It’s easy to say in theory but covenants such as the one in question are rarely discharged in reality. Usually far cheaper to insure against potential future claims.
True. But if the party with the benefit is aware of the covenant and has made noises about looking to enforce it then insurance might be difficult.
Covenants attach to the land and aren't personal, so it would be the current owners of the benefiting land.
If this is the restrictive covenant, and it is that old, the most basic searches would have highlighted it. I've long heard stories of their being a restriction on the land for non sporting uses and the land search list on here a few days ago showed hardly anything amended for a long long time. The ground issue to me is very much a diversionary tactic to cover the issue that they just haven't paid the money they owe. Thats the fundamental issue. They bought the club, theyve failed to meet an original payment schedule and one latterly amended even further in their favour.
If I know about the Covenant then surely the hot shot lawyers of billionaires would have uncovered it.
To my knowledge the ownership of the land in recent years has moved from the Dennis’s to the Doyle’s to the Cryne’s with out this covenant being an issue, so why now? I can only put it down to one of two things. 1) the council’s involvement 2) the restriction on any future change of useage If it the latter, why should that be a problem?
Which surely suggests this isn’t the actual/complete issue? A lot of people are making assumptions without knowing the full details. I don’t think any accusations should be made until it’s clear!
agreed. On the surface this whole brouhaha seems to be a deflection tactic from a company wishing to renege on payments it had agreed to but time and information may prove this to be incorrect.
Lets just say that the issue is this covenant (which I absolutely don't think is the case). In 100 years since it was put in place we've had floodlight pylons put in. We've had newer floodlights put in. We built the East Stand. We developed the car park and added boundaries to it. We built and tarmaced areas round the back of the East Stand. We built a new stand, shop, and offices at the Pontefract Road end. We built the disabled stand. We concreted the corner at the side of the ponty. We added seats to the Kop after the taylor report and the lower tier of terracing on the West Stand. We latterly built the north stand and moved changing rooms and added lots of facilities to the training grounds behind. And we heard that there was a modest parcel of land sold off under Cryne to assist the councils aims. Seeing as nobody in ownership has said there is a plan to do anything other than to play our future football at Oakwell.... you have to ask the question... how on earth is that covenant restrictive enough to cause international 'billionaires' to withhold and delay a very nominal amount to pay for a club they agreed to acquire long before FC Thun and KV Oostende?
Could it be Sean Lewis? His takeover was nye on complete but he couldn't secure the footballing share. Did he secure any of the land?
If it is a covenant it has to be someone who owns land nearby who can currently enforce. The covenant attaches to land.