That is true but the owner's income stream is affected by the number of RL fans that attend so he should be looking to harness a positive relationship.
Difficulties arose before the first game of the season which, incidentally, was nearly played at Leigh because the two parties could not agree on the rent. It is clear that the current ownership do not want to honour the past arrangement.
The new owners sorted and agreed rent when they bought stadium as part of their income revenue along with corporate income hence Wigan moving a lot of income generation to Robin park. So can't see how that was the issue as it's legally binding on both parties.
No they didn’t.
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
The new owners sorted and agreed rent when they bought stadium as part of their income revenue along with corporate income hence Wigan moving a lot of income generation to Robin park. So can't see how that was the issue as it's legally binding on both parties.
No they didn’t.
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
The new owners sorted and agreed rent when they bought stadium as part of their income revenue along with corporate income hence Wigan moving a lot of income generation to Robin park. So can't see how that was the issue as it's legally binding on both parties.
No they didn’t.
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
All I can tell you mate is that our first game at the DW was very nearly played at another ground because the new owners of Latics were not happy with the previous deal and didn’t want to honour it.
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
All I can tell you mate is that our first game at the DW was very nearly played at another ground because the new owners of Latics were not happy with the previous deal and didn’t want to honour it.
So what happened then that allowed it to take place?
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
All I can tell you mate is that our first game at the DW was very nearly played at another ground because the new owners of Latics were not happy with the previous deal and didn’t want to honour it.
It wouldn’t surprise me mate at all I do get the feeling they don’t really want the hassle of the rugby club,I may be utterly wrong of course but I don’t know it doesn’t feel all is well between the 2 parties I mean has their been a photo op between the new owners? Stuff like that settles people down and creates a vision of harmony
fozzieskem wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:51 pm
I’d have thought it was legally binding with the previous owners but wouldn’t the club have rights as “sitting tenants”so to speak?
All I can tell you mate is that our first game at the DW was very nearly played at another ground because the new owners of Latics were not happy with the previous deal and didn’t want to honour it.
So what happened then that allowed it to take place?
That is true but the owner's income stream is affected by the number of RL fans that attend so he should be looking to harness a positive relationship.
Difficulties arose before the first game of the season which, incidentally, was nearly played at Leigh because the two parties could not agree on the rent. It is clear that the current ownership do not want to honour the past arrangement.
The new owners sorted and agreed rent when they bought stadium as part of their income revenue along with corporate income hence Wigan moving a lot of income generation to Robin park. So can't see how that was the issue as it's legally binding on both parties.
No they didn’t.
Yes they did it was and always has been a legal requirement from rfl for all clubs in sl have a contract legally binding to prove they have a ground to fulfill all home fixtures without written proof of this Wigan and and any other sl club would be thrown out
The new owners sorted and agreed rent when they bought stadium as part of their income revenue along with corporate income hence Wigan moving a lot of income generation to Robin park. So can't see how that was the issue as it's legally binding on both parties.
No they didn’t.
Yes they did it was and always has been a legal requirement from rfl for all clubs in sl have a contract legally binding to prove they have a ground to fulfill all home fixtures without written proof of this Wigan and and any other sl club would be thrown out. I will also add there was never any discussion with leigh to play first home game there and that is 100% fact
Yes they did it was and always has been a legal requirement from rfl for all clubs in sl have a contract legally binding to prove they have a ground to fulfill all home fixtures without written proof of this Wigan and and any other sl club would be thrown out. I will also add there was never any discussion with leigh to play first home game there and that is 100% fact
Yes they did it was and always has been a legal requirement from rfl for all clubs in sl have a contract legally binding to prove they have a ground to fulfill all home fixtures without written proof of this Wigan and and any other sl club would be thrown out. I will also add there was never any discussion with leigh to play first home game there and that is 100% fact
How could the new owners agree a rent with the Warriors before they bought the stadium? Are you telling me that they honoured the agreement that IFL had with the previous owners? Next question, if it is the case that the RFL require SL clubs to have a binding contract to play fulfil all their home games then why did we take a CC tie to Leigh? Finally, we did discuss with both Leigh and Bolton playing our first game this season at one of their grounds as there was an impasse with the new owners.