Ever wondered why Glasgow City Council did not put a copy of the Lease Agreement 2000 between themselves and Celtic on their website dedicated to the Land Transactions between the council & Celtic? Well it’s because the lease shows that the council lied and so did the Scottish government in it’s submission to the EU Competition Directorate clearing both the council and Celtic.
- There is NO end of lease condition giving Celtic any exclusive right to purchase Westthorn.
- There is NOTHING about valuation for sale at end of lease.
It’s only a lease. Here’s the link to the whole document.
Westthorn was declared Surplus by the council in April 2000 and should have been independently valued and competitively openly marketed and not just offered to Celtic. That appears to be the reason these ‘end of lease’ lies have been perpetuated.
Further information is given that the Scottish government’s justification for the Westthorn retrospective valuation their EU submission doesn’t match their criteria to satisfy the case.
And why did Glasgow City Council include Westthorn as a possible residential housing in their January 2008 East End Local Development Strategy document when they had decided in 2007 to sell it to a sports company? Why not sell housing land to developers in a competitive environment?
Lease Agreement 2000
Here is the start of the lease which was registered in 2002:
Term of the lease is from 10 November 2000 until 9 November 2005:
This is the only Arbitration clause:
There are no end of lease conditions on:
- Sale of Westthorn only to Celtic
- Any Valuation methods being defined as open market value less any allowance for abnormal ground works.
Again document hosted here. Try and find the end of lease conditions. Good luck.
Registers of Scotland Westthorn documents
These are the only registered documents related to Westthorn from 2000 to 2009:
Apart from the sale disposition, deed of servitude and Co-Op Bank security ranking in 2009 relating to the sale of Westthorn in 2009, the only agreement is B. the Lease Agreement starting in 2000 which was registered on 10 June 2002.
There was no sale agreement to Celtic until 2009 defined within the Lease Agreement 2000 or a separate agreement.
Scottish Government lied to EU on End of Lease Condition
“As a condition of the lease, the Club were obliged to acquire the site from the Council at it’s market value for residential development at the end of the lease”.
No there is no end of lease condition. The Scottish government did not check the lease which is publicly available on the Registers of Scotland.
The government followed Glasgow City Council’s lies in Item 6 the Development and Regeneration Services (DRS) report on the disposal 19 January 2007 statement:
There was no clause, there was nothing about open market value less any allowance for abnormal ground works. The Development and Regeneration Services lied and the council Executive Committee accepted those lies.
This is funny because the lease was defined and the responsibility of DRS who seem to be at the heart of each deception before and after the sale of Westthorn including the lack of independent valuation. Here is DRS (Property) Sub-committee minutes heading for 8 March 2000 and relevant section:
Note: The Director of DRS negotiated the terms and conditions of the lease. And that DRS report in 2000 is not available on the GCC website.
Westthorn Declared Surplus by the Council April 2000
Note that Development and Regeneration Services was made responsible for the disposal of Westthorn. The same department’s involvement seems to be at the core of controlling which land goes where. That’s a lot of power. No wonder DRS were so deceptive about only using the Celtic URS desk study from 2004 when they had years to do their own geotechnical report.
At End of Lease in November 2005
Celtic should have vacated Westthorn normally at end of lease.
Prior to the end of lease, Westthorn should have been valued independently by two separate qualified valuers, as a check against each other, which included abnormal deductions. Not by insiders in the DRS applying abnormals from the buyer, Celtic’s URS desk study. Neither of which was independent. It is too easy, as shown by the Savills report for the council to arrange an ‘independent’ report from mates who may be a supplier of future services.
Then Westthorn should have been marketed openly, transparently and competitively through an independent Property Adviser to get the Best Value for the council. Collusion is too easy with council insiders aligning themselves with asset purchasers.
Neither of the above happened. It was selectively only offered to Celtic under a lie maintained by Glasgow City Council and peddled to the EU by the Scottish government.
Scottish Government quoted comparative EU case
How this was relevant when the land sales to Celtic were agreed in 2007 and the Celtic Masterplan was not accepted by council until December 2009:
Also the East End Local Development Strategy (EELDS) wasn’t approved until January 2008.
Westthorn was not covered by any of the conditions relating to the quoted EU case above by the Scottish government therefore should not have been subject to a corrupt retrospective re-valuation by Savills for the EU submission to make it even more of a farce.
GCC presents Westthorn for Residential Housing in January 2008
Amazingly Westthorn/Westhorn was highlighted for residential development in the EELDS in Jan 2008.
Which begs the question since the council knew they were selling Westthorn/Westhorn to Celtic in 2007 why were they preparing a residential development brief in January 2008 for a piece of land they were selling to a sports club? Especially when housing developers would have been interested in Westthorn when it was declared surplus in 2000 but were totally ignored by the council/DRS being selective in only directing it to Celtic.