Announcement. More departures plus Caretakers Announced

[REDROAR]

The strangest thought just came to me,completely out of the box.
Sell the globe to developers, merge with Lancaster City, Lancaster and Morecambe FC.
Bring Giant Axe up to league standard, get a grant from LCC.
Premier league in 5 years!!

No thanks!

[Gone_Shrimping]

The strangest thought just came to me,completely out of the box.
Sell the globe to developers, merge with Lancaster City, Lancaster and Morecambe FC.
Bring Giant Axe up to league standard, get a grant from LCC.
Premier league in 5 years!!

No thanks!

+ 1

[Born again Bill]

The strangest thought just came to me,completely out of the box.
Sell the globe to developers, merge with Lancaster City, Lancaster and Morecambe FC.
Bring Giant Axe up to league standard, get a grant from LCC.
Premier league in 5 years!!

That should put a few hundred extra bums on seats ........at AFC Fylde

[Keith]

The strangest thought just came to me,completely out of the box.
Sell the globe to developers, merge with Lancaster City, Lancaster and Morecambe FC.
Bring Giant Axe up to league standard, get a grant from LCC.
Premier league in 5 years!!

Admin note:

Please be aware that the ban on swearing has been temporarily lifted, but only when responding directly to our Aussie wind-up merchant!

Please use this power carefully!

Ya great steaming nit you!

[Morecambe Jack]

As I understand it, only the Trust land is protected. The buildings on it aren’t, so if we go out of business, a phoenix club does not automatically have access to the stands etc. The land around it is not ‘ours’ as such. There’s a decent amount of building land there. More than the football club is worth.

The land included in the Trust is all of the land shown in this diagram on the Shrimps Trust website: https://shrimpstrust.co.uk/campaigns/jb-christie-trust

That clearly includes all of the land on which the buildings sit. So there is absolutely no chance that land can be converted into property, which is what you suggested. A further important quote:

"The Lease of the Trust land to the Company stipulates that the land can only be used for football and associated commercial activities. As a result, it is of no use to anybody buying Morecambe Football Club Ltd in the hope of using the land for anything else. It has no alternative development value."

Who would buy buildings that they can't access because they don't own the land that they sit on?

The only land available for building is the land at the front, the 3g pitches, and the gravel car park to the east. The former two pieces of land are not owned or controlled by the Club presently anyway, and to be quite honest I don't think we need to worry too much about the gravel car park.

[BerlinWaller]

Oh dear

[Keith]

But the Trust doesn't control the buildings. How would we play or 'use' the land without access to it?

[Morecambe Jack]

The flip side is what would anyone do with those buildings if they can't get to them because they don't have right of access? What happens to the buildings depends on the circumstances that arise, of which they are many possibilities. They are currently owned by the Ltd company - but again, who would buy them if they are on land they can't access?

The point is - there are not going to be a load of houses put on the site that prevent us having a Football Club.

[BerlinWaller]

The flip side is what would anyone do with those buildings if they can't get to them because they don't have right of access? What happens to the buildings depends on the circumstances that arise, of which they are many possibilities. They are currently owned by the Ltd company - but again, who would buy them if they are on land they can't access?

The point is - there are not going to be a load of houses put on the site that prevent us having a Football Club.

I never understood how people came to the conclusion the owners sought out Morecambe Football Club to build a few houses on land between a Council estate and a Housing association estate? Surely if the land was so valuable, people would have built on it years ago rather than stick one horse on it and a couple of youth team pitches surrounded by dykes?

[Freez]

I got a brace for Westgate Wanderers on that back pitch once against Central Wanderers, so it meant a lot to me!!!

[Slanester]

The flip side is what would anyone do with those buildings if they can't get to them because they don't have right of access? What happens to the buildings depends on the circumstances that arise, of which they are many possibilities. They are currently owned by the Ltd company - but again, who would buy them if they are on land they can't access?

The point is - there are not going to be a load of houses put on the site that prevent us having a Football Club.

I never understood how people came to the conclusion the owners sought out Morecambe Football Club to build a few houses on land between a Council estate and a Housing association estate? Surely if the land was so valuable, people would have built on it years ago rather than stick one horse on it and a couple of youth team pitches surrounded by dykes?

Two, obviously shrewd business men, who are not football people, from the South, have taken over a failing football club in Morecambe, investing, in their words, a large amount of money. They either know something we don’t, made a “mistake,” or just decided they fancied owning a football club. If they feel that they can keep splashing the cash until the right offer comes, and then cash in, then that will do nicely.

[BerlinWaller]

I got a brace for Westgate Wanderers on that back pitch once against Central Wanderers, so it meant a lot to me!!!

Is there a plaque marking this event? Central wanderers? What decade was this?

[Freez]

I expected a plaque, score two set two up, but it never happened.

