https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1994/nov/22/barnsley-football-club A wholly exceptional circumstance for Barnsley football club is a covenant on the playing surface at the ground. The family which gave the club the ground—it originally owned the brewery that adjoined the ground—placed a covenant on the land when it was given to the club. The covenant provided that the land could be used only as a football pitch. That meant that if the club wanted to dispose of the ground it had to face the covenant on the pitch. That meant, in turn, that the club could not relocate to another ground without substantial problems in disposing of the playing area. Relocation was not really an option for the club. I suggest that that is an exceptional circumstance.
Great find! It's also a painful reminder of the season where we were forced to endure the Taylor report impact in full, with only the East Stand and Upper West being seated, and then spent season after season visiting other teams who continued to be allowed to use open terracing without issue.
No, there really needed to be. I'm not ploughing through mega threads when this is to the point and tell us what we need to know.
Can't accuse the Crynes for not divulging information which was clearly in the public domain at the time of the takeover.
I've been reading tykesmad and one of the best posters Roma says that one of the covenants runs ten yards straight across the pitch and was put in place by a property owner due to line of sight. This is between the West Stand and the North Stand. This also explains the larger gap between the two stands.
Read this in conjunction with my thread on the land registry. The owners would have been well aware of this and I don't think this is the problem. I think it is the separate title being created for mineral rights at the time of the sale of the club in December 2017 that has caused the problem.
Hi Helen, Without knowing some further facts it is hard to tell. Particularly as asserting that they did and concealed it would not only be wrong if they didnt, it could be contempt of the court proceedings and slandering their character so I would urge caution to all. However, I can see how the land either in or immediately around Oakwell could become "blighted" by the existence of separate mineral rights and it fits in with the owners saying "some hitherto unknown third party has emerged and are seeking to exercise their rights". Consider this, in theory Lee and co wished to build a new stand incorporating a hotel/casino etc and the mineral rights owner said "hang on, I want to dig just there for iron ore/diamonds" etc. If this is indeed the case it would be an impediment to developing oakwell. It is possible the only value to owning the mineral rights is a nuisance factor to induce the land owners to buy them out. The new owners are possibly calling someone's bluff by saying the club (which they own) don't even have to play there at all.