Next zoom meeting with Ron?

[hlane17]

I don't think covenants have anything to do with the council.

They absolutely will if any development involves Council land/initiatives. The council grants all planning after all, so if they enter as party to a s.106 agreement (sets out housing quotas, qualifying criteria etc.) then they might have a say in any land they are developing for their benefit. They might not have involvement in any covenant regarding FF though I must admit, unless the land for the stadium is registered in their interest at all.

 

[onceknownasrab]

I don't think covenants have anything to do with the council.

It would be an interesting legal battle and I am sure some on here are more clued up than I. For me, I would want the council to insist on a covenant at FF, as a part of planning permission at RH.

The original covenant was set up in good faith. The council are allowing planning permission to override a covenant and in good faith should seek to have said covenant transferred. I'm no expert but I thought there were rules associated with a council benefitting from overriding a covenant and I'm sure the social housing could be seen as thus. Certainly it is clear that the council will benefit.

It's a moral matter if not a legal one and I would expect SBC to do all within their power to ensure fair play.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Sid Broomfield and his helpers. I doubt he would be best pleased to think the club is moved on with no security to line the pockets of a developer and the council.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

It would be an interesting legal battle and I am sure some on here are more clued up than I. For me, I would want the council to insist on a covenant at FF, as a part of planning permission at RH.

The original covenant was set up in good faith. The council are allowing planning permission to override a covenant and in good faith should seek to have said covenant transferred. I'm no expert but I thought there were rules associated with a council benefitting from overriding a covenant and I'm sure the social housing could be seen as thus. Certainly it is clear that the council will benefit.

It's a moral matter if not a legal one and I would expect SBC to do all within their power to ensure fair play.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to Sid Broomfield and his helpers. I doubt he would be best pleased to think the club is moved on with no security to line the pockets of a developer and the council.

You're mixing two different things.

Covenants are to do with land ownership; planning permission is an entirely different sphere.

Think of it as covenant won't be enforceable if the council doesn't own neighbouring land that will be affected but they can control the use of the land others own through planning permission.

 

[onceknownasrab]

You're mixing two different things.

Covenants are to do with land ownership; planning permission is an entirely different sphere.

Think of it as covenant won't be enforceable if the council doesn't own neighbouring land that will be affected but they can control the use of the land others own through planning permission.

I don't disagree. However, the council had previously stated that the terms of the covenant would be upheld and guaranteed us no development would happen at RH until a new stadium is built.

It is abundantly clear, to me at least, that since the first plans for FF were floated, the project has changed and is now one driven by the council. The council are major beneficiaries in overriding the covenant with planning permission. Vested interest etc

Maybe it is a case for the Land Tribunal, but, the security offered to the clubs longevity is now jeopardised. A covenant, in this case, runs with the land, in essence we are doing a land swap and I feel sure a good legal mind could argue the covenant should continue to run with the new land. The swap should be like for like.

 

[onceknownasrab]

Furthermore, has anyone actually seen a copy of the covenant? I haven't. RM did confirm to me once that there was one but stated ' it was not worth the paper it was written on.'

I don't know what could come of this argument. Indeed, I support RM to get on with it and do right by us. There are, however, those that want to hold him to task. I do not feel we have the right to demand anything and I believe protests are futile. Fans are desperately clinging to zoom meetings and a half-hearted effort from a former player. They need to pursue other angles to gain some leverage. So start at the beginning, Sid Broomfields legacy and the covenant. If there's nothing to find, move on.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don't disagree. However, the council had previously stated that the terms of the covenant would be upheld and guaranteed us no development would happen at RH until a new stadium is built.

It is abundantly clear, to me at least, that since the first plans for FF were floated, the project has changed and is now one driven by the council. The council are major beneficiaries in overriding the covenant with planning permission. Vested interest etc

Maybe it is a case for the Land Tribunal, but, the security offered to the clubs longevity is now jeopardised. A covenant, in this case, runs with the land, in essence we are doing a land swap and I feel sure a good legal mind could argue the covenant should continue to run with the new land. The swap should be like for like.

It doesn't work that way: even if the covenant runs with the land why is the land owner going to enforce it? What loss will they have suffered?

Other ways will need to be explored: planning permission; s106 agreements etc

Furthermore, has anyone actually seen a copy of the covenant? I haven't. RM did confirm to me once that there was one but stated ' it was not worth the paper it was written on.'

I don't know what could come of this argument. Indeed, I support RM to get on with it and do right by us. There are, however, those that want to hold him to task. I do not feel we have the right to demand anything and I believe protests are futile. Fans are desperately clinging to zoom meetings and a half-hearted effort from a former player. They need to pursue other angles to gain some leverage. So start at the beginning, Sid Broomfields legacy and the covenant. If there's nothing to find, move on.