It was in the 1870’s as I remember

[Brian S]

As I understand it, only the Trust land is protected. The buildings on it aren’t, so if we go out of business, a phoenix club does not automatically have access to the stands etc. The land around it is not ‘ours’ as such. There’s a decent amount of building land there. More than the football club is worth.

The land included in the Trust is all of the land shown in this diagram on the Shrimps Trust website: https://shrimpstrust.co.uk/campaigns/jb-christie-trust

That clearly includes all of the land on which the buildings sit. So there is absolutely no chance that land can be converted into property, which is what you suggested. A further important quote:

"The Lease of the Trust land to the Company stipulates that the land can only be used for football and associated commercial activities. As a result, it is of no use to anybody buying Morecambe Football Club Ltd in the hope of using the land for anything else. It has no alternative development value."

Who would buy buildings that they can't access because they don't own the land that they sit on?

The only land available for building is the land at the front, the 3g pitches, and the gravel car park to the east. The former two pieces of land are not owned or controlled by the Club presently anyway, and to be quite honest I don't think we need to worry too much about the gravel car park.

Do you mean the same land in trust that could never be converted into a supermarket? Why do people hold on to a legality that has already been overturned?

[Morecambe Jack]

The difference is Brian that Christie Park was sold by the Trustees of the JB Christie Trust, legally, as they hold the freehold. The Club sold their leasehold interest.

Therefore for the same thing to happen at the Globe, the Trustees would have to do the same (although, we are trivialising what was and would be a lengthy legal process). The Trustees did it last time on the agreement that the covenant is transferred to the new land. So it simply isn't going to happen to result in us having nowhere to play and losing the ground to a housing estate.

[HALMA 1983]

The difference is Brian that Christie Park was sold by the Trustees of the JB Christie Trust, legally, as they hold the freehold. The Club sold their leasehold interest.

Therefore for the same thing to happen at the Globe, the Trustees would have to do the same (although, we are trivialising what was and would be a lengthy legal process). The Trustees did it last time on the agreement that the covenant is transferred to the new land. So it simply isn't going to happen to result in us having nowhere to play and losing the ground to a housing estate.

Still think the poor chap would be spinning in his grave, bloody Supermarket!
A team should never move from it's ancestral home but that's just me.

[Brian S]

The difference is Brian that Christie Park was sold by the Trustees of the JB Christie Trust, legally, as they hold the freehold. The Club sold their leasehold interest.

Therefore for the same thing to happen at the Globe, the Trustees would have to do the same (although, we are trivialising what was and would be a lengthy legal process). The Trustees did it last time on the agreement that the covenant is transferred to the new land. So it simply isn't going to happen to result in us having nowhere to play and losing the ground to a housing estate.

So you're saying the trustees of the JB Christie trust have sold it once but won't again? Wow. Where do you think C&J expect to get their money back? On the pitch

[Morecambe Jack]

The difference is Brian that Christie Park was sold by the Trustees of the JB Christie Trust, legally, as they hold the freehold. The Club sold their leasehold interest.

Therefore for the same thing to happen at the Globe, the Trustees would have to do the same (although, we are trivialising what was and would be a lengthy legal process). The Trustees did it last time on the agreement that the covenant is transferred to the new land. So it simply isn't going to happen to result in us having nowhere to play and losing the ground to a housing estate.

So you're saying the trustees of the JB Christie trust have sold it once but won't again? Wow. Where do you think C&J expect to get their money back? On the pitch

If they were to sell, and the courts were to accept it, it would have to be on a similar basis to what happened last time. So we move to a new location - ideal, maybe we can build the North Stand properly this time?

What I am saying, and stand by entirely, is that the land cannot be sold by the owners of Morecambe Football Club Ltd for housing development that would result in Morecambe not having a location to house a Football Club.

The Trustees can't just sell the land willy-nilly. It has a covenant on it. The whole purpose of that Trust is to protect the land for the purpose for which it was intended. It couldn't be sold without going to the High Court - not an easy process.

[Brian S]

Christie Park had a covenant, I'm probably one of few that read it and saw the plans. I agree with you that the Trust ensures the club will continue but Westgate, with Eden on the horizon, is worth far more than a piece of wasteland in Heysham that the Trust could accept as a replacement. Been there, done that.

C&J bought the club *before* league status was known. There has to be something they're holding on to that secures that investment.

[Morecambe Jack]

Christie Park had a covenant, I'm probably one of few that read it and saw the plans. I agree with you that the Trust ensures the club will continue but Westgate, with Eden on the horizon, is worth far more than a piece of wasteland in Heysham that the Trust could accept as a replacement. Been there, done that.

C&J bought the club *before* league status was known. There has to be something they're holding on to that secures that investment.

And it was transferred to the Globe. I understand what you are saying, but the Trustees have responsibilities and they would not be fulfilling them if they accepted a deal that wasn't in the interests of Morecambe Football Club. They are supporters of the Club, and have no connection with C&J or any other potential owner - so why would they accept something like that? Whatever anyone's thoughts on CP vs Globe - the move was done with the best interests of the Club at heart (without discussing the subsequent failings).

