Land Reg entry for Oakwell

While procrastinating at work this afternoon, I decided to have a look at the ownership structure of the land at Oakwell. It is pretty ugly from a land law point of view. The map search that I've uploaded gives a rough overview of how the land is divided (different coloured boundaries for each plot) and the extent of the land which the club has a lease of (looks to be two leases - white edging on the uploaded map search). The map search does not include any of the mines and minerals titles (I couldn't be arsed and the map would look even messier than it already does).

NB: the boundaries at the top and bottom of the plan extend further than shown but I couldn't realistically shrink the plan any more otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to divide up the plots.

The two leases: there is a lease of Oakwell itself which is registered under title number SYK480957 (title register helpfully provided in this thread) ("Lease 1") and there is a lease of the training facilities (I haven't checked the title for this but presume it is also held by the club) ("Lease 2"). It's interesting that the club does not appear to have any formal tenancy over the parking facilities or land to the rear of the East Stand (speculation, but, this could explain the issues with the Beaver Court access and Fan Zone).

The freehold land that is Oakwell is shown edged in dark blue and registered with title number SYK410924. The car park behind the Ponte is edged in purple and registered with title number SYK410921 (not shown on the plan as I forgot to add this in). There is a freehold strip of land which half of the East Stand appears to sit on; this is edged in light blue on the plan and is registered with title number SYK410923. The land at the rear of the East Stand is edged green and is registered with title number SYK320518. The land at the rear of the Away End is edged yellow and is registered with title number SYK384523. The northern boundary of the land demised by Lease 1 sits within this title. Beyond this, the training pitches and the building containing an astroturf pitch are edged in orange and maroon respectively. The land edged maroon is registered with title number SYK401922. Part of the astroturf building sits within the title edged grey which is registered with title number SYK49434. Lease 2 sits within these titles and appears adjoin the boundaries of Lease 1 within the title edged yellow.

As I said, it's not a straight forward plot of land.

In terms of the covenant, this looks like it is contained in the Conveyance dated 14 November 1907 and made between (1) Francis Guy Senior and others and (2)The Barnsley Football Club Limited (referred to at C2 of the Charges Register). It should be easy enough to get hold of a copy of this from Land Registry - if I get chance I will request a copy (it's worth the £3 just to see what all the fuss is about!).

 

He wasn't aware of it and he'll get back to you................

 

Brilliant post. An indicator of the complexities of the situation. Hate to say it, but does it mean the owners are right to find the title situation a little unsatisfactory?

 

But you would also expect a group such as PMG to know about these issues before signing on the dotted line.

 

Absolutely, but I come back (yet again) to the question of whether they put their bets on simply targeting the purchase of the shares in OCAL, rather than properly investigating title.

 

It shouldn't have come as a surprise to them though , they must have had rubbish lawyers!

 

Cryne and co would have known about it too. Very insincere. However, he had been to court for...

 

Good lawyers and accountants cost more!

 

Maybe Cryne could see they weren't the ideal mob he wanted to leave the club to, but he was running short of time and had no other suitors, so figured he could stitch them up a bit and......
they thought they were getting a bargain cos the old man was running short of time with no other suitors and needed a deal so they pitched low, rushed their DD and got a bargain?
Moral of the story......if a deal seems too good to be true, it usually is.

 

Best post yet.

 

Not in my view. The owners will have had a report from the property lawyers involved in the deal when they acquired the club (which will be similar to the report on title that you get when you buy a residential property but obviously different to account for the commercial nature and complexity of the land involved). This should have explained how the land is divided, how each plot of land is owned, the rights and any covenants benefiting the plots as well as any right and covenants burdening each plot. Even if this report was limited to the land which is demised under the leases, the report should have picked up the covenant from the 1907 Deed. Frankly, absent of the owners' lawyers being negligent, I think its somewhat disingenuous for them to say that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into, which is what I believe their position is in respect of the covenant. And in the event that their lawyers were negligent and failed to report on the rights, restrictions etc. for each plot of land, subject to the covenant actually causing the owners to suffer loss (if it's unenforceable or an application to the First Tier Tribunal can be made and is likely to be successful, the loss is likely to be insignificant, but this obviously depends on what the bloody thing actually says) the owners ought to be focusing their attention to their lawyers and considering a prof neg claim, as quite a few people have already mentioned.