The Facts (from the Land Registry at least)

Yes I know they are, that's what I said.

Hardrof ltd came into it because of a law change a few years ago requiring mineral rights owners to register their rights. Lord Harrison (who I believe has the rights to the manor of Barnsley) registered his rights across the borough, one of those plots of land just happened to be at or near to Oakwell.

 

But a solicitor should know about the possibility of mineral rights being an issue and at the very least ensure you have indemnity insurance.

 

BUT The Land Registration Act 2002 set a deadline of 13/10/2013 for holders of manorial rights to register them at the land registry or lose them forever. Hardrof wasn't incorporated until a year later and their acquisition was on 08/12/2017 so someone must have registered them prior to this or the freehold landowner acquired them by default on 08/10/2013 and has separated them from the title. Of course Hardrof could have been a vehicle of ownership but I still think the date of their acquisition is significant
Research also shows the significance of them. A mineral rights holder could stop by injunction anybody (including a freehold owner) digging on land that he holds mineral rights over because it would constitute trespass against the strata over which he holds rights. This could stultify a new stand complex which would pile down some distance.

 

Where have you found this info? Can find nothing on this Lord & Lady Harrison apart from the Hardrof and Racing Post info. How's this Lady Diana Miller that's been mentioned connected? She had two girls Beatrix and Anthea so cant see the link. Just interested to find out if Lord H is genuine and how he's connected to Barnsley.

 

The club took on the lease years ago when Cryne was the owner. The contract continues to the new owners.

The lease will be usual lease and maintain.

When the lease is started, you do a full dilapidation survey. This is a full survey of the condition of the property. The person who leases it, has to maintain it and eventually return it to the owners to that standard. Not improve or renew, just maintain it.

So if a roof is in a poor condition and patched up, the club can continue to patch it up.

Major structural issues such as the West Stand gable ends will be assessed separately, and sometimes the contract has to be specifically referred to in that instance.

Whatever works the club do, unless expressly agreed by the owner prior, have to be undone and returned back to its original state when the lease surrenders.

There is no real benefit to the club to spend a lot of money improving Oakwell, as it’s not their property.

I believe both Cryne and BMBC have made back their original purchase cost of the stadium now, if rent is £350k a year. The club are saying that the ground is swallowing so much money up in repairs, that the lease needs renegotiating to ensure either the rent reflects this, or maintenance costs are split.

It was always the case, that once a ground and club are split, it hard to get them together again. A club needs to own the ground to ensure investment is worth it. Renting never really works in this scenario.

The club are employing tactics used in everyday business, but perhaps not always seen in the football world.

 

I thought it was quoted in a Fans meeting and shown in accounts, that the Football Club pay £120,000 per year in rent. I don't know if Patrick Cryne waived his half of that when he was alive.

 

slightly o/t - can a covenant be put on land/house if the land/propertry hasn't been registered and the Deeds are lost?

 

Sh*t.........The barsteward has the same first name month/year of birth as me.

 

Not sure - I’ve seen the figure of £350k mentioned a few times, but I stand to be corrected.

 

They can use the shafts to generate electricity. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z1k0

 

So here’s a totally random theory that I’m not saying has any truth at all or have an element of truth in it.
But imagine a made up scenario of:
Sale of club agreed, all paperwork and checks completed.
Seller gets nervous but knows can’t back out due to other circumstances, so approaches someone they trust to register a covenant to protect the land days before sale goes through.

 

That would go down well if the Council did a deal with an energy company as the third party.

 

That's a conclusion I drew too as well as many others .

 

Did the council ever have an agreement with the new owners though?

 

Can’t understand the distrust bit tbh .
The EFL have a strong and vigorous checks and balance policy where new owners are vetted and dissuaded from buying clubs ,
It’s foolproof apparently as you would expect from a governing body protecting the integrity of it protectorates.

 

Said covenant, if recent, would clearly be seen and dated as such. Therefore would be easy for all to prove/disprove this.

Therefore, there’s little chance of this happening.

 

Ridiculous scenario. Forget it.

Although it might not be as ridiculous as the actual scenario I've (only) heard about, which involves the argument about whether female lines can actually inherit an interest over land when in fact it was only left to the male heir line.

Which brings in your sex discrimination and other human rights arguments.

btw I've only been told that this is part of the mix of arguments that clouds the ground purchase issue.

 

I think that both the club and Crynes have a case, but given James is still employed it seems like there isn't any acrimony. I definitely get the impression that the third party is playing spoiler and trying to make some money out of the investors.

 

Which covenant though? The main covenant has existed for about 100 years and was always public knowledge with John Dennis mentioning it publicly in the past and the title deeds to the stadium mentioning it.
The mineral rights is imo purely coincidental regarding the dates as that company has been registering their rights throughout Barnsley and the surrounding areas all through that rough time period and they registered hundreds of them. The timing is due to the law change around that time.


I can only assume that Conway and co's issue is with the mineral rights lot as his recent comments about insurance etc seem to tie in quite well with this which ive come across:

I am a developer looking to purchase a site, how can I protect myself from a claim of trespass?
In a similar way of dealing with covenants, the most common mitigation process is title indemnity insurance. It is essential that you do not try to contact the owner of the mineral rights, as insurers will not provide an indemnity policy whereby the mineral rights are brought to the attention of the owner.

 

Is the brewery site for sale? **** off BMBC