I don't have an answer as to why they bought the Club - I am just confident that they can't make money out of this land which they don't own. Incidentally, I don't think they will make back the money they have put in - but if they do, good on them. For us, that would mean we have new owners who have more money than sense.

[Brian S]

The Trustees had responsibilities before and we all know what supporters thought of the move to Westgate. Sadly the decisions were based on a healthy deal with Sainsbury's. We know better now. Hopefully the Trustees are wiser but never say we won't move again.

[Keith]

And it was transferred to the Globe. I understand what you are saying, but the Trustees have responsibilities and they would not be fulfilling them if they accepted a deal that wasn't in the interests of Morecambe Football Club. They are supporters of the Club, and have no connection with C&J or any other potential owner - so why would they accept something like that? Whatever anyone's thoughts on CP vs Globe - the move was done with the best interests of the Club at heart (without discussing the subsequent failings).

I don't have an answer as to why they bought the Club - I am just confident that they can't make money out of this land which they don't own. Incidentally, I don't think they will make back the money they have put in - but if they do, good on them. For us, that would mean we have new owners who have more money than sense.

I broadly agree with you. But, if for example, the club was to fold in its current form, then the Trust would have access to land but not buildings. The stands behind the pitch, PMG and 'Berlin Wall' could all be closed. Therefore, 'we' would have a pitch but no way to get to it. At that point, the football side of the club would cease to exist. The pitch could never be built on and the infrastructure would simply rot away. The only alternative would be for the Trust to agree that it would be in the football club's (as opposed to 'Football Club') best interest to be sold again so that a 'phoenix club' could be built and start somewhere else with a new covenant. At that point, all that land becomes available.

I doubt it could happen, but I'd love to see everyone who lives in the Morecambe & Lancaster area contact their councillors and force a statement from Lancaster City Council to say that they would oppose development of that land at every stage.

Couldn't happen? Who remembers going to Rushden & Diamonds for the first time and being impressed with their ground?

Nenepark.jpg (53.73 KiB) Viewed 997 times

Once the club was wound up, the ground was left to decay...

dsc_0459.jpg (1.05 MiB) Viewed 997 times

...until it was completely derelict and eventually bulldozed.

Nene Park, Rushden, being demolished April 2017.jpg (66.88 KiB) Viewed 997 times

[Morecambe Jack]

Sorry Keith but I don't agree with you. If the Club (i.e. Morecambe Football Club Ltd) folds then its leasehold interest terminates. The freehold of the land is always held by the Trust and this includes all rights of access, and all the land which the stadium stands on. So it always has access to it.

The property on that land is entirely different argument - but the Trust is in the best position being the ones that own the land that any of those possessions sit on and therefore controls access to it.

[Phil Anderer]

I'm with Jack. If the Trust owns the land, then it is possible to reach the pitch without needing to access the buildings, just to be able to open one or more gates to get in. In those circumstances, the buildings become a liability for whoever owns them, although unfortunately there's then nowhere for fans to watch from unless a lease agreement is reached for use of the stands.

[BerlinWaller]

And it was transferred to the Globe. I understand what you are saying, but the Trustees have responsibilities and they would not be fulfilling them if they accepted a deal that wasn't in the interests of Morecambe Football Club. They are supporters of the Club, and have no connection with C&J or any other potential owner - so why would they accept something like that? Whatever anyone's thoughts on CP vs Globe - the move was done with the best interests of the Club at heart (without discussing the subsequent failings).

I don't have an answer as to why they bought the Club - I am just confident that they can't make money out of this land which they don't own. Incidentally, I don't think they will make back the money they have put in - but if they do, good on them. For us, that would mean we have new owners who have more money than sense.

I broadly agree with you. But, if for example, the club was to fold in its current form, then the Trust would have access to land but not buildings. The stands behind the pitch, PMG and 'Berlin Wall' could all be closed. Therefore, 'we' would have a pitch but no way to get to it. At that point, the football side of the club would cease to exist. The pitch could never be built on and the infrastructure would simply rot away. The only alternative would be for the Trust to agree that it would be in the football club's (as opposed to 'Football Club') best interest to be sold again so that a 'phoenix club' could be built and start somewhere else with a new covenant. At that point, all that land becomes available.

I doubt it could happen, but I'd love to see everyone who lives in the Morecambe & Lancaster area contact their councillors and force a statement from Lancaster City Council to say that they would oppose development of that land at every stage.

Couldn't happen? Who remembers going to Rushden & Diamonds for the first time and being impressed with their ground?

Nenepark.jpg

Once the club was wound up, the ground was left to decay...

dsc_0459.jpg

...until it was completely derelict and eventually bulldozed.

Nene Park, Rushden, being demolished April 2017.jpg

Nene Park was used by Kettering Town for 18months before it was demolished.