I thought this was the Stadium Site pictures thread

No myth. St Helens MBC will not be funding the infrastructure enhancements. Why would they?

Because they said they will be, they've even said where and how they will raise the money for it. There was a long debate in the council chamber and a vote for. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe them.

Where do you think the money the council is raising and putting in to this going to be spent?

Been looking at plans for new stadium and comparing them to the halliwell Jones, and Wigans DW as a guide.

A couple of things have stood out.

The Wolves away terrace has 5 rows of crash barriers. The end terrace on Saints plans appear to show 6 rows of crash barriers. Thereby indicating the increased size of the terraces at Saints.The capacity of Wires end terrace was originally set at just shy of 4k, however after overcorwding issues it was cut to 3500. Saints new end terrace has a stipulated capacity of 3884.

In addition, the seated stands at Saints show 22 rows of seats. I counted just 20 rows in Wires main stand.

The corporate hospitality and entertainment capacity of Saints new main South stand, is greater than the entire corporate capacity at the HJ, and also bigger than Wigans main West stand. Wigans overall corporate facilities are however slightly higher due to facilities in their North and South stands.

any whispers who has won the contract to build the stadium.

Nope,

However i would think an anouncement is imminent considering we are nearly in February and Tony Colquitt was saying on the radio the other week that they hope to be able to say who the contractors were by the end of January, with construction starting sometime in March.

Now obviously this isnt a guarantee, just a hope, or belief. Therefore things may get pushed back by a few weeks.

I'm with you all the way on this DoT.


Something just doesn't quite add up here. It's pretty obvious what Tesco are getting out of it, but as clear as fog what we are getting from Tesco etc.

What are you so suspicious about? We're getting nothing from Tesco other than the ability to build on the site. Without Tesco there, we wouldn't be there either as there is no way that Saints could afford the whole site.

Saints wouldn't want the whole site, only the area big enough for the stadium. And we might have had the premium place next to the linkway if Tesco hadn't pushed us to a hidden corner.

There's a lot of assumptions being made here and peddled out as fact.

If what you say is true and not conjecture then thats all we are getting and its "deal done" but I can't quite work out how the dire got a much better deal than us i.e. site enablement/development AND a fat bundle of cash.
How does that work then?



Don't say the obvious that each case is different, because if anything, given our fan base and status in SL, we would be entilted to more cash than was given to the HJ project.

Keep an eye on cnplus.co.uk and building.co.uk for announcements on the successful contractor.

Do you think for one second your "fan base and status in SL" means one little bit to Tesco. The amount they are willing to put into a development to make it happen is directly linked to how much the development is worth to Tesco in terms of future profits.

Tesco had no presence in Warrington and had been desperate for a store in the town for years whilst they already had a store in St Helens plus Warrington's is a bigger and more affluent customer base than St Helens.

Hence Tesco willing to put more money into the Warrington development.

Probably true. But then considering our ground specs look better than the HJ and the club itself will own the stadium - I'm not sure why we should give a monkeys what Tesco gave to Wire.

Not sure about the club owning the stadium - I thought we had all agreed the club was actually leasing the stadium.

I think you will find its "saint at wire" who is giving a "monkeys" about what Tesco gave to Wire.

I'll give you that Saints' ground's spec looks better on paper but for now that's where it remains - on paper.

Noone agreed that, it has been explicitly stated many times that Saints will own the stadium

That's interesting, I thought the club was going to own the stadium site - do you (or anybody) have any links for this? Would be keen to have a read.



Wasn't aiming it at you in particular, I just don't understand why everyone is so keen to compare Tesco's input across two developments?



Too true.

We were debating that point, not agreeing it. I stated that according to what the club management said at a meeting I attended about 18 months ago, Saints are going to own the stadium.

True - looking back it wasn't agreed.

However as there is clearly a reference to the Council stepping-into Langtree's shoes and being obliged to give St Helens rugby club a lease to use the stadium within the contract documents (that are available for anybody to read) I don't see how people can continue to be in denial.

Although before everybody gets on their high-horses again I will repeat that a long term lease on minimal rent can be as good as, if not better, than actually being the owner.

No, I will repeat that Langtree own the land and Saints will own the stadium.

They will lease the land the stadium is on on a long term lease.

Thats what I always thought was the answer.

Is there an option for Saints to buy the land?

why would we want to if we have a 999 yr lease?

:2qid7uh5

Sadfish bare with me on this one but:

The Section 106 Agreement has the following definition with a linked obligation on Langtree:

“Agreement For Lease” means a contractual deed to be entered into by the Owner [[i:2qid7uh5Langtree Group Plc[/i and the Club [[i:2qid7uh5St Helens Rugby Club Limited[/i which shall provide for the Occupation [[i:2qid7uh5this is a defined term that means what it says not ownership[/i of the Stadium by the Club within 6 months of it being Practicably Completed to Superleague Standard; in a form approved by the Council”

That doesn’t suggest Saints will own the Stadium.


Clause 10.5 of Schedule 3 of the S106 contains the following provisions:

“…. To allow the Council to be the direct landlord of the Club pursuant to the lease entitling the Club to occupy the Stadium…”

If the Club owns the Stadium why is the Council their Landlord within a lease permitting the Club to occupy the Stadium. You should note the Stadium Land is separately defined and the lease referred to is very much for the facilities not the land. So again why would the Club enter a lease if they own the building?


I understand that you probably think I’m “muck-raking” however I am intrigued why you are so certain you are right yet publicly available, legally binding executed contracts suggest different? Why do you think these provisions have been included within these documents in the manner they have?

latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289

latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289

Quote ="The Doghead"latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289'" Latest? That is from October, and discussing the access road.

Quote ="The Doghead"latest little snippet I have found concerning the stadium. www.birsecl.co.uk/html/company-n ... tentID=289'" Latest? That is from October, and discussing the access road.

So you knew Birse where involved in the new road layout.