Could we?!

Anything yellow and blue
Post Reply
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1808
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Could we?!

Post by recordmeister »

Soooo... Witney Town FC have folder.

They've got a nice ground. With room to expand...

A possible short-term solution to income vs outgoings issue, maybe?
Paul Cooper
Dashing young thing
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:16 pm

Re: Could we?!

Post by Paul Cooper »

Er.....no.

We have a lease at the Kassam that we would have to pay up.

And move to a much smaller ground?

And it being a long way from Oxford?

Like Coventry moving to Hinkley.

Why?
Werthers Original
Dashing young thing
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Could we?!

Post by Werthers Original »

I wondered that .. it would be interesting to know how many of our fans come from that area. Probably too near to Slumdon to work! Plus at the moment I can walk to the ground, so I'd be against it.

Thing is though, the atmosphere on Tues at our windy, too-far-from the-pitch ground was so dismal I did start entertianing notions of moving to a more intimate ground, and leaving Kassam and the rugby lot to get on with it.
Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Re: Could we?!

Post by Dartford Ox »

Just before the match commentary on Tuesday, Radox were discussing the demise of the speedway stadium. In view of Lenagans comments about looking at alternative venues, I did wonder if that was big enough for conversion, or as a temporary measure.

I'm sure someone will tell me.

'Not fit for purpose' and 'saleable quality' are phrases I often here in sales disputes. Are they valid reasons in leased disputes. Do we have to carry on paying for the Kassam, something that is virtually unusable?
slappy
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Could we?!

Post by slappy »

Fairly sure there was a question at the fans forum something along the lines of &quotcould we leave the Kassam, and what would it cost?&quot, and Lenagan said (I think) that he didn't know the details in the license agreement. Surely this is one of the key pieces of information the owner/chairman should be aware of, but perhaps he was just being coy.

I still haven't managed to get my hands on a copy, but was it a 20 year lease from March 2006? And that to leave, would trigger the remaining 13 years at full rent?

I am also quite surprised when IL says that Kassam is receiving double the rent. London Welsh I guess would pay less rent, as they have fewer games and don't have primacy of tenure.
A-Ro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Beset by fools and ne'er do wells.

Re: Could we?!

Post by A-Ro »

&quotslappy&quot wrote: London Welsh I guess would pay less rent, as they have fewer games and don't have primacy of tenure.
They should pay more rent, bloody mess they've made of that pitch.
Radley Rambler
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Could we?!

Post by Radley Rambler »

[quote=&quotDartford Ox&quot]Just before the match commentary on Tuesday, Radox were discussing the demise of the speedway stadium. In view of Lenagans comments about looking at alternative venues, I did wonder if that was big enough for conversion, or as a temporary measure.

I'm sure someone will tell me.

'Not fit for purpose' and 'saleable quality' are phrases I often here in sales disputes. Are they valid reasons in leased disputes. Do we have to carry on paying for the Kassam, something that is virtually unusable?[/quote]

Oh come on. I agree the pitch is not good at present but to suggest this makes the full stadium facility 'virtually unusable' wouldn't wash in any formal dispute. The rugby has not helped but we have had an immense amount of rain as well. If you watch the Football League Show, you'll see that our pitch is not untypical of those currently being played on in Leagues 1 &amp 2.
Dartford Ox
Puberty
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 pm
Location: Welling

Re: Could we?!

Post by Dartford Ox »

&quotRadley Rambler&quot wrote:
&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:Just before the match commentary on Tuesday, Radox were discussing the demise of the speedway stadium. In view of Lenagans comments about looking at alternative venues, I did wonder if that was big enough for conversion, or as a temporary measure.

I'm sure someone will tell me.

'Not fit for purpose' and 'saleable quality' are phrases I often here in sales disputes. Are they valid reasons in leased disputes. Do we have to carry on paying for the Kassam, something that is virtually unusable?
Oh come on. I agree the pitch is not good at present but to suggest this makes the full stadium facility 'virtually unusable' wouldn't wash in any formal dispute. The rugby has not helped but we have had an immense amount of rain as well. If you watch the Football League Show, you'll see that our pitch is not untypical of those currently being played on in Leagues 1 &amp 2.
OK - so perhaps I over-egged it a bit. But the fact remains that when OUFC signed the leasing agreement the pitch was in pristine condition. So much so, I seem to recall people flying in from Italy and places because it was so good.

It is certainly not in that condition now - partly because of the the weather - but mainly from inadequate maintenance. We are certainly not getting what we signed up to.

Perhaps 'breach of contract' could be a consideration. Anything to get us out of this hole.
Radley Rambler
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2249
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: Could we?!

Post by Radley Rambler »

&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:
&quotRadley Rambler&quot wrote:
&quotDartford Ox&quot wrote:Just before the match commentary on Tuesday, Radox were discussing the demise of the speedway stadium. In view of Lenagans comments about looking at alternative venues, I did wonder if that was big enough for conversion, or as a temporary measure.

I'm sure someone will tell me.

'Not fit for purpose' and 'saleable quality' are phrases I often here in sales disputes. Are they valid reasons in leased disputes. Do we have to carry on paying for the Kassam, something that is virtually unusable?
Oh come on. I agree the pitch is not good at present but to suggest this makes the full stadium facility 'virtually unusable' wouldn't wash in any formal dispute. The rugby has not helped but we have had an immense amount of rain as well. If you watch the Football League Show, you'll see that our pitch is not untypical of those currently being played on in Leagues 1 &amp 2.
OK - so perhaps I over-egged it a bit. But the fact remains that when OUFC signed the leasing agreement the pitch was in pristine condition. So much so, I seem to recall people flying in from Italy and places because it was so good.

It is certainly not in that condition now - partly because of the the weather - but mainly from inadequate maintenance. We are certainly not getting what we signed up to.

Perhaps 'breach of contract' could be a consideration. Anything to get us out of this hole.
Very unlikely - I don't think any of us know what the terms re the playing surface in the lease are. I suspect they will be fairly woolly and be something like 'adequate playing surface' which is by its very nature incredibly subjective and a lawyer's wet dream.

Even if the terms re the pitch were specific and it was possible to show that Firoka had not met them, this doesn't automatically mean that they would be in breach leading to a contract default, often there is a remediation period for any breaches in a contract.

And even if they could not remedy the situation and thus defaulted - how does that help without any real viable alternative to go to - and Witney is not the answer.
Post Reply