Who actually owns Roots Hall ?

[Pak Power]

When I started this thread it was any information on the Original transfer from the Supporters Club to Southend United Football Club I was interested in.

Several years ago (when Alan Gershlick was on the board) I spoke to him about the possibilty of legally challenging the original transfer document. He said it would take a lot of money but wasn't impossible.- Well he has his lot of money assembled now!

In short there may be a small possibility that the consortium could pay a small amount for SUFC Ltd and then challenge the original transfer, thus getting roots hall on the cheap (albeit after a hefty legal bill)

If there is anybody on here with the memory of the original Deed, I would welcome their views.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

When I started this thread it was any information on the Original transfer from the Supporters Club to Southend United Football Club I was interested in.

Several years ago (when Alan Gershlick was on the board) I spoke to him about the possibilty of legally challenging the original transfer document. He said it would take a lot of money but wasn't impossible.- Well he has his lot of money assembled now!

In short there may be a small possibility that the consortium could pay a small amount for SUFC Ltd and then challenge the original transfer, thus getting roots hall on the cheap (albeit after a hefty legal bill)

If there is anybody on here with the memory of the original Deed, I would welcome their views.

No chance. It might have been arguable in the past but, even putting aside it being timed barred (which it almost certainly is), it's been sold on to a bona fide purchaser without notice.

 

[A Century United]

Gershlick was on the board under Jobson, wasn't he? Can anyone remind me when, and why, he stood down?

 

[Smiffy]

Just seen this comment on the Echo website.

The immediate parent company of Southend United Football Club Ltd is South Eastern Leisure (UK) Ltd, of which I, via my corporate ownership, am a 100% share holder. There are no “consortia members”. It took Delancey and myself a while to come to terms for me to acquire their 50% interest in the parent company and I am in no hurry to re-enter into a joint venture! The beneficial owners of the Fossetts Farm development are me and my immediate family."
Not my words, but the words of former "British Winter Olympian" Ronald Martin.
Somehow I think that Martin losing his big score was the greater motivator in the whole proceeding.
As regards the supporters and Little Ron, the phrase "unhappy bedfellows" springs to mind.

 

[A Century United]

Just seen this comment on the Echo website.

The immediate parent company of Southend United Football Club Ltd is South Eastern Leisure (UK) Ltd, of which I, via my corporate ownership, am a 100% share holder. There are no “consortia members”. It took Delancey and myself a while to come to terms for me to acquire their 50% interest in the parent company and I am in no hurry to re-enter into a joint venture! The beneficial owners of the Fossetts Farm development are me and my immediate family."
Not my words, but the words of former "British Winter Olympian" Ronald Martin.
Somehow I think that Martin losing his big score was the greater motivator in the whole proceeding.
As regards the supporters and Little Ron, the phrase "unhappy bedfellows" springs to mind.

Link, Smiffy?

 

[Smiffy]

Link, Smiffy?

Echo

Scroll down and look for a post from someone named Bernard Manning!

 

[devonexile]

For clarity, I've got a copy of the title register and have attached it here

As you can see it's currently mortgaged through Bank of Scotland and the Sainsbury's deal is confirmed as well.

The covenants are also shown as well.

I loved the description of a fried fish shop as an "undesireable trade"

 

[A Century United]

Echo

Scroll down and look for a post from someone named Bernard Manning!

Interesting, but he claims it's a quote without giving a reference. Would like to know where the original is.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I couldn't locate the "famous" covenant about solely for the use of the Football club....Did I miss it ?

Ooh! It is there - and it's much broader than I thought!

The following are details of the covenants contained in the
Conveyance dated 31 July 1953 referred to in the Charges Register:

"THE Purchasers hereby jointly and severally covenant with the
Corporation as follows:-

(b) To develop the premises hereby conveyed for use as a football
ground for the Southend United Football Club Limited and for no
other purpose...

Woo, and indeed, hoo. Ron will have to get the council's permission to develop the ground. It's interesting, however, that the beneficiary of the covenant is the council, but not the club. Here's hoping that the council has enough gumption to insist on a similar covenant being made in their favour for FF before they agree to lift this one.

Matt

 

[North Wales Shrimper]

I agree Matt.

It is most important that we try and get a restrictive covenant on the new ground. However, I don't know how easy that will be with the major parcel of land having been bought privately.

I'm sure though Matt you can enlighten us.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I'm sure though Matt you can enlighten us.

Sadly not - I don't know an awful lot about planning permissions / real estate. Yorkshire Blue is your man...

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I agree Matt.

It is most important that we try and get a restrictive covenant on the new ground. However, I don't know how easy that will be with the major parcel of land having been bought privately.

I'm sure though Matt you can enlighten us.

Sadly not - I don't know an awful lot about planning permissions / real estate. Yorkshire Blue is your man...

Cheers Matt, I was hoping to duck this one...

I'm not entirely sure how far down the road we are with regards to the new stadium and whether RM now owns the land. If it hasn't already been done so, I think we'd find it tricky to do.

The time to impose a restrictive covenant is usually (i) when selling part or (ii) as part of a planning agreement, which is registered as a local land charge.

It is presumably too late to do anything about (ii), if nothing has already been done (anyone want to carry out a local land charges search on Fossetts?), so that leaves us with the first route of selling part. This provides two instant issues

1. Has the land already been sold? If so, this boat has already sailed. It might be possible to enter into a deed at an alternative time, but frankly what incentive is there for RM to do so, if he already owns the land?

2. Will part be retained? For the restrictive covenant to bind the land rather than just the contractual parties, it needs to run with the land ie there needs to be a bit of land (the dominant tenement) that benefits from the restrictive covenant and a bit of land that is subject to it (the servient tenement).

However this also raises another issue, namely that of who has the benefit of the covenant. There could be a covenant saying you couldn't build anything there but a stadium, but this is going to be of limited comfort to us fans if the party owning the land with the benefit of the covenant will not enforce it and worse waives it. The original covenantee could sue the original covenantor under contract, as the original covenantor will remain liable under contract - but if both parties have sold their respective bits of land on, the only remedy would be damages and what damage have they suffered if they no longer own the land with the benefit of the covenant?

There are also the issues that the covenant must be negative in nature (although it doesn't have to be negatively worded) in order to run with the land (the test here often applied is whether it requires the coventator to put his hand in his pocket). You can't therefore oblige the owners to build a stadium, and with it being a mixed development you can't say it can only be used as a stadium, so you are going to need some careful drafting to get round this. The exception to this is under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as part of a planning obligation with the local authority, as mentioned above, which is enforceable by injunction.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Cheers Matt, I was hoping to duck this one...

:) Always happy to help.

Thanks for the detailed answer, though - v. v. helpful. Green on its way.

:clap: