that there was not a significant change in the business, however that cannot apply now as this will be a new business. IEC tried to get them lowered but failed as they had taken over the existing business, but once again that does not apply now as the existing business has effectively ceased trading.
 
Mighty Bongsmon said:
There were several sources of grants & I seem to remember one being related to dual purpose/community use
No money from the sale of Springfield Park went in to the building of the JJB.
I don't think the council put anything towards it - their contribution was the long lease on use of the land for no charge
Click to expand...
So what happened to money from sale of Springfield Park
 
That went in to the club's coffers - I think I may have said this before on here, but i only know because a mate of mine was doing a masters in football administration at Liverpool John Moores & he did his dissertation/thesis on the building of the new stadium
His dad was on the council & had worked with Whelan on the Christopher Park deal so he had a word with Whelan who gave my mate access to all the documents relating to its funding and construction etc.
The bit about the sale of Springfield Park sticks in my memory because I think I moaned about how we'd use the sale money to help build the ground & the rugby had chipped in nowt coz they needed the sale of Central Park to clear their debts. He assured me I was wrong & that Latics as a club had not contributed a penny to the costs of the stadium
It's logical if you think about it because Wigan Athletic have never owned the stadium. It was commissioned, built & owned by Whelco so why would we have chipped in a not insignificant sum to build something we had no more ownership rights over than another tenant?
 
Mighty Bongsmon said:
That went in to the club's coffers - I think I may have said this before on here, but i only know because a mate of mine was doing a masters in football administration at Liverpool John Moores & he did his dissertation/thesis on the building of the new stadium
His dad was on the council & had worked with Whelan on the Christopher Park deal so he had a word with Whelan who gave my mate access to all the documents relating to its funding and construction etc.
The bit about the sale of Springfield Park sticks in my memory because I think I moaned about how we'd use the sale money to help build the ground & the rugby had chipped in nowt coz they needed the sale of Central Park to clear their debts. He assured me I was wrong & that Latics as a club had not contributed a penny to the costs of the stadium
It's logical if you think about it because Wigan Athletic have never owned the stadium. It was commissioned, built & owned by Whelco so why would we have chipped in a not insignificant sum to build something we had no more ownership rights over than another tenant?
Click to expand...
Only thing logical
Why put his own money towards building new stadium
When he can use sale of Springfield Park to help towards the football league grants to build the stadium
Whelan was not daft I'm sure he would not have put a penny of his own money into it when there was money lying about from sale of Springfield park
 
Last edited by a moderator:
loudmouthblue said:
I realised that on your second post, I would love to have the ground for our sole use but a touch of realism shows that is an impossible wish, the truth is we actually need one another to thrive.

The rugby is not the enemy in this instance, the problem is the amount we pay in business rates because of our recent past and the way it was calculated based on premier league and parachute payments income, that is why WAFC probably shoulder a greater burden of the grounds overall running costs and as I said in an earlier post both clubs need to do something radical to reduce that burden.
Representation could and should be made to government who set the criteria for calculating Uniform Business Rates in the first place.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are many football clubs that don't need another club to share with them
And if as a rumour is going around that our Bahrain owner is not short of abob or two really needs our tolerated tresspassers
If correct they have enough to let wurriors have whelans stadium
And build a new one on land not owned by the council now that would be for our benefit
 
Bickymon1 said:
I'm sure there are many football clubs that don't need another club to share with them
Click to expand...
There are indeed, but how many of them are based in a 25,000 seater ‘white elephant‘ (well...getting on that road) that’s losing a million or so a year ....that they can only 40% fill on a good day ?

Of course there are occasions where we exceed that but unless we ever got back to the Prem (highly unlikely) where we only ever routinely 75% filled it ....then .....we’ll continue to be in need of a paying tenant.
 
Bickymon1 said:
Only thing logical
Why put his own money towards building new stadium
When he can use sale of Springfield Park to help towards the football league grants to build the stadium
Whelan was not daft I'm sure he would not have put a penny of his own money into it when there was money lying about from sale of Springfield park
Click to expand...

I’m telling you how it happened. You can believe it or not but it’s the truth.

As for not putting a penny of his own money in - within a year or two of the stadium opening Dave Whelan sold something like £20mill of JJB shares to pay of the debts incurred by the stadium company in building it and its start up costs so he did put his own money in. I also guess that his intention and hope was that the stadium would eventually make a profit and his investment would be repaid

Just as Latics have always paid rent to use the JJB/DW whether it’s been owned by Whelco, Wigan Athletic holdings, IEC or NLF because Wigan Athletic have never owned the stadium (it’s been owned by the people who own the club but they’re separate entities), Wigan Athletic never paid a penny towards the stadium’s construction

Nor do Wigan Athletic ever pay for the pitch replacements. Again that’s the stadium company
 
Stetic said:
Orrell,s demise came when the game went professional and they simply didn't have the revenue to compete at the top level. Shame
Click to expand...
The burning down of their facilities didn't help either - if the conspiracy theory flys 😁
 
Stetic said:
Orrell,s demise came when the game went professional and they simply didn't have the revenue to compete at the top level. Shame
Click to expand...

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/whelan-s-ps10m-plan-for-wigan-6305332.html

Dave Whelan:

'Wigan is the most famous rugby town in the world and, with that in mind, we will be asking the RFU permission to change the name from Orrell to Wigan Orrell. This is what we are proposing and I can't see any objections.
I have spoken to the members at Orrell and they support the idea.

'It's going to cost around £10m to make Wigan Orrell one of the top three union clubs in the land. We have put a figure of £1m on getting the club up into National League One. If we are lucky enough to go up, we will then look to sign three international players from overseas.
 
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...

loudmouthblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

The warriors had a lease agreement with the old stadium company which has been rewritten with the new company.
 
Wlatic said:
The warriors had a lease agreement with the old stadium company which has been rewritten with the new company.
Click to expand...

The only rewrite will be the change of names, unless both sides have agreed to changes in the terms of the lease the content of the old one remains exactly the same, neither party would change a thing that would prove deprimental to themselves.
 
Wlatic said:
The warriors had a lease agreement with the old stadium company which has been rewritten with the new company.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the lease was simply transferred not rewritten as it was when IEC bought the club from DW. As "sitting tenants" they have the right to see their lease terms transferred intact, even if the club had gone into liquidation they would have had first chance to purchase the property under the current regulations that govern leasehold/rental property.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
As far as I am aware the lease was simply transferred not rewritten as it was when IEC bought the club from DW. As "sitting tenants" they have the right to see their lease terms transferred intact, even if the club had gone into liquidation they would have had first chance to purchase the property under the current regulations that govern leasehold/rental property.
Click to expand...
The lease would be transferred, however the agreements in place as part of the lease (the reason we can ask the rugby to play elsewhere for pitch maintenance etc.) may have been tweaked (even if they haven't we've shown in the past we can use them.
 
Wlatic said:
The lease would be transferred, however the agreements in place as part of the lease (the reason we can ask the rugby to play elsewhere for pitch maintenance etc.) may have been tweaked (even if they haven't we've shown in the past we can use them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wlatic said:
The lease would be transferred, however the agreements in place as part of the lease (the reason we can ask the rugby to play elsewhere for pitch maintenance etc.) may have been tweaked (even if they haven't we've shown in the past we can use them.
Click to expand...

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,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.