I know the lease includes areas we are failing to adhere to. As a specific not having a working scoreboard puts us outside our tenancy agreement. Not RedArmyChris do can’t give details for likes but happy that the info I have is sound.
That would be unusual as a commercial agreement but if you wanted to put a FOI request into the council they would need to supply some information to meet legal requirements
Assume they could roll out the old one and plug it in as it would have been the club that upgraded for the benefit of the council? Feels like a minefield to me the whole thing. Hence thinking meetings with the council are vital.
I think the Council are just underwhelmed by the 80% approach but obviously willing to work with them if they change from the antagonism. Given the length of our lease they have to work with each other for a good while yet as the club have all but said. I think a private apology from the 80% would go a long way and could kick start improved dialogue but can’t see it.
Given the statement from the council do you think this is a safety issue or was it a commercial decision shrouded as a safety decision? 08 October 2021 The Council inspected the ground on behalf of Oakwell Community Assets Limited (OCAL) as the landlord on 21 September 2021 and found the physical infrastructure (including the West Stand) perfectly safe to host professional football and accommodate fans in all areas to the capacity set out in the current Safety Certificate. The club didn't raise any concerns during this visit. The Safety Advisory Group also undertakes pre-season and in-season inspections to ensure concerns around safety management are addressed. They have recommended a range of remedial measures that the club should action to meet their responsibilities as tenants, but there are no current concerns about the physical infrastructure at the ground. In 2003, the Council stepped up to save the club and help secure its future. The Council has a direct interest in Barnsley Football Club through a 50 per cent shareholding in Oakwell Community Assets Limited (OCAL), a joint venture partnership with the Cryne family. OCAL owns the stadium and surrounding land. OCAL aspires to make sure Barnsley has a professional football club for the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the borough. We're somewhat surprised and disappointed for the supporters at the decision that Barnsley Football Club have taken to close the West Stand, and we urge them to make their desired improvements and get the fans back in as soon as possible.
Oakwell Community Assets accounts (note 8) describes the minimum payment under a non-cancellable leasing agreement as a minimum of £150k per annum. Hardly peppercorn. In Barnsley FC last published account, they list non-cancellable leasing agreements within 1 year as £192,920, and below that, the accounts state, "The operating leases disclosed above include a lease for the land and build. This is subject to review dependent on the club's league position". Make of that what you will.
A peppercorn rental is a notional sum of money that is levied simply to register that the land rented still belongs to the owner. £1 per annum would be a peppercorn rental. If the £6m paid for the ground was on deposit with a bank, it would be earning much less than 1%. 3% represents a profit, not a peppercorn rental, which implies a loss.
Its a token amount. That’s what peppercorns means. Less than a single unit in Meadowhall for example. It’s not a commercial rent. we used to pay more for the shop in the Alhambra
When the rental agreement was signed 25 year government issued debt was yielding 5.5%pa. The rental of £150k pa, which in some years has been lower (league one years) £100k, was set very much as a low cost rent. If you do read Oakwell Community accounts you will see in there, stipulated quite clearly that, Barnsley Football Club are responsible for the maintenance of the land and buildings as part of the lease.