That's interesting, I thought the club was going to own the stadium site - do you (or anybody) have any links for this? Would be keen to have a read.



Wasn't aiming it at you in particular, I just don't understand why everyone is so keen to compare Tesco's input across two developments?



Too true.

We were debating that point, not agreeing it. I stated that according to what the club management said at a meeting I attended about 18 months ago, Saints are going to own the stadium.

True - looking back it wasn't agreed.

However as there is clearly a reference to the Council stepping-into Langtree's shoes and being obliged to give St Helens rugby club a lease to use the stadium within the contract documents (that are available for anybody to read) I don't see how people can continue to be in denial.

Although before everybody gets on their high-horses again I will repeat that a long term lease on minimal rent can be as good as, if not better, than actually being the owner.

No, I will repeat that Langtree own the land and Saints will own the stadium.

They will lease the land the stadium is on on a long term lease.

Thats what I always thought was the answer.

Is there an option for Saints to buy the land?

why would we want to if we have a 999 yr lease?

:2qid7uh5

Sadfish bare with me on this one but:

The Section 106 Agreement has the following definition with a linked obligation on Langtree:

“Agreement For Lease” means a contractual deed to be entered into by the Owner [[i:2qid7uh5Langtree Group Plc[/i and the Club [[i:2qid7uh5St Helens Rugby Club Limited[/i which shall provide for the Occupation [[i:2qid7uh5this is a defined term that means what it says not ownership[/i of the Stadium by the Club within 6 months of it being Practicably Completed to Superleague Standard; in a form approved by the Council”

That doesn’t suggest Saints will own the Stadium.


Clause 10.5 of Schedule 3 of the S106 contains the following provisions:

“…. To allow the Council to be the direct landlord of the Club pursuant to the lease entitling the Club to occupy the Stadium…”

If the Club owns the Stadium why is the Council their Landlord within a lease permitting the Club to occupy the Stadium. You should note the Stadium Land is separately defined and the lease referred to is very much for the facilities not the land. So again why would the Club enter a lease if they own the building?


I understand that you probably think I’m “muck-raking” however I am intrigued why you are so certain you are right yet publicly available, legally binding executed contracts suggest different? Why do you think these provisions have been included within these documents in the manner they have?

latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289

latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289

Quote ="The Doghead"latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289'" Latest? That is from October, and discussing the access road.

Quote ="The Doghead"latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289'" Latest? That is from October, and discussing the access road.

So you knew Birse where involved in the new road layout.

You implied it was the latest news. It wasn't. It was old news that we were unaware of.

We are splitting hairs here.

Wahoo for Birse.

Thanks for that Paul, very interesting since I can't be ar*ed trawling the docs myself!

Couple of questions (pardon my ignorance):

1) If Langtree are the Owner, why are St Helens Council the Landlord? Are we subtenants with a head lease between Langtree and the Council?
2) Are there any more details re: lease terms (for the lease between the cluyb and the council, or any head lease between the council and Langtree?), specifically term and rental?

Interestingly this states stadium construction planned to start in January with completion in July 2011.

Considering that we are nearly in February, with not even word on stadium contracts yet, then it looks like things have possibly slipped a bit in the timescale stakes.

This comes a surprise, why?

No you read that wrong. Its the access roundabout or whatever that Birse are doing that's due to commence January 2010 with completion July =#FF0000[u2010[/u.

Is thias the access that is to beused for the construction of the development? If so then that would be a significent delay to the scheme.

Potentially you could be having the whole 2011 without a home. I know Widnes gets mentioned but Leigh's ground is just a short sprint down the East Lancs and may be an option.

1. The reference to the Council being the Landlord is because that clause is taken from the Performance Bond Langtree have to procure if the Tesco is opened before the Stadium and would apply when Langtree have defaulted and the Council have stepped into Langtree's shoes in relation to building the stadium.

2. No details of the terms of the lease however the S106 Agreement does contains provisions that the lease Langtree enter into with St Helens Rugby Club is subject to the Council's approval.

I think the junction involved is the island at Mataland/kfc.

Mataland? Isn't that near Moldova?

No its at the bottom of Smithy brew.

No, it's a brand new island that will be inserted into the linkway

that was my understanding too

my understanding is its the Island at Smithy Brew, read somewhere it was being altered, anyway The Council are paying for this, the link road Island is part of the contract to build Tesco / stadium.
Could be wrong though.

I wish someone from the club would post on here, just to clear things up!

Things are going well. There are no Wigan tanks on the St Helens Linkway, the infidels will die.