Talk was we where going to hear before the season started

Just wondering because of the news of the bar takings you would think that would be part of the lease negotiations

David Buttress has stated that the Dragon's will not sign a lease until the ownership of the Dragon's has separated from the WRU.
We would in effect be invited to sign an underlease at that point.
Personally I prefer not to have a lease at all. It simply isn't needed.
What we do need is an annual use of facilities statement for the league. That would have had to have been done before the league AGM in June.

Here we go again...

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 6:39 pm David Buttress has stated that the Dragon's will not sign a lease until the ownership of the Dragon's has separated from the WRU.
We would in effect be invited to sign an underlease at that point.
Personally I prefer not to have a lease at all. It simply isn't needed.
What we do need is an annual use of facilities statement for the league. That would have had to have been done before the league AGM in June.

If your information is correct this is very worrying.

If a license is signed, it won't in any event be a lease but the technicalities need not worry you think this through.

If a license agreement is signed by Newport County that agreement would bind the new owners of the Dragons. The only reason to not sign such an agreement is that potential new owners of the Dragons might not want such an agreement.

Once again our future will be decided by others.

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 6:39 pm David Buttress has stated that the Dragon's will not sign a lease until the ownership of the Dragon's has separated from the WRU.
We would in effect be invited to sign an underlease at that point.
Personally I prefer not to have a lease at all. It simply isn't needed.
What we do need is an annual use of facilities statement for the league. That would have had to have been done before the league AGM in June.

If that is the case, and I have no evidence to suggest it isn't, then again in my view it a dereliction of the boards responsibility to communicate that to the supporters.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 10:01 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 6:39 pm David Buttress has stated that the Dragon's will not sign a lease until the ownership of the Dragon's has separated from the WRU.
We would in effect be invited to sign an underlease at that point.
Personally I prefer not to have a lease at all. It simply isn't needed.
What we do need is an annual use of facilities statement for the league. That would have had to have been done before the league AGM in June.

If your information is correct this is very worrying.

If a license is signed, it won't in any event be a lease but the technicalities need not worry you think this through.

If a license agreement is signed by Newport County that agreement would bind the new owners of the Dragons. The only reason to not sign such an agreement is that potential new owners of the Dragons might not want such an agreement.

Once again our future will be decided by others.

The Dragon's have never signed anything, and County have not signed anything with the WRU.
It has worked perfectly.

When I got married it was the norm to do so. Not so these days, and people live perfectly happily without a licence.

It isn't a necessity to have a license when the only two parties that can pay for the facilities are in occupation. It provides no benefits and serves no purpose.

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 8:08 am

Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 10:01 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 6:39 pm David Buttress has stated that the Dragon's will not sign a lease until the ownership of the Dragon's has separated from the WRU.
We would in effect be invited to sign an underlease at that point.
Personally I prefer not to have a lease at all. It simply isn't needed.
What we do need is an annual use of facilities statement for the league. That would have had to have been done before the league AGM in June.

If your information is correct this is very worrying.

If a license is signed, it won't in any event be a lease but the technicalities need not worry you think this through.

If a license agreement is signed by Newport County that agreement would bind the new owners of the Dragons. The only reason to not sign such an agreement is that potential new owners of the Dragons might not want such an agreement.

Once again our future will be decided by others.

The Dragon's have never signed anything, and County have not signed anything with the WRU.
It has worked perfectly.

When I got married it was the norm to do so. Not so these days, and people live perfectly happily without a licence.

It isn't a necessity to have a license when the only two parties that can pay for the facilities are in occupation. It provides no benefits and serves no purpose.

I would have thought that some form of written agreement was extremely important, if only to comply with the EFL regulations, where I copy below the relevant areas, and I’ve highlighted where binding agreements seem very important to ensure compliance.

13.3 Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the Board . The Board will ordinarily withhold approval in circumstances where the proposed ground share arrangement would result in the Club sharing occupation of the playing surface with more than one other individual team from another sport (by way of example, a Club sharing with one Rugby League team will be acceptable, but a Club seeking to share with a Rugby Union team and a Rugby League team, or two Rugby Union teams, will not).

13.4 Except in cases where a Club seeks consent to enter into a ground-sharing agreement with another Club, it shall be a condition of any such consent that the ground-sharing agreement shall contain provision to ensure that:

13.4.1 the playing of any of the Club’s first team matches will always take precedence over the activities of the other party to the agreement;

13.4.2 the Club shall have the ability to postpone other activities scheduled to take place on the pitch in the immediately preceding 48 hour period where in the opinion of the Club, acting reasonably, there is a risk that such activity may result in the subsequent postponement or abandonment of a match to be played under the auspices of The League; and

13.4.3 where a sport other than football will be played on the pitch the playing surface shall be a hybrid (i.e. Desso or equivalent) construction, the specification of which shall be subject to the prior approval of the League . For the avoidance of doubt, the requirements of this Regulation 13.4.3 will apply to all existing ground share agreements with effect from 1 July 2019.

Guidance

Clubs must have primacy of fixture and show the ability to postpone any other activity on the pitch on 48 hours’ notice.

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 8:08 am

It isn't a necessity to have a license when the only two parties that can pay for the facilities are in occupation. It provides no benefits and serves no purpose.

This is total nonsense.

