Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Sports => Football => Topic started by: Big Magician on January 05, 2012, 06:43:57 AM
-
Lets discuss this...
The Marvin lee stadium...the concacaf center of excellence..the joao havelange ..joe public home...whatever you call it
WHO OWN THIS ????.... because i dont have the official answer to this then i can only ask some hard questions
as i recall...this was a gift/project from FIFA to who ???... Concacaf ??.. Tnt ??.. TTFF ???...Warner ??
In a touching gesture..Jack named it in tribute to Joao .... and again for the late marvin...god bless.
In comes Joe Public FC..flexing muscle ( and kits)....weddings,fetes,lou rawls,engelbert humperdink,bollowood and magic shows....trade shows and conferences and of course coaching courses etc.
another FIFA upgrade with artificial grass surface.... i even played a fete match there but will watch the national youth team train next to me in de Savannah while Joe public FC use their home ground to wreak havoc on the super league and east zone.
so if warner really owns this under some guise then he has all rights ...but if this is a FIFA gift...then this should be now taken over by who ??? concacaf ??... TnT Govt (oops same)??..TTFF (oops same)??..
this should be turned into the TTFF headquarters .... they got every thing there and with some upgrades and imagine they condemned a training pitch to make a bigger car park for fetes and conferences ( non football).....
if its really concacaf ...then can Guyana or costa rica apply for its use as a training camp to use for WC preparation ???
Its sitting there waiting ???... can we have it ?? or is this jacks house ??? his neverland for his sons ??
-
Jack Warner bought the land and built the Marvin Lee Stadium (Joao) with FIFA money that no one can trace today, so yes, it belongs to de Warners, sick, but true.
T&T is not the home of Concacaf anymore so outside teams cannot use it as training camps.
My advice to everyone in T&T is to not use the Stadium, boycott it, de T&T Pro League needs to boycott it as well, they giving Jack money.
We have to eliminate all money going to Jack Warner.
-
ok..so according to SAM.. it belongs to the Warners
but something will still be strange if because he bought the land... he still took the fifa money and built something for himself ???...
-
so lets say at that time..it was Camps who had a piece of land... it would have been Camps own ????
watch meh... we could take that place
-
As I understand it, Warner owned the land. Legally - and I'm hoping Bakes can clarify this- he is the landlord and can give permission to a leasor (CONCACAF) to build on the land and remain there for the length of the lease at a pre determined annual fee (usually a small amount known as a peppercorn rent) However, there is nothing to prevent him from stipulating an annual lease of $1 million providing the leasor (CONCACAF at the time controlled by Warner) agrees. (This could be construed as a conflict of interest and the lease overturned).
So, technically, CONCACAF should own everything but the land.
I don't know if these records are made public in T&T.
I do know that when you hire the stadium, you cannot have use of the bar as that concession belongs to Joe Public. I have never seen paperwork to confirm this. I do know that any decisions apart from basic hiring are referred to Daryan Warner.
There was a rumour that the stadium was constructed by a company called CONCACAF, owned by Jack Warner, but that is only hearsay.
-
If he owns the land, then he owns the structure on the land, as ownership of the one would be worthless without the other. If he leased CONCACAF the right to build-to-suit then it's just the same. However he can't unilaterally change the terms of the lease (rental increases) unless as stipulated by the lease term... and yes, at the end of the lease he can refuse to renew and then take possession of the structures/facilities.... if he doesn't already possess them.
-
If he owns the land, then he owns the structure on the land, as ownership of the one would be worthless without the other. If he leased CONCACAF the right to build-to-suit then it's just the same. However he can't unilaterally change the terms of the lease (rental increases) unless as stipulated by the lease term... and yes, at the end of the lease he can refuse to renew and then take possession of the structures/facilities.... if he doesn't already possess them.
Ok, but without seeming to disagree with your input, isn't the structure the property of the leasor? If you have a 99 year lease, there is value attached to the structure and the landlord cannot enter or interfere in any way with the structure unless specified in the lease. I may be mistaken, but that is the standard lease situation in UK, albeit residential. There may be differences in commercial leasing.
