89buttons Posted 2 hours ago Report Share Posted 2 hours ago 47 minutes ago, ShanoXtra said: “The club sale had (past tense) stalled due to renewal of the track. Now this has been signed and within the next couple of weeks will be completed”. The point I made is why is it taking over 4 months to renew a contract when you knew clearly even this time last year when the renewal was needed, therefore the sale could have happened sooner. No struggle around here. Just questions of poor business decisions. Perhaps spedeworth were hesitant to renew the lease without surety of who the incoming tenants would be, would make sense that don’t you think 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcone44 Posted 2 hours ago Report Share Posted 2 hours ago so if sale doesn't go thru its a 4 team premiership. sale will go thru ,but it hasn't yet, but sale will go thru, but it hasn't yet, but sale will go thru but it hasn't yet. 🤣 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShanoXtra Posted 2 hours ago Report Share Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 23 minutes ago, 89buttons said: Perhaps spedeworth were hesitant to renew the lease without surety of who the incoming tenants would be, would make sense that don’t you think 🤷♂️ No because when you sign a contract it gives you a guarantee that whoever signs it will pay the committed amount, and if you fail to do so you could end up in court. It doesn’t matter who the new tenants are because if Chris Louis done a deal with Spedeworth before selling then whoever he sold the club to would have to commit to his contractual obligation within the renewal. Edited 2 hours ago by ShanoXtra . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk127 Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago 2 minutes ago, ShanoXtra said: No because when you sign a contract it gives you a guarantee that whoever signs it will pay the committed amount, and if you fail to do so you could end up in court. It doesn’t matter who the new tenants are because if Chris Louis done a deal with Spedeworth before selling then whoever he sold the club to would have to commit to his contractual obligation within the renewal. That is not strictly true. The lease sets out the terms under which a tenant acquires the right to use the facility but unless the terms of the lease include guarantees regarding the rental monies, if a tenant fails to pay the rental they forfeit the lease and it reverts back to the landlord who can then let the premise to another tenant. The chances of it ending up in court are slim given that the costs outweigh the result. Even if CL had done a deal before putting the club up for sale, it would still involve an assignment and that in turn involves due diligence etc. The landlord still has to approve an assignment, the tenant cannot simply reassign a lease. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago 18 minutes ago, gjcone44 said: so if sale doesn't go thru its a 4 team premiership. sale will go thru ,but it hasn't yet, but sale will go thru, but it hasn't yet, but sale will go thru but it hasn't yet. 🤣 See.... Now you've got it.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShanoXtra Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago 7 minutes ago, Hawk127 said: That is not strictly true. The lease sets out the terms under which a tenant acquires the right to use the facility but unless the terms of the lease include guarantees regarding the rental monies, if a tenant fails to pay the rental they forfeit the lease and it reverts back to the landlord who can then let the premise to another tenant. The chances of it ending up in court are slim given that the costs outweigh the result. Even if CL had done a deal before putting the club up for sale, it would still involve an assignment and that in turn involves due diligence etc. The landlord still has to approve an assignment, the tenant cannot simply reassign a lease. It depends entirely on the wording of the contract which we wouldn’t know. The stadium owner could simply need approval of the new tenants and thus carrying over the rental agreement for a clean take. My point is that CL actively announced his early decision after the 2025 season to continue in 2026 and then done a U Turn later down the line. He was originally due to run this season therefore, for any proactive business sense should have already agreed a renewal for 2026 season. It also depends on if the renewal is with Ipswich speedway LTD or worded as Chris Louis, if it’s under the club name it could technically simply transfer over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noaksey Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 56 minutes ago, 89buttons said: Perhaps spedeworth were hesitant to renew the lease without surety of who the incoming tenants would be, would make sense that don’t you think 🤷♂️ There was presumably a procedure for assignment or a new lease has been entered in to depending Edited 1 hour ago by noaksey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk127 Posted 1 hour ago Report Share Posted 1 hour ago 7 minutes ago, ShanoXtra said: It depends entirely on the wording of the contract which we wouldn’t know. The stadium owner could simply need approval of the new tenants and thus carrying over the rental agreement for a clean take. My point is that CL actively announced his early decision after the 2025 season to continue in 2026 and then done a U Turn later down the line. He was originally due to run this season therefore, for any proactive business sense should have already agreed a renewal for 2026 season. It also depends on if the renewal is with Ipswich speedway LTD or worded as Chris Louis, if it’s under the club name it could technically simply transfer over. You rarely transfer a lease but tend to assign and the landlords would want to ensure that at the very least they are not in a less advantageous position and most landlords taking on new unknown tenants would seek security of payment in terms of the rental income. This could be by way of a cash deposit, bank guarantee or SBLC in order to ensure they are no worse off. We do not know when the lease was due to expire, nor do we know the potential new term or the rent increases during the term of the lease and whether it is full repairing etc.. Suffice to say it appears to be a factor which has caused a delay but is not insurmountable. The fundamental point is CL as a seller knew the status and could have anticipated a potential delay and if not his legal representatives would have be aware of the possibility so the press release is flawed and should be taken with a pinch of salt. No doubt all will be resolved and 2026 will hear the bikes roar at Foxhall. Just a shame the reputation has been called into question because of the failings of a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
89buttons Posted 36 minutes ago Report Share Posted 36 minutes ago 1 hour ago, ShanoXtra said: No because when you sign a contract it gives you a guarantee that whoever signs it will pay the committed amount, and if you fail to do so you could end up in court. It doesn’t matter who the new tenants are because if Chris Louis done a deal with Spedeworth before selling then whoever he sold the club to would have to commit to his contractual obligation within the renewal. But perhaps as I said spedeworth wanted surety of who the new tenants were to be before the lease renewal was agreed rather than renew with Chris and allow him sell the club to a nightmare mob that spedeworth had no desire to entertain as tenants but were stuck with due to contractual obligations they've just signed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapewrecker Posted 29 minutes ago Report Share Posted 29 minutes ago (edited) Could Erik Riss fit in Edited 24 minutes ago by Tapewrecker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted 16 minutes ago Report Share Posted 16 minutes ago 18 minutes ago, 89buttons said: But perhaps as I said spedeworth wanted surety of who the new tenants were to be before the lease renewal was agreed rather than renew with Chris and allow him sell the club to a nightmare mob that spedeworth had no desire to entertain as tenants but were stuck with due to contractual obligations they've just signed Logical ,makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.