Quote:
Originally Posted by Outback Ozzy
If you are in social housing owned by the council, then it is the council's responsibility to do the repairs to the rented property, not the tenants. In this case, the club are saying to the council, we want to upgrade the facilities, we will contribute two thirds of the funding from the club and FL will you contribute the other third. I agree Satanage have a duty of care to the paying hoards that watch them, but remember Edgar Street, Hereford, how dilapidated that was, didn't the council shut a stand down for being dangerous?
|
Wrong analogy. A football club is a business, just like many others in Council premises, not a resident in social housing. Satanage's tenancy will have clear terms as to who is liable for what. And that club are not proposing 'repairs' but improvements, presumably to increase their turnover.
As for Hereford, the ground was/is owned by the County Council but again there was no legal obligation on that Council to divert public funds to subsidise a private business. However, in that case it was the Council that 'saved' Hereford from total demise. If the ground wasn't owned by the County Council, the spivs who tried to take over Hereford would have shut the club down and flogged the site to Tesco.