Status change is a great idea

“Semantics, bath1946, I am afraid your probing on the fact that I have privy of the lease will not be successful as I have not seen it. However, I did get it wrong I thought it started from August actually it is September as I have just looked up the published prospectus of the RC for the strategic review and in section 3 it says:

"In 1992 the Club was granted a 75-year lease by Bath City Council on an area of the Recreation Ground between September and May."

I think Bob Calleja meant 1995 not 1992!”

“Darius, sorry for the late response. In your post of February 17th you wrote that all documentation in the public domain states that "the original footprint that the 75 year LEASE covers is for the Rugby Club use from mid-August to early May". When challenged you changed this to observations on the times when the temporary stand is erected or taken down.”

“Don't know what else the lease says, bath1946, otherwise I would have given you exact dates. My observation of the allowed use of the rugby ground of the rec is based on the time the RC puts up the temporary stand and when it is pulled down! Have you not noticed this?”

“Darius, "rugby club use from mid - August to early May". What else does the lease say ?”

“I am flabbergasted, bath1946, with your comment:

"I was more interested in the source of your oft repeated but unsubstantiated comment that the 1995 lease "stops the use of the rugby ground for charitable use" which, if true would appear to be key to this debacle."

Of course it is key and all the documentation out there from the Trustee minutes, CC letters and orders, strategic review, the explanatory booklets written for "children" all state that the original footprint that the 75 year lease covers is for the rugby club use from mid August to early May. The corollary of this is that the Charitable Trust is deprived of the use of that part of the Rec.

If you have missed that point then you have missed the very essence of the issue that the Trustees are trying to rectify with the swap.”

“Darius, you are quite right that Justice Hart did not rule specifically on the lease however because the Rec. was declared to have charitable trust status by implication commercial activities were not acceptable. Indeed, although we all know that the real motivation for the proposal and land swap is to increase the capacity available to rugby, the proposal emphasises rectification of the detriments arising from the commercial activities on trust land, although interestingly the Commission is requiring the Leisure Centre to become the responsibility of the Trustees which suggests to me that commercial activities are more relevant to the covenants than the Charity Commission.

I was more interested in the source of your oft repeated but unsubstantiated comment that the 1995 lease "stops the use of the rugby ground for charitable use" which, if true would appear to be key to this debacle.”

“Justice Hart did not make a ruling on the lease, Bath1946, he said "That (his) conclusion in no way pre-empts the question whether the actual uses to which the claimant has put the Recreation Ground, in particular the most recent letting of the football ground, are compatible with the charitable trusts. That is a question which this judgment does not seek to answer."

However, after the Court judgement the Trust was run by an administrator appointed by the CC who did peruse the lease on whether it was lawful and came to the conclusion that the lease was lawful as it was taken out in good faith before the land was declared charitable in 2002. The E&Y report of the strategic review says "The Receiver/Manager appointed by the Trust takes the view that the main lease and third lease which were granted prior to the Court's decision are valid and robust". If it was not robust I can assure you that the RC would have had to give up the lease in 2002.”

“Darius, What the publicity of December 2012 does is to present a child's summary of the 2002 judgement; nowhere is there explicit reference to the 1995 lease stopping the use of the rugby ground for charitable purposes nor has any councillor for obvious reasons stated that fact publicly which is what you wrote. There has been continual refusal to publish the details of the contract despite foi requests; counterproductive.

Despite Justice Hart's 2002 determination that the Rec. was held on charitable trust status the club now believes that it has a valid lease as a result of section 122 of the 2011 Charities Act. A field day for legal challenges which obviously the Charity Commissioners wish to avoid.”

“..and yet again I say yes, Bath1946, all you need to do is read page 7 of the Trustees document for the representation issues in December 2012 apart from the various comments by the Trustees which are in the public domain over the years about the lease to come to the same conclusion! As I have stated umpteen times before all my comments are based on evidence in the public domain so I have no idea who signed the lease in 1975 but presumably it was a Councillor/s and the Chairman or an officer of Bath Rugby FC (RFU)!”

“Darius, yet again you state that the 1995 lease "stops the use of the rugby ground for charitable use". Does it really, and how were you able to get privileged access to the contract ? Also, what else does it say and who signed it ?”