Re: Rimmer wants rimming : Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:49 pm
Bulliac wrote:
As you've rightly pointed out FA, the 2019 date ceased to be about the lease itself as the old lease was superseded by the 150 year 'Settlement' lease. After the settlement, as I said, the date of 2019 was only ever about the money, that's the £4.6m, which you identified. If you don't accept that then we'll just have to differ on it.
I am not seeing where you think there's an argument. I only pointed out that the rugby requirement ends with well over a century of lease still remaining. That was all.
Bulliac wrote:
Of course, as indeed I pointed out, the RFL's lease is a bargaining chip if the council has any plans for 'other uses'. The lease though, as I understand it, would have no practical use as the RFL would presumably have to keep the rugby ground they leased, or at least would be technically obliged to hand back the ground in the same state as it was when they took out their lease. That would, again presumably, preclude the RFL from building houses on it, say, though I don't think you could lease a house and just knock it down without the landlord's permission, so I'd guess the same would apply. ...
No. Under the lease they can do what they like, as long as they comply with planning. Which is kinda my point. (They'd need Council consent but there are only very limited grounds for withholding it.)