penrhyn Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 Seen this on another site , anyone have any ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wroteforluck87 Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 There's a lot speculation at minute.. The most likely seems to be a dispute that the club (AL) believe as tenants to brassbank (TTA) that brassbank are required to do repairs and maintenance of the stadium. Two other possibilities are 1) the club feel that brassbank have not honoured the rent rates set at time of purchase. 2) the club feel that brassbank shouldn't own the north stand as the council granted the club (prior to ALs purchase) money to redevelopment the north stand after the move to The Lancaster Club fell through. Which ever it is AL must have took legal advice prior to this and believes he stands a good chance of winning. The soap opera continues.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 Didn't the last case name other parties? OEC/Brooke maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 Also being discussed on another thread: https://www.owtb.co.uk/topic/52950-only-owners-past-and-present-to-blame/page/3/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 My guess is that it is a Joe Royle Stand related play based around the names written on the cheques and the statements issued by council, around the time that land swaps took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 1 hour ago, wroteforluck87 said: There's a lot speculation at minute.. The most likely seems to be a dispute that the club (AL) believe as tenants to brassbank (TTA) that brassbank are required to do repairs and maintenance of the stadium. Two other possibilities are 1) the club feel that brassbank have not honoured the rent rates set at time of purchase. 2) the club feel that brassbank shouldn't own the north stand as the council granted the club (prior to ALs purchase) money to redevelopment the north stand after the move to The Lancaster Club fell through. Which ever it is AL must have took legal advice prior to this and believes he stands a good chance of winning. The soap opera continues.... From what I remember the club are responsible for the maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 17 minutes ago, al_bro said: From what I remember the club are responsible for the maintenance. What about the car park and surrounding land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philwhite Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, BP1960 said: What about the car park and surrounding land? Surely the people who collect the money for parking are liable for the upkeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, BP1960 said: What about the car park and surrounding land? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wroteforluck87 Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 2 hours ago, philwhite said: Surely the people who collect the money for parking are liable for the upkeep? Who profits from that Brassbank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 47 minutes ago, wroteforluck87 said: Who profits from that Brassbank? Mentions Brassbank 5 years ago..https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/oldham-athletic-the-land-just-matters-more-than-the-club-a6828216.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emcee_Latic Posted December 2, 2021 Share Posted December 2, 2021 7 hours ago, wroteforluck87 said: There's a lot speculation at minute.. The most likely seems to be a dispute that the club (AL) believe as tenants to brassbank (TTA) that brassbank are required to do repairs and maintenance of the stadium. Two other possibilities are 1) the club feel that brassbank have not honoured the rent rates set at time of purchase. 2) the club feel that brassbank shouldn't own the north stand as the council granted the club (prior to ALs purchase) money to redevelopment the north stand after the move to The Lancaster Club fell through. Which ever it is AL must have took legal advice prior to this and believes he stands a good chance of winning. The soap opera continues.... Most property rental agreements are "self repairing leases". It is up to you to make sure everything is in order before you take on the lease. You have to specify what the owner has to rectify before the lease is signed or if you don;t then it becomes your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillside blue Posted December 3, 2021 Share Posted December 3, 2021 Its all about the tenancy agreement, the caveats associated with the agreement, break clauses, tenants responsibility and landlords responsibilities, if there is a legal case here, it could be something that the landlord has failed to address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.