Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

I did read an article a long time ago about the concept of "lost generations" whereby following a club (not just in RL) was often something that was handed down from parent to child. When the parent stopped going to matches this link became broken and has not been restored.

There´s something in that absolutely, my worry with Bradford tbh. But Oldham is still a place with clubs and a population of 250,000. Even if you only got 1% of that it´s a thriving club. And before people say it I don´t count London for this, you are better looking on a borough by borough basis. 

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

I continue to argue that the most important job that the RFL has is to make the "product" of RL as attractive as possible. Actual match attendances will build upon that attractiveness.

 

Yep think RFL need to make internationals click and then we need to have infrastructure in place to capture that interest. 

 

On the football club, as predicted the landowner Blitz is calling in his debts (400,000) and club also has 4 million total debts with no assets. . I´d be surprised if Oldham don´t have to start again at Step 5. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, Damien said:

Thanks for that, it's most interesting. 

I do find it odd still though that the RFL have owned this land yet for 25+ years Oldham have struggled for a home.

The RFL don't own, simply hold the land in trust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sheddingswasus said:

The RFL don't own, simply hold the land in trust.

 

Ok you said the council agreed a land swap so I presumed they must own it to swap the land. If the RFL don't own it then who does? What does own it in trust mean if the RFL have the power to swap the land and it can only be used for RL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Damien said:

Ok you said the council agreed a land swap so I presumed they must own it to swap the land. If the RFL don't own it then who does? What does own it in trust mean if the RFL have the power to swap the land and it can only be used for RL?

"trustees are the legal owners of the assets held in a trust. Their role is to: deal with the assets according to the settlor's wishes, as set out in the trust deed or their will."

From Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

The RFL don't own, simply hold the land in trust.

 

To be used for rugby league in perpetuity?

So adding bits to it to raise it to, say, Championship standard but with Hollinwood remaining as tenants as well would absolutely fit the terms of the trust?

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

To be used for rugby league in perpetuity?

So adding bits to it to raise it to, say, Championship standard but with Hollinwood remaining as tenants as well would absolutely fit the terms of the trust?

Yes this is what I'm getting at. I'm not sure if the distinction between owner and trustee matters in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes this is what I'm getting at. I'm not sure if the distinction between owner and trustee matters in this case.

I have no idea what scope there is on the land for development but my highly limited understanding of these things is that if it actually enhanced RL provision then it would be in the terms of the trust and achievable with the will to do so.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sheddingswasus said:

The RFL don't own, simply hold the land in trust.

 

Surely the land is owned by the Trust and the RFL are the trustees?

Beyond that fact that the land must be used for certain (RL) purposes and must remain in trust, it seems to be a difference without a distinction 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Trust is the way an asset is owned.

Alternatively it could be a workers collective, a limited company, a Royal Estate, a co-operative or a State owned facility. Other ways it could be held. 

The RFL are the trustees. They own it. So why don't they use it?

Edited by idrewthehaggis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

Just hoping that the winner of last night's euromillions is a Yeds supporter. 🤞

They only won £184m mate, you’d need more than that. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

Just hoping that the winner of last night's euromillions is a Yeds supporter. 🤞

Haven't you already had one lottery winner owner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Damien said:

Haven't you already had one lottery winner owner?

Couldn’t agree with terms with Chris Hamilton and ended up donating to Waterhead (I think?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...