That happened at York too, just 20 years ago Huntington was considered way out of town and they lost a shedload of fans.

Fast forward to now and Huntington is very much a part of the City, and the football club will do anything to get there ASAP, even kill off the rugby club if needs be...

It's a funny old game, this stadium building lark.

You're both half right. The Title Deeds at the Land Registry (which is what matters) will say who the owner is and it will also say which lenders have a charge on the property & how much it is for.

The owner of the property can't do much with it without ensuring that they have the lender's permission and if they don't get permission when needed it's likely to be an "event of default" as would not making the necessary repayments.

If you want to be pedantic, then repossession is probably the wrong word for the whole process as it implies that the lender had possession of the property in the first place! It's really the owner forfeiting their rights to the property in favour of the lender.

Again, i'll say this, in Saints case is the charge on the property? or is it a loan to the company?

I can't be bothered to go through all 50-odd pages to see who's said what & when, but if Saints own the property (rather than a community trust or the council or A N Other) then it's probably the case that they've borrowed money from a bank to make sure the overall cost of the property fits better with their business cash flow.

If that's the case then the bank lending them the money will have registered a charge on the property. Basically, this prevents the owner (i.e. Saints) selling the ground to a third party or securing a new loan against it with another lender without the first charge being satisfied (i.e. repaid).

If, for whatever reason, Saints don't make the repayments as required in the loan agreement then the bank could ultimately repossess the ground. Given that the bank wouldn't really want to go to the additional expense of sorting the planning permission out for an alternative use, they'd still need a suitable tenant for the stadium. Unless Saints financial position had deteriorated so far that they've been liquidated, then I think you'd find Saints would be the preferred tenant.

Saints funded the stadium by the sale of Knowsley Road and directors loans. The club do not have any bank loans at all, that was made quite clear by the Chairman in his recent statement. The club has taken out a private loan with a friend of the Chairman to the tune of £3 million along with converting directors loans into shares. But there is no bank debt whatsoever.

There is no trust. The Council did not put any money towards the stadium (only the infrastructure on the site and the total cost of the bridge). Nobody is in partnership with Saints in the purchase of the stadium.

Sounds like a very reasonable deal to me.

So the Directors and the friend of the Chairman will have a charge against the ground in much the same way as a bank would in RDMs explanation.

The only difference being the Directors and said friend might be a bit more sympathetic to Saints in any given adverse situation.

speculation again though, no one knows if the deal is with the company or a charge on the ground and Mike Coleman who has loaned the club is already a director.

STAGGERING... "Does not feel like home"... Give it a bloody chance!!!!

As far as Saints are concered ' technically ' who owns what or who is owed what is irrelivant , there is only 1 local club that would need a stadium in St Helens, the issue is that Saints are running the stadium and will have control of income, as Salford are discovering with the car parking issue, council management isnt ideal

To be more specific, after spending 25 years being used to standing on half way a reasonable height above pitch level, I'm not sure standing behind the sticks in a fairly shallow stand will ever provide the same "home" spectator feeling.

FFS does it really matter who owns what , who can possess or repossess what. Saints have got a cracking new stadium, that's all that matters. I look forward to our (Wakefield) annual flogging at their new stadium.

Not necessarily. If this is how the stadium has been funded it will probably be secured (if it is secured at all) on some sort of guarantee from their chairman or an agreement that ownership of the club transfers to the lender if the loan agreement is broken.

Whatever terms have been agreed will be far more generous than any bank would have offered.

Us Saints fans think the same thing. McManus has been an excellent chairman to take us through the development of the new stadium. His contacts alone have been invaluable. Of course we have no idea about the terms of the loan with Mike Coleman but I'm quite sure after all the work undertaken over the last ten years that McManus would have not put the stadium project in jeopardy. I'm also sure that Coleman would have protected his own interests in some way or another!

We do actually, the terms were set out in detail in the pack sent to shareholders to ratify the financing, which I received. Don't have it in front of me or I'd confirm.