How many sell-outs did the Wire achieve last year?

Why, then, would they need to spend any extra money expanding the ground?

Why lie?

Because the Guardian has stopped printing his weekly rant complaining about the same thing.

Risky business what Saints are doing in this economic climate. Could end up like Oldham and Watersheddings.

Well, we didn't start it in this economic climate. The economic climate was all sunshine and warmth when this project got underway. In fact, the earth might have been a whole degree cooler too, it was that long ago.

We've got no choice but to keep on at it because if we don't leave KR soon, the place will fall down all by itself.

Surely if the Saints can achieve our dream of a new stadium in the depth of the worst recession in years, when all about are going to the wall, show's how strong the Saints brand is.
The only risk to our future, was not trying to get a new stadium in the first place, that was made quiet plain by the RFL.

I have noticed nothing but constant doom mongering from you over this new ground...

If it's not Warrington related, historically he's negative.

and correct.

Just as a matter of interest and no doubt it'll become clear in February,but back in August Tony Colquitt said in an interview that the stadium would have around 12,500 seats with the rest standing.According to the plans on the council website they show 10,245 seats,139 disabled with 7,600 standing.Obviously an increase of 2000+ seats there-can anyone shed any light on this or is it simply the original seating/standing ratios were not set in stone?

Serious question after seeing the link to the planning permission on the redvee forum (not doom-mongering - although there is plenty of fuel in the conditions to the planning permission if I so choose at a later date):-

Has the design of the stadium changed? The drawing numbers referred to in the planning permission are different to those that have been up-loaded onto the council planning portal (the ones on the portal have not been updated for a couple of years at least looking at the revisions which is very unusual).

I guess the real good news is that detailed planning has been given and a section 106 agreement has been signed by Langtree however it is interesting to read that although there is a definition for "Tenant Enhancements" included in the agreements the term never appears to have been used. I guessed that the "Owner" was able to negotiate out of any obligation to provide anything more than "Super League Standard".

2010 was a terrible year for them wasn't it? 13th is a very poor showing.

Can you explain what you mean there? Not being funny, just have no idea what that's meant to imply?

The S106 Agreement is what binds Langtree into providing the facilities that could be in a crude manner considered to be the town's "kick-back" for allowing Tesco to have their new superstore. All perfectly normal and often includes the likes of new schools, leisure centres, etc being funded by the likes of Tesco for the greater benefit of the town.

In this instance Langtree (no doubt with funding contribution from Tesco either through capital or rent) are committing to providing a stadium (as well as up-graded bus-stops, money for mucky mountain(?), etc.). The S106 agreement obliges Langtree to provide a stadium to "Super League Standard". To ascertain what this means you need to look at the definitions in the agreement that defines this as being to the minimum standard required by a Super League Stadia Guide. A quick glance at the architect drawings released of the proposed stadium would immediately indicate that the stadium is some way above "Super League minimum standards".

Looking further into the S106 Agreement there is a definition of "Tenants Enhancements" (you are by the way tenanants and will not own the stadium, although if you get a 999 year lease with total rights over the stadium at a peppercorn rent you may as well be) that refers to add-ons that the club may require over and above "Super League Standard". You would normally therefore expect to see an obligation on Langtree within the S106 to provide these "Tenants Enhancements" as part of the "kick-back" to the town. However there is no reference (that I can see) of "Tenant Enhancements" within the document that suggests to me that there use to be but that Langtree have negotiated out of the obligation to provide. I guess they argued these wouldn't be benefits to the town (as you'd expect to see in a S106 and a Super League Stadium considered to be) but are add-ons for the benefit of a private company (St Helens RLFC) that would be used to generate revenue/profit for the sole benefit of that company and not the town as a whole.

I am presuming that this argument held water and the obligation removed and unfortunately the lawyers weren't quite diligent enough when giving the document a final sanity check and left the definition in. Obviuosly this is all complete and utter guesswork (although you may say educated guesses) by myself.

I re-iterate the point that having the detailed planning (although heavily conditioned) and a signed S106 Agreement is a massive plus and hurdle crossed in working towards the stadium. I would like to see the "approved drawings" for the stadium as the drawing numbers differ from those on the planning portal (although again this could be procedural). If the drawings are the same as previous then this negates all the above paragraphs of drivel and I guess that St Helens RLFC will themselves have to find the money to fund everything considered above Super League Standards.

Again apologies for any "doom-mongering" in the above but if I was a Saints fan (God forbid) there are answers I would like just for peace of mind if nothing else.

Paul, you could be speaking Greek for all I know. But what I do know is that in a meeting I attended at Saints over a year ago, it was explicitly stated by the management that Saints would own the stadium. It would not be rented, on a peppercorn or any other lease.

for tax purposes i wouldnt be surprised if saints rent it off "saints stadium company" or some similar name which is owned by saints, a very sensible and common business practice

Saints will have full control of the stadium, as it will be their asset. Quite whether this is owned under St Helens RLFC or under a sub company wholly owned and run by St Helens RLFC someone will have to explain, but the stadium will be owned by Saints.

I'm sure you're all correct about the club owning the stadium however that does make the S106 Agreement confusing as it refers to an Agreement to Lease.

I have however spotted where Tenant's Enhancements is used in the document though so apologies to the lawyers for suggesting they may have not be 100% efficient in carrying out the sanity check. It is actually included within another definition "Construction Cost".

Anyway here's the link to the actual document:

[urlhttp://212.248.225.150:8080/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=139776[/url

See page 2 for the reference to the Agreement to Lease.

Will the lease be refering to the land not the ground (stadium) as Langtree are the owners of the land?

That sounds more like it.

after reading most of it, it does seem to be refering to the land.
Also one part reads about the club being able to raise loans on the stadium, cant do that if its not yours.

Where is the bit about raising loans on the stadium? I can't see that.

The document definitley reads that St Helnes RLFC will not own the stdium but will be tenants as I suggested. See paragrpah 10.5 of Schedule 3 that refers to allowing "the Council (in lieu of a defaulted Langtree) to be the direct landlord of the Club pursuant to the lease entitling the Club to occupy the Stadium".

Having a long lease at minimal rent can be even better than owning the stadium in some instances. At least you won't be secondary tenants like Wigan at with Whelan owning the stadium.

Of note in the s106 doc is the change in North, South elevations, as the document refers to revision "B"

These relate to the stands behind the goal.

It may therefore be the case that there has been an increase in seating capacity and a reduction in the amount of terracing, requiring a redesign of stands behind the sticks. This would tie in with verbal comments saying approximately 12500 seats. Which is at odds with the original design, which features just over 10,000 seats.

We havent got long to wait to find out, just a month or so before the club show the final design for which construction will start later this year.

Paul, I was reading most of last night it could be anywhere in there.

here's an interesting page from the council web site. sites that got knocked back. 212.248.225.150:8080/portal/serv ... Name=89926

here's an interesting page from the council web site. sites that got knocked back. 212.248.225.150:8080/portal/serv ... Name=89926

Mr Youne,

The reason there is a lease in there is due to the land being owned by Langtree.

simples.