- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
The lease could be written to protect the LLDC's rights even against a mortgagee-in-possession (the bank after it foreclosed on WHFC). But that would make it even harder for WHFC to persuade a bank to accept their OS lease as security.
The more I think about it, the less I can see any bank securing a loan on the West Ham lease.
Think I understand the legal theory of that.
But doesn't the basics of Wham lease read as if it has first rights to play its football matches there on say a maximum of 60 days a year, and that at all other times LLDC has right to do almost whatever it wants, so even if a lender could gain the benefit of the Wham lease it might at best have the right to use the stadium for those 60 days - and it might even be drafted so its only Wham can use the stadium for those 60 days, so the lender could not re-sell those rights.