-
Ok, but without seeming to disagree with your input, isn't the structure the property of the leasor? If you have a 99 year lease, there is value attached to the structure and the landlord cannot enter or interfere in any way with the structure unless specified in the lease. I may be mistaken, but that is the standard lease situation in UK, albeit residential. There may be differences in commercial leasing.
No, the structure isn't the property of the lessee (renter). Implicit in the lease is that any improvements to the property (other than "trade fixtures" such as display cases in a store, special lighting etc.) is done at the peril of the lessee. Yes it is true that the lessor cannot enter and interfere (unless as specified in the lease), but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what happens after the lease is up... can he increase the rent, or even refuse to renew, thereby kicking CONCACAF out of the Marvin Lee.
-
I would love to see who here have the belly to come and try to take the Marvin Lee Stadium from Jack.
That will be a joke, no one on this planet could do that. !!!
Jack will raise again. !!!!!!
-
Ok, but without seeming to disagree with your input, isn't the structure the property of the leasor? If you have a 99 year lease, there is value attached to the structure and the landlord cannot enter or interfere in any way with the structure unless specified in the lease. I may be mistaken, but that is the standard lease situation in UK, albeit residential. There may be differences in commercial leasing.
No, the structure isn't the property of the lessee (renter). Implicit in the lease is that any improvements to the property (other than "trade fixtures" such as display cases in a store, special lighting etc.) is done at the peril of the lessee. Yes it is true that the lessor cannot enter and interfere (unless as specified in the lease), but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what happens after the lease is up... can he increase the rent, or even refuse to renew, thereby kicking CONCACAF out of the Marvin Lee.
Oh, I see. Yes, I'm with you. I guess the first question is: How long is the lease? It would be financial folly to build a structure with less than 25 years lease and an option to renew. Personally, I would insist on 35 years minimum. However, that is based on a business plan to recover your initial capital outlay. In this instance, CONCACAF would class the outlay as a gift, so wouldn't be concerned with capital recovery. However, one must ask the question: When the funds were donated, was it stipulated that all profits from the structure be returned to CONCACAF. That certainly should have been the case.
This really is an issue that CONCACAF should investigate and decide on the legitimacy of the contract.
-
I would love to see who here have the belly to come and try to take the Marvin Lee Stadium from Jack.
That will be a joke, no one on this planet could do that. !!!
Jack will raise again. !!!!!!
Excuse me, be is Jack Warner some kind of superior being to whom laws do not apply? Belly? What belly yuh talkin bout? If all Jack does is above board, whats the problem? Why are you being so defensive? But if there has been some chicanery involved, then it should be exposed and the perpetrator prosecuted. That's how the legal system works.
-
Ok, but without seeming to disagree with your input, isn't the structure the property of the leasor? If you have a 99 year lease, there is value attached to the structure and the landlord cannot enter or interfere in any way with the structure unless specified in the lease. I may be mistaken, but that is the standard lease situation in UK, albeit residential. There may be differences in commercial leasing.
No, the structure isn't the property of the lessee (renter). Implicit in the lease is that any improvements to the property (other than "trade fixtures" such as display cases in a store, special lighting etc.) is done at the peril of the lessee. Yes it is true that the lessor cannot enter and interfere (unless as specified in the lease), but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what happens after the lease is up... can he increase the rent, or even refuse to renew, thereby kicking CONCACAF out of the Marvin Lee.
Oh, I see. Yes, I'm with you. I guess the first question is: How long is the lease? It would be financial folly to build a structure with less than 25 years lease and an option to renew. Personally, I would insist on 35 years minimum. However, that is based on a business plan to recover your initial capital outlay. In this instance, CONCACAF would class the outlay as a gift, so wouldn't be concerned with capital recovery. However, one must ask the question: When the funds were donated, was it stipulated that all profits from the structure be returned to CONCACAF. That certainly should have been the case.
This really is an issue that CONCACAF should investigate and decide on the legitimacy of the contract.
