The 2030 break clause in the lease is only in the club’s favour. It is not an option available to RD.
One of the consistent themes from successive ownerships is overestimation of the club’s commercial potential, often from bullshitters but also from people who just do not understand the supporter base.
It would be wrong to discourage ambition, but it’s an easy way to disappoint the owners.
Apologies for seeking more clarity on the lease, but if he was minded to evict us now, what's the earliest RD could? And has he had any opportunity to evict us since he sold the club? *
* I ask that only because I'd assumed TS wouldn't have bought the Club without assurances over the lease, RD having agreed to continue it with amended terms post ESI rather than watch us go into Admin and so have to repay the directors loans.
TS renegotiated the lease. It’s between CAFC Ltd and Baton, which is still owned by Staprix, IIRC. The interesting question is who the current guarantor is, but is suspect it is still Sandgaard with a side note from GFP that indemnifies him. Otherwise GFP or SE7 would have needed to renegotiate the lease with RD, which they clearly didn’t as any change would hsve been lodged with the land registry.
Thanks. Would that 'side note' not be subject to disclosure in the indemnifier's books?
Getting back to my original questions though, 2035 is the lease end date isn't it? And RD did allow TS to renegotiate its terms, a sensible decision of the head if not the heart. He could have made life very difficult for TS and us back then by refusing to.
Not if he wanted to avoid paying the ex directors their £7m, which was always his priority.
We don’t have access to GFP’s books as they are not in this jurisdiction.
Comments
Thanks Dane for everything RIP
£7m, which was always his priority.
We don’t have access to GFP’s books as they are not in this jurisdiction.