Third Party claim is 100 Years Old....

Where did money for the ‘significant investment’ come from that they made reference to in their statement?

 

Dunno now mate, sounds like they've only paid £2.75M (allegedly) up to press anyway and that was nearly 3 years ago, (allegedly)

 

There’s nothing luxurious about any apartments in Barnsley. The ones near Morrison’s looked better as a concrete shell!

 

That's a different kettle of fish as it's a positive covenant (i.e. an agreement to do something) rather than a restrictive covenant (an agreement not to do something)

 

They want to build accommodation etc for the academy didn’t they a little like the one at Nice (that had already been built before they invested in it) perhaps it’s caused issues with planning for that. Is that why they started to clear the ground on the corner of the East stand and away end?

 

It's nun of your business. Just get out of the habit of asking questions about it.

 

I look at land reg docs a lot for work and there are some truly bizarre covenants on there. Falconry rights for the landed gentry is a common one. Has anybody round here ever heard of the progeny of the Earl of Devonshire knocking on someone's door to retrieve a lost harris hawk?? (Kestrels are for knaves....apparently)
Like Mansfield has said a covenant attaches to the land not a person. What usually happens where the solicitors dealing with the conveyance can't get to the bottom of something, they'll recommend insurance. I bought a plot of land a couple of years ago attached to a house I was buying and the vendor couldn't produce the deeds. It cost me all of £15 to insure against someone coming out of the woodwork with an adverse claim.If the solicitor hadn't spotted something, I would be claiming against the solicitor. If I had the insurance I'd be claiming against that.
Thinking this is all a red herring. Either wrong end of the stick by media etc or one of the parties is using it as an excuse perhaps

 

Oh the new town centre will make Barnsley look like Covent Garden.

 

To be fair I quite like the public realm work that’s been done so far. Cheapside looks much cleaner and more modern. I think it’ll look impressive once it’s all done. The work on the public square starts next month and most of that area should be finished by May - I wonder how Nudger will react when he finds out Kendray Street will be closed to pedestrians for 7 months? I also think the Brick and stone cladding looks good.

However, the cladding on the cinema block and main building facing Harborough Hills is awful. Hopefully once the Cineworld signs are on, and some lights are added, it’ll look a bit better. Some digital asvertising screens would help to cover some of it.

 

Re-reading the Chronicle article, and the various contributions on here, it seems to me that the majority shareholders (Lee, Conway, et al) are the ones with the questions to answer. I don't get the impression that anyone is actively seeking to enforce the benefit of the old restrictive covenant. I suspect it probably just still appears as a historic item somewhere on the deeds/register of title and has been discovered during the process of investigating title. It's probably also worth noting here that it is a pre-1926 RC, which further complicates any attempt to enforce it. Is this a tactic to attempt to obtain yet another reduction in the purchase price? Any cavilling or stalling would not look good in the context of the owners subsequently purchasing interests in other football clubs. It would be interesting to hear the owners' further observations on the matters reported in the Chronicle. It might also be interesting to know what happened to the strenuous legal action it was suggested would be taken against Daniel Stendel/Hibs. That one went quiet, it seems.

 

Fur coat no knickers with a splash of all mouth no trousers. Sums our ‘billionaires’ up perfectly!

 

Agreed. Most of it looks brilliant but the top half of the cinema looks absolutely awful. As you say the only way to improve that mess would be with digital advertising screens but I just can't see them doing it.

 

I've still not been able to find any complaint lodged with the EFL/FA by the club about I which is odd as when other clubs have lodged complaints about tapping up they've been reported on the EFL or fa website.

 

I thought they said there were plans to put screens in the new public area, similar to that one in Leeds?

 

Think it looks spot on, had my doubts with the plans and the gold buildings (looked tacky) but l think they look better built.

The thing that does let the town centre down is the awfuls colours on the bus station, who the **** thought of that??

 

I think I saw similar but there's no mention of them on the planning application

 

Private developer bought that years ago from the council for Houses/flats.

Old school was eventually demolished after the vandalism (although a fair bit of stone/slate was reclaimed making it a not so costly exercise).

I’ve always suspected the private developer has sat on it, in the thought that at some point, the club would make a move to buy it. For classrooms or player accommodation etc. Or part of a wider development with a new West Stand.

Either way - it’s got some value to sell on so it’s a decent plot for them to retain.

 

Is the bus station just painted so could have the colour changed? Or is it some kind of coloured render that would be harder to change?

The glassworks I think the part that faces cheap side looks amazing and so does the side where Claire's accessories used to be, I just think the Cineworld building is too much of a solid colour that it looks too imposing without any actual feature to it.

Hopefully the bridge will make a big difference to the look of the side of it but I'm not convinced anything will make the front look better.

Random question but the library was supposed t be a giant lit up beach at night. Is that something that actually happens?

 

Do you think John Dennis owned the club!?

 

I haven’t seen any in the plans either. Strange as one of the conditions on the planning approval for the failed Alhambra Cinema was for an external screen - seems odd the council would push that but then not do the same with Cineworld. Perhaps Cineworld have plans for it and will include this when they submit their signage and advertising plans. I guess we’ll soon find out. The CGI’s show a big Cineworld sign, but the newer Cineworlds I’ve seen recently tend to have smaller signs than what’s suggested.

The bridge will make a difference I’m sure. The plans on that side contain none of the brick or stone cladding that we see on Cheapside, and I think that’s why that side will just look too cheap. There are more LED light panels on that side, but given it’s the most imposing part of the building, I would’ve hoped some of the nicer cladding would’ve been included. Instead that side has all the cheap, ‘gold’ stuff that’s too solid. A navy blue would’ve worked well with that gold - just to break it up a bit. I don’t mind the car park cladding as that isn’t as solid due to the perforated sections. It’s funny how none of the CGI’s showed that side, and I do wonder if it’s because it won’t look that great. Even the window in the Next unit looks tiny!

The library was closed during Covid so no lights were turned on overnight. I did notice lights left on when it first opened. I guess they might be waiting for the public square to be finished when the area is going to be used more.

Sorry Admin, we’ve gone way off topic here. Apologies.