Yeah agree that these would all be pertinent questions... you would think that a right of first refusal for the current tenant (CONCACAF) would be insisted upon, so that they have the first option to renew before a new tenant can come in. In the least all profits from the conversion of title should go to the TTFF, and not to any one individual.
-
Fellas, I, for one minute never, never thought that the CoC did not belong to Jack because he say it belong to CONCACAF. We really have to be naive. Remember there was someone before Blatter. Havelange. Remember, Jack was like Havelange son. Anything Havelange wanted from CONCACAF and to some extent Africa, he got votes with the help of Jack. So the CoC is Havelange's present to Jack for his complete loyalty to him(Havelange). The WC in the US was a big turning point for FIFA. 24 countries. All the stadiums, capacity over 60 thousand(except RFK 53 thou) were all filled up. big payday for FIFA. Jack was a catalyst in that. So Havelange rewarded him with money to build the COC. Most football people from the past(60s, 70s,80s) know that belong to him despite all the Concacf name rights.
-
I would love to see who here have the belly to come and try to take the Marvin Lee Stadium from Jack.
That will be a joke, no one on this planet could do that. !!!
Jack will raise again. !!!!!!
who have the belly to pay the fu#king soca warriors ???
-
So Bakes (honestly I eh read through all what you and FS write), I f I rent piece ah land from you for 5 years, and I build ah house, after five years you say you not leasing me the land anymore, the house is yours?
-
So Bakes (honestly I eh read through all what you and FS write), I f I rent piece ah land from you for 5 years, and I build ah house, after five years you say you not leasing me the land anymore, the house is yours?
This is the usual way with leasehold. You see many businesses move for this reason. But usually, the lease is long enough for you to recover your capital. One of the most famous leases was China leasing Hong Kong to the UK for 99 years which ended in 1997. Another is Guantanamo Bay.
-
So Bakes (honestly I eh read through all what you and FS write), I f I rent piece ah land from you for 5 years, and I build ah house, after five years you say you not leasing me the land anymore, the house is yours?
Build your house on wheels
-
I would love to see who here have the belly to come and try to take the Marvin Lee Stadium from Jack.
That will be a joke, no one on this planet could do that. !!!
Jack will raise again. !!!!!!
Excuse me, be is Jack Warner some kind of superior being to whom laws do not apply? Belly? What belly yuh talkin bout? If all Jack does is above board, whats the problem? Why are you being so defensive? But if there has been some chicanery involved, then it should be exposed and the perpetrator prosecuted. That's how the legal system works.
I never said Jack was superior, I said he cannot be touched.
He owns the land and build the MLS with his money.
How can one just feel they can come and take it away ?
-
So Bakes (honestly I eh read through all what you and FS write), I f I rent piece ah land from you for 5 years, and I build ah house, after five years you say you not leasing me the land anymore, the house is yours?
it all depends on what the lease says. If you don't have permission to build then yuh out ah luck. If yuh do have permission, a court might say "nah, dat ent fair", and give yuh something for the property. But the landowner always free to up the rent. In the alternative yuh always free to break it down and take it with yuh... provided yuh ent significantly damage the property in the process, or else you on the hook fuh dat. Which is why is a gamble to build any kinda structure on property that isn't yours. Why would you want to do that anyways?
For businesses, sometimes it might make sense to run the risk. In the US at least you could always write off the capital depreciation of the property so that in the long term giving up the property to the landowner might be a wash. But you could same way buy, build and sell later, if you ask me.
-
So Bakes (honestly I eh read through all what you and FS write), I f I rent piece ah land from you for 5 years, and I build ah house, after five years you say you not leasing me the land anymore, the house is yours?
it all depends on what the lease says. If you don't have permission to build then yuh out ah luck. If yuh do have permission, a court might say "nah, dat ent fair", and give yuh something for the property. But the landowner always free to up the rent. In the alternative yuh always free to break it down and take it with yuh... provided yuh ent significantly damage the property in the process, or else you on the hook fuh dat. Which is why is a gamble to build any kinda structure on property that isn't yours. Why would you want to do that anyways?
