Saints will have full control of the stadium, as it will be their asset. Quite whether this is owned under St Helens RLFC or under a sub company wholly owned and run by St Helens RLFC someone will have to explain, but the stadium will be owned by Saints.

I'm sure you're all correct about the club owning the stadium however that does make the S106 Agreement confusing as it refers to an Agreement to Lease.

I have however spotted where Tenant's Enhancements is used in the document though so apologies to the lawyers for suggesting they may have not be 100% efficient in carrying out the sanity check. It is actually included within another definition "Construction Cost".

Anyway here's the link to the actual document:

[urlhttp://212.248.225.150:8080/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=139776[/url

See page 2 for the reference to the Agreement to Lease.

Will the lease be refering to the land not the ground (stadium) as Langtree are the owners of the land?

That sounds more like it.

after reading most of it, it does seem to be refering to the land.
Also one part reads about the club being able to raise loans on the stadium, cant do that if its not yours.

Where is the bit about raising loans on the stadium? I can't see that.

The document definitley reads that St Helnes RLFC will not own the stdium but will be tenants as I suggested. See paragrpah 10.5 of Schedule 3 that refers to allowing "the Council (in lieu of a defaulted Langtree) to be the direct landlord of the Club pursuant to the lease entitling the Club to occupy the Stadium".

Having a long lease at minimal rent can be even better than owning the stadium in some instances. At least you won't be secondary tenants like Wigan at with Whelan owning the stadium.

Of note in the s106 doc is the change in North, South elevations, as the document refers to revision "B"

These relate to the stands behind the goal.

It may therefore be the case that there has been an increase in seating capacity and a reduction in the amount of terracing, requiring a redesign of stands behind the sticks. This would tie in with verbal comments saying approximately 12500 seats. Which is at odds with the original design, which features just over 10,000 seats.

We havent got long to wait to find out, just a month or so before the club show the final design for which construction will start later this year.

Paul, I was reading most of last night it could be anywhere in there.

here's an interesting page from the council web site. sites that got knocked back. 212.248.225.150:8080/portal/serv ... Name=89926

here's an interesting page from the council web site. sites that got knocked back. 212.248.225.150:8080/portal/serv ... Name=89926

Mr Youne,

The reason there is a lease in there is due to the land being owned by Langtree.

simples.

thanks for clearing that up sadfish, and do you know if they will form a seperate stadium company?

Yes of course, Langtree aren't paying for the stadium, they are building it.

The stadium company will be wholly controlled by Saints albeit with stipulations from the Council and possilbly some from the land owners, but the lease is for 999 years. I don't understand why some people are nit picking here. Well I do, but it's for no other reason than to try and cause hassle some jealous eyes maybe?

Exactly what I said. Not sure why the Saints' fans whom claimed different would have done so out of jealousy though.

You said that the stadium was leased and not owned. If Sadfish is saying that then that is still contradictory to what I heard the Saints management say quite clearly at the meeting I attended.

Mr Satfish,

why is the lease to "occupy the Stadium" and not the "Stadium Land" if Langtree will not own the stadium?

I'm just confused by this.

Despite your later post I would also say that Langtree are paying for the stadium as they are entering into the contract for it to be built. The S106 Agreement does refer to the Council and Langtree having to enter into a separate agreement in relation to the Council providing funding for the stadium build prior to commencing construction. Wherever the money is coming from Langtree will be signing the cheques to the contractor for the building of the stadium (there is also reference to NWDA having a funding agreement with Langtree).

The stadium isn't worth a carrot without ownership of the land.

£8 million comes from Saints, £6 million from the Council and £4.5 million from NWDA (it was £10 million from the Council but when the NWDA grant was awarded, the Council's contribution dropped). Tesco are building their own store and car park; no idea about their funding. I've no idea how much Langtree have put into it either. They are the owners of the land and the developers of the land. Saints will be the owners of the stadium and they, along with the Council and Langtree, are presently awarding contracts to the various builders involved in building the stadium. Langtree may write the cheques, but they aren't providing the money to get the stadium built: Saints is. The Council's responsibilities are around cleansing the site, sorting out the services to the site (including building a bridge to take emergency vehicles, building the road linking to the Linkway) and upgrading other services to feed the stadium site: they were due to upgrade security at the two nearby multistorey car parks, for instance.

What a load of tosh. Lots of private housing is built on land owned by private landowners. My own place included. I am supposed to pay £4 a year rent for the land to a representative further down the road but that stopped years ago. The land on which my privately owned property is built is leasehold. Lots of people own properties on leasehold land. Lots own properties on freehold land. That doesn't make the property worthless.

Domestically, you are correct. Commercially, you are a million miles away.

Look at it another way; Saints can sell KR land as an asset. As a stadium it is worthless.

Capiche?

Whilst true its a "nonsensical" way of looking at it, a stadium is worthless without the land, a stadium is worthless anyhow due to the fact that very few times can you realise the money for a stadium due to the fact that.....you need the stadium to play in!

It's not like a house were there is loads of choice, there is perhaps one stadium per town, so thats that.

Very few teams have the opportunity to sell a ground and still own their new ground, even if it's on a 999 year lease, the positives are all to do with money coming in once the stadium is running, as the more fingers in the pie. sorry pastie. the less money the club can make.

The point being that this is the best deal the club can get and it's better than most RL teams get when the move stadia.

Why not just say Wigan?

Yes, we all know that. We stand in it almost every week.

The Tesco thing is a bit of mystery though isn't it?
The whole project was conditional to Tesco being able to build a megastore - as per the HJ Stadium - so they must be contibuting a fair old amount to this. Presumably, they will give their contribution directly to Saints who will then call it their contribution together with the KR proceeds as there is absolutely no way Eammon and friends have £8M in their back pocket.

there is no way they will give any money to Saints, or anyone else other than the builders, the money will be all legally written into the project and will become payable when the correct date is required to the builders.

Saints won't see any, won't want it near their books..............

I don't understand why you think it's all a mystery, Saints money is from the sale of KR simples.