COSU Statement - Friday 7th June

[Maldon Shrimper]

Having just listened to Mr Cowan interview on today's BBC Essex interview he comes across as a decent guy who confirms he is in daily contact with Justin but as a council he isn't going to commit to a contract with the Martin's which is detrimental to Southend Borough.Its now back to the Martin's to revise their contract which is acceptable to the council.Its highly unlikely that the Martin's will put out their own statement but the ball is definitely back in their court to sort it out because if they dont change then minds I dread to think what the fanbase will do if the unspeakable happens because their is only one group that can progress this and its the Martins

 

[wiggy]

Having just listened to Mr Cowan interview on today's BBC Essex interview he comes across as a decent guy who confirms he is in daily contact with Justin but as a council he isn't going to commit to a contract with the Martin's which is detrimental to Southend Borough.Its now back to the Martin's to revise their contract which is acceptable to the council.Its highly unlikely that the Martin's will put out their own statement but the ball is definitely back in their court to sort it out because if they dont change then minds I dread to think what the fanbase will do if the unspeakable happens because their is only one group that can progress this and its the Martins

Rat pie anyone?

 

[Leeboy]

I have very little faith in the Council honouring the "covenant" that preserves the use of the Roots Hall site purely for leisure and/or recreation.

one of my questions for Cowen via the All At Sea thing later

 

[onceknownasrab]

I have very little faith in the Council honouring the "covenant" that preserves the use of the Roots Hall site purely for leisure and/or recreation.

The covenant can be lifted by whatever party originally imposed it or by all parties that benefit from it. I have no idea how either is identified. Is there anyone, or an organisation, still in existence that imposed the covenant? Who can now claim to be the beneficiaries of the covenant? The club, fans? I suspect it will be consigned to a wastepaper basket somewhere in a council office.

 

[Sleaford Shrimper]

I have very little faith in the Council honouring the "covenant" that preserves the use of the Roots Hall site purely for leisure and/or recreation.

There is a lot of info on the internet about the enforcement of restrictive covenants placed on property. The following is the most relevant to the Roots Hall situation and SCC's powers to enforce the covenant that I found:

"The existence of an anti-development covenant, for instance, does not entitle a Planning Authority or planning objectors to rely on its existence to block development. This is a remedy available only to the land owner who either imposed the covenant and kept nearby land or his successor."

 

[Blueszone]

I've emailed the Labour candidate, and answer came there none.

A scouser from liverpool talked to him thursday dont hold much hope young napper

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

There is a lot of info on the internet about the enforcement of restrictive covenants placed on property. The following is the most relevant to the Roots Hall situation and SCC's powers to enforce the covenant that I found:

"The existence of an anti-development covenant, for instance, does not entitle a Planning Authority or planning objectors to rely on its existence to block development. This is a remedy available only to the land owner who either imposed the covenant and kept nearby land or his successor."

Not least on SZ….

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?

 

[Strykr]

“Last Friday, it became apparent that the Council did not wish to progress with the property deal along the terms previously agreed with the Martins.”

I wonder why this is ?

The martins are greedy ****s.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Trust looking at plan B for Blues' future if needed

THE Shrimpers Trust have been working towards securing a Plan B for Southend United's future.

www.echo-news.co.uk

Good news surely that the ST are looking at a plan B if the Consortium pull out?

 

[bazzashrimper]

The population for Southend is around 300,000.
Population of area covering a possible supporter involvement is around 1 million.
On average: every other Saturday during the football season only around 7,000 people are interested in attending.
Our chances of convincing the SCC to risk bankruptcy is somewhere between zero and nil.

Agree with most of that. I do think though we shouldn’t be talking about the council bankrupting itself. To the detriment of the people is a better way of putting it. The challenges around having the wrong balance of social housing for example, there is potentially a financial concern that more may be left empty because of this, but I would think a lot would need to be empty to bankrupt the council. There is just as much a social problem with that and a switch from a conservative to Labour council would potentially be more worried about that.

So bankrupting, I don’t think so. Detriment - for sure.

 

[Flinty]

There is a lot of info on the internet about the enforcement of restrictive covenants placed on property. The following is the most relevant to the Roots Hall situation and SCC's powers to enforce the covenant that I found:

"The existence of an anti-development covenant, for instance, does not entitle a Planning Authority or planning objectors to rely on its existence to block development. This is a remedy available only to the land owner who either imposed the covenant and kept nearby land or his successor."

So the then !

 

[Strykr]

It should never ever have gone as low as 13% affordable housing anyway. Pure greed.

Without wishing to cast aspersions seems that cox was either incompetent or just somebody that collects brown envelopes, (Possibly both).

I hope they dont fanny around anymore and make it quickly clear to the rats exactly what they need to do.

Just utterly utterly sick of all this.

 

[in the know]

Council want and were originally happy with more affordable housing. RM then changed it, wants more out of it with higher spec higher returns.
New council aren't having it despite fans being led to believe there was cross party agreement, and now there's no time to sort it before the AGM and WUP. Without capital security for cosu in the form of money or property in a form of a trust, we are no more.

 

[JB Shrimper]

Council want and were originally happy with more affordable housing. RM then changed it, wants more out of it with higher spec higher returns.
New council aren't having it despite fans being led to believe there was cross party agreement, and now there's no time to sort it before the AGM and WUP. Without capital security for cosu in the form of money or property in a form of a trust, we are no more.

What I find strange is that the consortium haven't mentioned the AGM almost as if they are not concerned!

 

[The Original Tribal Chief]

Council want and were originally happy with more affordable housing. RM then changed it, wants more out of it with higher spec higher returns.
New council aren't having it despite fans being led to believe there was cross party agreement, and now there's no time to sort it before the AGM and WUP. Without capital security for cosu in the form of money or property in a form of a trust, we are no more.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Barling Magna]

What I find strange is that the consortium haven't mentioned the AGM almost as if they are not concerned!

Maybe they think the AGM will simply give deadlines for the sale to proceed; deadlines which will be after the date that COSU intend to walk away?

 

[Chrisb]

What I find strange is that the consortium haven't mentioned the AGM almost as if they are not concerned!

I am sure that they are.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

This is going to be the problem I think. Nothing will be able to be done until after the election, at least that is what they will say. By then it could be too late

not necessarily. Purdah means business as usual continues, the restrictions are around publicity

 

[Tommy2holes]

Trust looking at plan B for Blues' future if needed

THE Shrimpers Trust have been working towards securing a Plan B for Southend United's future.

www.echo-news.co.uk

Good news surely that the ST are looking at a plan B if the Consortium pull out?

Working on a plan B and having a plan B are not the same.

I have no idea how the club would exist if COSU walk away but it would be impressive if survival was attained

 

[Piledriver]

A good clear statement from COSU which cuts through all the guess work on here over the past few weeks. At least we know now that the consortium will clear the embargo if those terms are met.

From an outsider’s point of view they sound perfectly reasonable. But Ron is like a poker player stubbornly holding on to his last chip and consistently folding even though he should have gone all-in 3 hours ago.

We’ll have to wait and see I guess.

I've always thought that RM is only a great poker player in his own mind, the reality is he has cost himself and the club millions as he never knows when to quit and take his winnings, he'd rather gamble that for his greediness!