For businesses, sometimes it might make sense to run the risk. In the US at least you could always write off the capital depreciation of the property so that in the long term giving up the property to the landowner might be a wash. But you could same way buy, build and sell later, if you ask me.
Actually, its a very sound investment for both the leasee and the leasor. Land historically increases in value, so if you own land but lack the finance to build, you can lease the land for a fixed period, say 50 years, and retain ownership. This is common with trust funds, pension funds etc. A hectre (2.5 acres) of land in London in 1983 would have been worth around £750,000. Now it would be worth £5.5 million. So, you keep the land and rent it for, say £12,000 per year, which earns you £360,000 and the land increases by over £4.5 million.
To the leasor, its also a good deal. They may not have the finance to buy the land. Once the land is obtained by lease, they can borrow against the completed value to build. Usually the calculation of value is one third land, one third build, one third profit. So, if the land cost £750k, it would cost approx £750k to build with a final value of £2.25 million. The building value will increase over time, but once the lease length reaches 15 years remaining, it will begin to decrease.
The reason this is a good deal for the leasor, is that they will rent the building, usually as office space. Currently a 1,000 sq ft office in an unfashionable section of Central London will cost you around £2,200 per month. If you have 10 offices in your building, that equals £22,000 per month or £264,000 per year. Even allowing for lower rent in some years, you can still expect to make around 500% profit over 30 years. Then you can renegotiate the lease or just walk away.
Tottenham Hotspur purchased nearly all of the land surrounding their White Hart Lane Stadium in the 1920's & 30's. They then leased the land for shops, offices and flats. Over the last 20 years they have failed to renew leases and now have plans to flatten it all, sell some land to a developer and that money will pay for their new stadium plus blocks of flats which they will rent out.
The point of all this is that if Warner owned the land and leased it to CONCACAF, he could make a killing if he charged a high rent. And he can simply refuse to renew it at the end of the term. Its also a great asset to borrow against, as there is a fixed income.
Sorry if this became boring!!
-
Nice thread fellas. Learning a ting or two or three or four. I didn't know that Jack build the MLS either.
-
Well as a matter of housekeeping let's get the terms straight:
Lessor= landlord
Lessee= tenant
Next, I would disagree that such an arrangement would ever make any kind of sense for the tenant, there simply is no upside. My educated guess (not being a mortgage banker) is that you can't borrow against a structure on property owned by others. Not saying that the structure is value less, but such an arrangement is fraught with problems, not the least being the very real threat of litigation. I don't see a lender voluntarily entering into such an arrangement. If the landowner ever wants to sell he can, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, not even the leaseholder.
If there's is ever a dispute over money owed, real property takes precedent over any other kind of interest, so the landowner's interest always takes precedence over the note holding lender. At any rate we could go on and on, but all of this is not only hypothetical, but probably moot as well... for all we know Jack own both land and building.
-
Well as a matter of housekeeping let's get the terms straight:
Lessor= landlord
Lessee= tenant
Next, I would disagree that such an arrangement would ever make any kind of sense for the tenant, there simply is no upside. My educated guess (not being a mortgage banker) is that you can't borrow against a structure on property owned by others. Not saying that the structure is value less, but such an arrangement is fraught with problems, not the least being the very real threat of litigation. I don't see a lender voluntarily entering into such an arrangement. If the landowner ever wants to sell he can, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, not even the leaseholder.
If there's is ever a dispute over money owed, real property takes precedent over any other kind of interest, so the landowner's interest always takes precedence over the note holding lender. At any rate we could go on and on, but all of this is not only hypothetical, but probably moot as well... for all we know Jack own both land and building.
Bakes is right, a lender would not likely enter into such an agreement because prior creditors who have a security interest would, in most cases, take priority over later mortgages. Among one of the issues that would be interesting to determine is whether a lease between Warner and CONCACAF ever existed and if not what constitutes adverse possession according to T&T land law. Another item that may be worth looking into is how Warner established title to the property and whether T&T is a race or notice jurisdiction when it comes to recording the deed.