Yes, it's posted on here on a near annual basis! But as above who is going to enforce it? What land has the benefit of it? What loss will they suffer?

It all makes it very problematic to rely on it. It's not the protection people think it is.

 

[Holy Joe]

Furthermore, has anyone actually seen a copy of the covenant? I haven't. RM did confirm to me once that there was one but stated ' it was not worth the paper it was written on.'

I don't know what could come of this argument. Indeed, I support RM to get on with it and do right by us. There are, however, those that want to hold him to task. I do not feel we have the right to demand anything and I believe protests are futile. Fans are desperately clinging to zoom meetings and a half-hearted effort from a former player. They need to pursue other angles to gain some leverage. So start at the beginning, Sid Broomfields legacy and the covenant. If there's nothing to find, move on.

There's another thread with a copy of it on

 

[onceknownasrab]

There's another thread with a copy of it on

Could you point me in the direction please?

 

[Holy Joe]

Could you point me in the direction please?

Shrimpers Trust News - The Elusive Roots Hall Covenant...

Ever since Southend United submitted plans to Southend Borough Council for a new stadium at Fossetts Farm, there has been speculation about the existence of a covenant on the land at Roots Hall. Despite having a copy of the Title deeds of Roots Hall and the original Trust Deed from 1950 - we...

www.shrimperzone.com

 

[onceknownasrab]

Shrimpers Trust News - The Elusive Roots Hall Covenant...

Ever since Southend United submitted plans to Southend Borough Council for a new stadium at Fossetts Farm, there has been speculation about the existence of a covenant on the land at Roots Hall. Despite having a copy of the Title deeds of Roots Hall and the original Trust Deed from 1950 - we...

www.shrimperzone.com

Thanks MattE. That read has cured my insomnia. It does appear to demand the long-term use of the land for Southend United (Ltd) or any future incarnation of the club or at least as a sporting venue. Houses most definitely are not acceptable. It's the 'run with the land' bit that irks me. We are engaged in a land swap and in that the terms should, morally, transfer too.

Furthermore, Planning Obligations (s106) were not retrospective and did not nullify pre-existing covenants.

My nose tells me there is something in this but as I said, if not, move on to the next piece of ammunition. The only way we will get leverage is through a legal technicality. If we don't find one then we have no position to defend or fight from. We are, as I always suspected. In the hands of RM.

 

[Holy Joe]

Thanks MattE. That read has cured my insomnia. It does appear to demand the long-term use of the land for Southend United (Ltd) or any future incarnation of the club or at least as a sporting venue. Houses most definitely are not acceptable. It's the 'run with the land' bit that irks me. We are engaged in a land swap and in that the terms should, morally, transfer too.

Furthermore, Planning Obligations (s106) were not retrospective and did not nullify pre-existing covenants.

My nose tells me there is something in this but as I said, if not, move on to the next piece of ammunition. The only way we will get leverage is through a legal technicality. If we don't find one then we have no position to defend or fight from. We are, as I always suspected. In the hands of RM.

I suspect our best form of protection maybe through the planning system where some restrictions on future use or conditions on use could be imposed - they could be legally challenged but might worth a try. As I said previously, I think something that prevents the houses on roots hall being occupied until the 4th stand is finished could be useful.

 

[AustScullyPriorPowell]

Loads of change since the last zoom call, when's the next zoom meeting?

 

[FarmdogSUFC]

Tonight

 

[Paddington Blue]

Any news from the meeting tonight? Did it happen?

 

[jphfitz]

Any news from the meeting tonight? Did it happen?

The meeting did indeed take place, the video will be posted today

 

[tommy tucker]

if it went ahead did the new CEO attened .Stange very little has heard from him since he took office .Would have though Ron would have plastered it all over the main site .

 

[overseas shrimper]

if it went ahead did the new CEO attened .Stange very little has heard from him since he took office .Would have though Ron would have plastered it all over the main site .

I'd like to think it's just a simple case of getting on the the considerable task at hand rather than engaging in superficial razzmatazz. This could be a sign of Ron's change in direction or the first evidence of the CEOs impact.

 

[jphfitz]

if it went ahead did the new CEO attened .Stange very little has heard from him since he took office .Would have though Ron would have plastered it all over the main site .

Yes Tom Lawrence did attend

 

[brigg blue]

The meeting did indeed take place, the video will be posted today

For those of us unable to spend an hour or so watching the video, will the minutes be published?

 

[SeaSideDoughnut]

if it went ahead did the new CEO attened .Stange very little has heard from him since he took office .Would have though Ron would have plastered it all over the main site .

His got a lot of work to do. I'd be a little bit preoccupied if I had the task he has in front of him too.