• Welcome to the new RedPassion.co.uk !

    Registations are back open to fans who wish to join the community, and see zero ads plus join in Offtopic and other discussions!
    Existing users can login and use the forums as normal, if your login is not working, you can click login then 'forgot password' and you will be sent a reset email.

    Any issues use the contact form button at the bottom of the page. You can remove this notice by hitting X in the top right of this box.

    REGISTER! or LOGIN

WST board recommend Racecourse Lease surrender

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rob

Due a Testimonial
Pre Takeover RPer Original RPer before 2009 Donor to RP 2017 BtB Helped pay wages in August 2011
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
22,637
Just skim-read quickly. All looks good but does this mean that the women's team will never be allowed to grace the pitch again?

75% of votes cast to push it through. 834 able to vote

Let's get this done
 
I'll be voting to surrender the lease.
 
Any news on the other things holding up the kop development; satisfying UEFA regulations, diversion of a sewer, and removal of an electricity cable running across the land.

Surely voting against the lease surrender means the club will have to look to relocate the stadium within two miles of the Racecourse (which they don't need the WST consent for).
 
Last edited:
There is no explanation of why the club needs the trust to surrender the lease apart from the club saying that it's needed to secure funding for the development. As the club own the ground, I can't see why this would stop them doing whatever they want.
The only other possible contentious issue is the clause which refers to any future move which requires the ground to be a minimum capacity equal to or better than the current capacity ( approx 10,300 ) or UEFA cat 4 ( This minimum is 8,000 ) I would have liked to see a minimum capacity if a move was deemed necessary.

I look forward to the meeting on the 4th.
 
There is no explanation of why the club needs the trust to surrender the lease apart from the club saying that it's needed to secure funding for the development. As the club own the ground, I can't see why this would stop them doing whatever they want.
The only other possible contentious issue is the clause which refers to any future move which requires the ground to be a minimum capacity equal to or better than the current capacity ( approx 10,300 ) or UEFA cat 4 ( This minimum is 8,000 ) I would have liked to see a minimum capacity if a move was deemed necessary.

I look forward to the meeting on the 4th.

The current agreed covenant that we voted on as part of the sale was that the club could move the ground to within two miles of the Racecourse. This new covenant is adding in the requirement that any new ground would match the capacity of the racecourse and meets a grading of UEFA category 4.
 
Just skim-read quickly. All looks good but does this mean that the women's team will never be allowed to grace the pitch again?

75% of votes cast to push it through. 834 able to vote

Let's get this done

I do not think any wording that referred to one or either sex would be acceptable in todays world. I would have thought that it would have to refer to the teams of the club whether they are either men or womens. This may just be a technicality, but to refer to mens seems very strange.
 
The current agreed covenant that we voted on as part of the sale was that the club could move the ground to within two miles of the Racecourse. This new covenant is adding in the requirement that any new ground would match the capacity of the racecourse and meets a grading of UEFA category 4.

Would you be happy with a new ground that was 10,300 capacity?

I'd be happy to move if it was deemed necessary but would expect a new stadium of minimum 20,000 capacity with future development potential if the owners vision is to be realised.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top