-
Interesting indeed. We will have to find out who own the land and see what the real scene is.
I have been told that even prior to Jack becoming a minister one of his biggest scams was to pay a lil money to ppl in town and country to put his name on any piece of land that was in dispute or available. Very ingenious. Jack Horner must be so proud
-
The land is now own by Warner.
Good luck to any fool who things they could take back the MLS.
Jack will raise again !!!!!
-
Jack will raise again !!!!!
true
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2544035334_64242f16e9.jpg)
-
The land is now own by Warner.
Good luck to any fool who things they could take back the MLS.
Jack will raise again !!!!!
Don't talk too bold, I'm sure T&T has their own version of Eminent Domain and if the reports of your boy fighting for his political survival both in Cabinet and party leadership; what would keep the PP from taking the property in order to get back into good graces of the public?
-
Like you don't realise Jack runs T&T, what PP you talking about Mr Tempo, PP is in Jack pocket, don't be fooled by politics, especially the ones who come on TV.
Jack bought the land a while ago, the CFU account can't be found, I can guarantee you that no one can touch Jack on this.
-
Well as a matter of housekeeping let's get the terms straight:
Lessor= landlord
Lessee= tenant
Next, I would disagree that such an arrangement would ever make any kind of sense for the tenant, there simply is no upside. My educated guess (not being a mortgage banker) is that you can't borrow against a structure on property owned by others. Not saying that the structure is value less, but such an arrangement is fraught with problems, not the least being the very real threat of litigation. I don't see a lender voluntarily entering into such an arrangement. If the landowner ever wants to sell he can, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, not even the leaseholder.
If there's is ever a dispute over money owed, real property takes precedent over any other kind of interest, so the landowner's interest always takes precedence over the note holding lender. At any rate we could go on and on, but all of this is not only hypothetical, but probably moot as well... for all we know Jack own both land and building.
Sorry, you are of course correct in your definition. Of course regarding a mortgage its the other way round...mortgagor is the borrower and mortgagee is the lender!
But regarding the rest I'm afraid I'm basing my explanations on the UK system whih appears to be different judging by your response.
Borrowing on a leased property requires no special criteria other than a minimum lease length with a longer term than the mortgage. If the landlord wishes to sell he may do providing the new landlord accepts the pre existing terms of the lease. The tenant becomes a sitting tenant which means their rights are prioritised above the landlord. A good example is UK councils who sold flats in their tower blocks. The property belongs to the purchaser for a predescribed term, while the fabric of the block, the land and access points belong to the council - the landlord.
I believe the Duke of Westminster owns most of Mayfair and shopping malls in places like Liverpool, with over £10 billion in value. He just missed out to a Qatar businessman to buy the U.S. Embassy in Grosvenor Square.
McDonalds makes most of its profits from land. When they can't buy, they lease land. In city centres, they will then sublet to other businesses. Property Management companies have sprung up all over such as Richmond Group in USA, who own over 15,000 apartments.
Anyway, I'm sorry this turned into a property debate!
-
But regarding the rest I'm afraid I'm basing my explanations on the UK system whih appears to be different judging by your response.
No, it's no different. We ARE talking about two different things though, or at least you are with this latest twist. What we were discussing earlier is a situation where A owns land and B owns a structure on that land, and 1) whether that's a wise arrangement into which to enter; and b) whether it would be possible to obtain a loan/would it be wise to lend money... in exchange for a security interest in B's structure on A's property.
What you have just described is a situation where A owns both the land and the structure, and B has a lease on either one or both land and structure. Of course C can lend, and B can get a loan on the lease on A's property. The loan would not be for a security interest in the property itself (as is the case in the first scenario); but rather the security interest would be in the lease, or the right to rent the property. Quite different.
Put another way, the lender would not be holding a note on the shack I build on your property, but rather, should I default on the loan he would have the right to take over the lease I now hold with you. He could operate a business, sublet to another etc.
------------------
As for Tempo's comments on adverse possession and whether TnT is a race, notice, or race-notice jurisdiction... I don't think any of that is implicated here as there appears to be no dispute as to ownership of the property.
