• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Players unpaid.....

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
GBJ said:
I can’t remember the exact wording, but I recall it said that whilst the football club existed, it would remain at Roots Hall, unless an alternative was produced.

Something like that, anyway.
Click to expand...

You may well be right mate and it is just me clutching at straws of hope here. The next few weeks will no doubt continue to have us on the edge of our seats with worry.
 
Cricko said:
You may well be right mate and it is just me clutching at straws of hope here. The next few weeks will no doubt continue to have us on the edge of our seats with worry.
Click to expand...

Weeks? You’re optimistic :Winking:
 
Oops missed that bit, my bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chrisb said:
I wonder how that would stand up in a court - anyone have any idea ?
Click to expand...

Before you get to whether it would stand up in court who would bring it to court?


This is cut and paste from what wrote about it on here in 2010. The law may have changed since then etc but it's probably still the starting point for any rational discussion on the covenant. Any property law practitioners feel free to chime in.

---------------------------------

The original covenantee was The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of The County Borough of Southend on Sea (Corporation). Now I'm not sure if there is such a thing as The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of The County Borough of Southend on Sea (Corporation) any more, but I suspect this has probably been swallowed up by the Southend Unitary Authority but if there is they could sue the original covenantor, Ernest Neville Selby and others, through privity of contract for breach of the covenant were the land to be used in contrary to the covenant but good luck finding him alive and even if you can track him down he doesn't own the ground any more, so can't give specific performance, leaving damages as the only remedy and what damage has actually been suffered?

Instead, the remedy you'd be after would be an injunction preventing the breach of the covenant. An injunction is an equitable remedy. So you'd need to look at whether the burden and benefit run under equity. Under the rule in Tulk and Moxhay, restrictive covenants can run in equity and bind if: (1) they are restrictive in nature; (2) The coventatee owns the land for whose protection the covenant was made and is capable of benefiting the land; (3) The burden was intended to run; and (4) the purchaser had notice.

Now (4) isn't an issue because it is Registered Land and the covenant appears in the Charges Register and (3) is implied under s79 of the Law of Property Act 1925 but the other two are more problematic. The covenant is couched in a positive manner "to develop the premises" but this might not necessarily be fatal, I'd need to delve into the case law, but I think there are precedents where the court has enforced only the negative part of the covenant eg the bit where it says "and for no other purpose". The big issue here though is (2). I'm not convinced it's a real covenant that is capable of benefiting the land. Again, you'd need someone with more time to delve into the case law (I think the starting point is London CC v Allen, where IIRC a covenant not to build was held not to benefit the Council) but that's a huge red flag in my opinion because if it isn't capable of benefiting the land (and what land is it claiming to benefit?) you've got no-one with the benefit of the covenant to enforce it.

For the benefit to then have run, you need it again to be a real covenant and "touch and concern the land". This then links it to land (but what land?), and who in turn then owns the land that benefits from the covenant?
 
Nobody was protesting when we were challenging for the play offs, punching way above our weight and paying above the odds for players...signing them up to long contracts. What do people honestly expect Ron to do now, we’re skint?
 
jackj13 said:
Forgive me for being the simpleton but what does this actually mean?
Click to expand...

With any luck it means he’s admitted defeat and is sourcing outside investment and relinquishing a controlling share. Then I wake up...
 
Yorkshire Blue said:
Before you get to whether it would stand up in court who would bring it to court?


This is cut and paste from what wrote about it on here in 2010. The law may have changed since then etc but it's probably still the starting point for any rational discussion on the covenant. Any property law practitioners feel free to chime in.

---------------------------------

The original covenantee was The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of The County Borough of Southend on Sea (Corporation). Now I'm not sure if there is such a thing as The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of The County Borough of Southend on Sea (Corporation) any more, but I suspect this has probably been swallowed up by the Southend Unitary Authority but if there is they could sue the original covenantor, Ernest Neville Selby and others, through privity of contract for breach of the covenant were the land to be used in contrary to the covenant but good luck finding him alive and even if you can track him down he doesn't own the ground any more, so can't give specific performance, leaving damages as the only remedy and what damage has actually been suffered?

Instead, the remedy you'd be after would be an injunction preventing the breach of the covenant. An injunction is an equitable remedy. So you'd need to look at whether the burden and benefit run under equity. Under the rule in Tulk and Moxhay, restrictive covenants can run in equity and bind if: (1) they are restrictive in nature; (2) The coventatee owns the land for whose protection the covenant was made and is capable of benefiting the land; (3) The burden was intended to run; and (4) the purchaser had notice.

Now (4) isn't an issue because it is Registered Land and the covenant appears in the Charges Register and (3) is implied under s79 of the Law of Property Act 1925 but the other two are more problematic. The covenant is couched in a positive manner "to develop the premises" but this might not necessarily be fatal, I'd need to delve into the case law, but I think there are precedents where the court has enforced only the negative part of the covenant eg the bit where it says "and for no other purpose". The big issue here though is (2). I'm not convinced it's a real covenant that is capable of benefiting the land. Again, you'd need someone with more time to delve into the case law (I think the starting point is London CC v Allen, where IIRC a covenant not to build was held not to benefit the Council) but that's a huge red flag in my opinion because if it isn't capable of benefiting the land (and what land is it claiming to benefit?) you've got no-one with the benefit of the covenant to enforce it.

For the benefit to then have run, you need it again to be a real covenant and "touch and concern the land". This then links it to land (but what land?), and who in turn then owns the land that benefits from the covenant?
Click to expand...

Did you see the original covenant in detail @Yorkshire Blue ?
 
Cricko said:
All sorted i missed that bit to.
.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear. The original post remains with the all important word removed but other posters like me and OBL have their complete posts removed.

Not sure you and Ricey should be having a dig at Ron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary Beecham
Andys man club Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top