A license is a contract. One of the remedies for breach of contract is an order for specific performance. In terms if Newport County AFC have paid or are paying consideration to play at Rodney Parade new owners of the Dragons and/or Rodney Parade can be compelled to honour an existing agreement. Without that being formalised new owners of either the Dragons or Rodney Parade can simply eject us.

Now you may be thinking of the concept of promissory estoppel. This would in my view be very unlikely to avail us for two reasons. Firstly where two businesses are involved I think it unlikely that the High Court would countenance such an argument. Even if they did it seems to me fanciful that such an estoppel would or could bind a third party. Even allowing for Fosse v Harbottle the case law since of 'peeping behind the veil' would kill that argument ab initio.

For those of you with an interest in the minutiae of promissory estoppel the case to read is 'High Trees v someone or other, I'm sure you can google it.

Rodney Parade Ltd went bust because one sizeable club playing very few home games made it unviable. It is as simple as that fact.

There is no requirement for any form of agreement, because the ground is unviable without Newport County playing 30 odd matches there. The Rugby would not be investing in the ground or helping us by giving us 50% of Bar takings if they didn't require us.
Agreements leading to high court take far too long to be applicable in our case and are totally irrelevant.
What is important, is agreement to play for the coming season, and following seasons. That was secured before the AGM, or we wouldn't have been given fixtures.

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:02 pm Rodney Parade Ltd went bust because one sizeable club playing very few home games made it unviable. It is as simple as that fact.

There is no requirement for any form of agreement, because the ground is unviable without Newport County playing 30 odd matches there. The Rugby would not be investing in the ground or helping us by giving us 50% of Bar takings if they didn't require us.
Agreements leading to high court take far too long to be applicable in our case and are totally irrelevant.
What is important, is agreement to play for the coming season, and following seasons. That was secured before the AGM, or we wouldn't have been given fixtures.

I've no reason to not believe your last paragraph. That being the case I find it unforgivable that NCAFC have decided not to inform it's supporters of such agreement.

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:02 pm
That was secured before the AGM, or we wouldn't have been given fixtures.

Or is it because we are only nine years in to a ten year agreement.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:24 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:02 pm Rodney Parade Ltd went bust because one sizeable club playing very few home games made it unviable. It is as simple as that fact.

There is no requirement for any form of agreement, because the ground is unviable without Newport County playing 30 odd matches there. The Rugby would not be investing in the ground or helping us by giving us 50% of Bar takings if they didn't require us.
Agreements leading to high court take far too long to be applicable in our case and are totally irrelevant.
What is important, is agreement to play for the coming season, and following seasons. That was secured before the AGM, or we wouldn't have been given fixtures.

I've no reason to not believe your last paragraph. That being the case I find it unforgivable that NCAFC have decided not to inform it's supporters of such agreement.

It is in the list of requirements for playing in the football league, the ten year requirement is no longer part of it. It was discussed on here a couple of months ago.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:49 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:02 pm
That was secured before the AGM, or we wouldn't have been given fixtures.

Or is it because we are only nine years in to a ten year agreement.

Which neither the WRU or the County are signatories, so is therefore unenforceable by either party. Nor does it need to be enforceable, as the Dragon's being a region that could play say 3 games at Ebbw Vale and 3 at Pontypool, are far more vulnerable than the County.

If I saw an opportunity for buying a discounted parcel of City centre land, my preference would always be to acquire it without any encumbrances. Allegedly Mr Buttress is refusing to sign any written agreement that would secure County’s long term future at RP, why do you think that someone you believe, or hope, to be altruistic would be adopting that stance?

Mr Buttress has shown himself to be a brilliant and extremely successful businessman, and it will be in his DNA to continue adding to his wealth. The change in the EFL rules no longer requiring a 10 year tenure at RP has, I fear, allowed the County Board to relax their focus, to the point where we now operate on a season to season basis. This weakness in our position is ripe for exploitation, particularly if the Dragons were to follow the normal route of continuous loss making concerns and fold.

My overriding concern is that the County’s Board is no match for the Dragons HIMAR! We all saw what happened between Coventry FC and the Wasp’s

As an aside, I see that following the Dragon’s rebranding, and despite the County providing a very significant income stream to RP, we still only merit minor billing on the ground signage, akin to that of NRFC who have moved out!

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:09 am If I saw an opportunity for buying a discounted parcel of City centre land, my preference would always be to acquire it without any encumbrances. Allegedly Mr Buttress is refusing to sign any written agreement that would secure County’s long term future at RP, why do you think that someone you believe, or hope, to be altruistic would be adopting that stance?

Mr Buttress has shown himself to be a brilliant and extremely successful businessman, and it will be in his DNA to continue adding to his wealth. The change in the EFL rules no longer requiring a 10 year tenure at RP has, I fear, allowed the County Board to relax their focus, to the point where we now operate on a season to season basis. This weakness in our position is ripe for exploitation, particularly if the Dragons were to follow the normal route of continuous loss making concerns and fold.

My overriding concern is that the County’s Board is no match for the Dragons HIMAR! We all saw what happened between Coventry FC and the Wasp’s

As an aside, I see that following the Dragon’s rebranding, and despite the County providing a very significant income stream to RP, we still only merit minor billing on the ground signage, akin to that of NRFC who have moved out!

What opportunity is there? The Ground is not for sale without the Dragon's.
Also it is not in David Buttress' gift to sign anything, Rodney Parade is owned by the WRU.