-
As for Tempo's comments on adverse possession and whether TnT is a race, notice, or race-notice jurisdiction... I don't think any of that is implicated here as there appears to be no dispute as to ownership of the property.
True.
-
Excerpt from Foul by Andrew Jennings (http://www.amazon.com/Foul-Secret-Bribes-Rigging-Scandals/dp/0007208693):
He has been a beneficiary of international football and of the Caribbean in a most audacious way. They've even built a palace for him. It's called the Dr Joao Havelange Centre of Excellence in Trinidad.
It's purpose, according to Jack, is to raise football standards throughout CONCACAF. If the region really needed a football centre, they might have put it near the middle of the region, somewhere like Jamaica or Cuba, but it's in Trinidad, well south of most of Jack's regional football community.
It is a 6,000-seat football stadium with three practice fields, a swimming pool, offices, a conference hall and the 50-bed Sportel Inn for visiting officials.
At the planning stage, Warner calculated he would need US $16million to build his centre. But FIFA's total development budget for the years 1999 to 2002, for the entire region, came to $10m.
So, $16m for one small Caribbean island? Impossible! Not for Jack. There were presidential elections on FIFA's horizon and Jack controlled 35 votes.
Nobody, least of all Blatter, wanted to disappoint him. And so it was that the entire budget went to Warner, along witha $6m Union Bank of Switzerland loan.
Eighteen months after the centre's grand opening, FIFA wrote to Warner to tell him that, since he had yet to repay a cent of the $6m bank loan, FIFA would repay the money themselves.
However much FIFA handed over to Warner, he always asked for more. They had paid for the centre but they'd have to pay again to use it.
In August 2001, Warner demanded $77,000 for four-day refereeing seminars, at Macoya and in Mexico City.
Blatter passed Warner's request to the Goal Bureau, run by his Qatari ally Mohamed Bin Hammam. No way would they agree to Warner's demand for $77,000. He must be given more! Urs Zanitti, secretary of the Goal department, faxed back that they wanted to give him the whole $105,500 cost of the course. Zanitti enthused: "We congratulate you on taking the initiative to organise such useful courses."
He might have been less impressed with Warner if he had known that the FIFA-funded centre was used for regional coaching and football development just three weeks of the year. It was hard to see what all those millions of dollars were doing for the great world family of football.
-
Blatter passed Warner's request to the Goal Bureau, run by his Qatari ally Mohamed Bin Hammam.
Dat name sounding familiar......where have I heard it before??.... :thinking: :-X
-
"So, $16m for one small Caribbean island? Impossible! Not for Jack. There were presidential elections on FIFA's horizon and Jack controlled 35 votes.
Nobody, least of all Blatter, wanted to disappoint him. And so it was that the entire budget went to Warner, along witha $6m Union Bank of Switzerland loan.
Eighteen months after the centre's grand opening, FIFA wrote to Warner to tell him that, since he had yet to repay a cent of the $6m bank loan, FIFA would repay the money themselves.
However much FIFA handed over to Warner, he always asked for more. They had paid for the centre but they'd have to pay again to use it."
payback is a bitch
-
If is one thing... yuh have to give it to Jack though...
He make hay while the sun shine... in fact he make ah mas :applause:
-
Someone could go to legal affairs and pay for a few incorporating document copies on the following:
DR. JOAO HAVELANGE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Business #433268
LIGHT POLE #17, MACOYA ROAD, TUNAPUNA
Registered on: 1996-10-09
Name Suffix:
Status: ACTIVE
SPORTEL (The on-site hotel)
Company #103780
11 EASTERN MAIN ROAD ST AUGUSTINE
Incorporated on: 1998-10-01
Name Suffix: LIMITED
Status: ACTIVE
THE CONFEDERATION FOR NORTH, CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL (CONCACAF)
Company #1000949
11 EDWARD STREET, PORT OF SPAIN.
Incorporated on: 1999-10-27
Name Suffix:
Status: ACTIVE
https://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/ TTD20, about US$3