For those reading this account it may be difficult for them to understand why a dispute should exist when the parties involved are so close to agreement in reality. Stranger still, after two years of the new Trustees being in place, they and the Club have never met and they clearly need to do so in an atmosphere conducive to a resolution. However, the devil is, as is often said, in the detail and with a Court case for the repossession of the property, by the Trustees, being heard on the 16th February 2009, there appears to be an urgent need to encourage the Trustees and the Club to meet with a view to a settlement with the legal action being dropped.

The Club at The Grange was the creation of the original

Trustees, circa 1949. In order to regularise that situation it appears that they convinced the company, Walter Somers Ltd, to sign over the property to them and also formally recognise their responsibilities and desires to make a first class Club with fabulous social and recreational facilities. Therefore, although the Club had opened in 1951, its creation by the Trustees was retrospectively formalised in a Trust Deed of 1952. This legitimised that which had already been done by the Trustees. It is hoped that this point is now clear?

Additionally, for the Club to function satisfactorily it needed to be available to the public and therefore the Trustees, in those early days, created Associate Membership. For sensible and pragmatic reasons they recognised that Associate Members were essential:

1. to make the Club financially viable;
   

2. to allow employees to regularly socialise at the Club with non-employee friends;
   

3. to enhance competition opportunities to maximize the benefit of the recreational facilities.
   

It has been a huge success and was a sensible move without which the Club would not be in existence and popular today.

The Trustees, within the terms of the 1952 Trust Deed, have the responsibility to maintain the property and recreational facilities as well as administer the Trust. However, the close and informal relationship between the Trustees and the Club has consistently brought forth the financial wherewithal to address those needs. In brief, for the large part, the Club have paid up for the Trustees and in that vein has continued to voluntarily do so.

Before moving on we need to consider that the Trustees were created in 1929 by Walter Somers Ltd. The Trustees were required to administer a fund, provided by the Company, for the employees and their families to potentially support them in times of particular need, primarily in matters relating to education and health. It is a discretionary Trust designed for its time of implementation and largely, for most people, with the subsequent advent of the National Health Service and State Education, is of little significance in today’s circumstances. In consequence, it is believed that there are no claimants and there haven't been any for a considerable time. It should therefore take minimal finance to manage that Trust.

So what is the problem that has only manifested itself in the period of the new Trustees?

Well the new Trustees, unlike their predecessors, have not wanted a close relationship with the Club. They have communicated exclusively through their solicitor Trustee and the Club have felt the need to respond in kind against their better judgment and financial abilities. It has cost the Club over £20,000 to do so and has depleted their financial reserves to breaking point.

The Trustees do not believe that the Club should continue to use the premises rent free whilst the Club has a substantial number of membership paying members who would not be eligible to be potential beneficiaries of the 1929 Trust Deed.  Furthermore the Trustees believe that their demands for a staged rent payment as well as calling for substantial building improvement work is reasonable and affordable for the Club. The Trustees also want to impose a five year lease. The Trustees are vexed with the Club because at the eleventh hour the Club would not sign that lease.

The Trustees explain that the property is their sole asset from which they can derive income to manage the Trusts created in the Trust Deeds of 1929/1952. They infer that the repossession order is a last resort.

On the other hand, the not-for-profit Club has felt besieged by this new situation that they unwillingly find themselves in after nearly 60 years of an harmonious relationship between themselves and all former Trustees. With the removal of the two former Trustees and the formal relationship with the new ones, without one-to -one informal meetings to promote understanding, the Club have hitherto felt compelled to cooperate with the new Trustees demands in order to sustain the Club for members. Members include those who would potentially be financial beneficiaries of the new Trustees - if they had grounds for a claim that the Trustees were prepared to approve. The Club have felt frustrated because they feel that they are being penalised for the successful years of maintaining the Club appropriately in the manner that the founding Trustees desired. They could not sign the five year lease because the Club could not service the rent and other demands for major expenditure. Even if they could have managed the financial demands, imposed on them by the new Trustees, such a short lease would not give the security of tenure that is required for such a commitment. Furthermore, they considered it inappropriate for the Club to potentially sign away the rights and benefits conveyed in the Trust Deed which lasts for 21 years after the death of our current Queen. The Club believes that the moral right to do so should not be vested with them but with all the potential beneficiaries and the position regarding identifying who such beneficiaries are is far from clear.

They, like the founding Trustees, recognise the importance of Associate Membership to financial survival and do not consider that the 1952 Trust Deed defines clearly that the Club and use of The Grange was ever a benefit aimed exclusively towards those having defined employment links with Walter Somers Ltd - a company that no longer trades.

The Club points out that they have always taken responsibility for the Trustees duties in respect of maintaing the property and that the former Trustees ran the Trusts with minimal expenditure. As such the Club believes that a formal agreement is possible with the Trustees but it must be realistic and reflect the ability to pay.

To restore the house, which was not carried out with and subsequent to the acquisition in 1949, would cost a fortune and is beyond the Club’s immediate means. With English Heritage and the Conservation Department of Dudley Council, the Club would be pleased to work to an agreed programme to protect the fabric of the building and encourage improvements in an intelligent plan of works as funds allow. With time and such a plan a restoration is possible. That logical approach should meet with the approval of the Trustees and the Club is also prepared to meet the running costs of the 1929 Deed. The Club cannot write an open cheque but believes that it can service these costs for the Trustees providing that the Trustees demonstrate financial prudence in minimising their expenditure in administration. The Club believes that the Trustees have spent a considerable amount of money in pursuing an objective that was unnecessary considering that the Club has hitherto always paid the running costs necessary to maintain the Trustees responsibilities in a financially prudent manner. The Club would willingly sign an agreement to make that arrangement formal.

It would appear that a way forward is available, particularly as all parties claim to wish to keep the Club at The Grange.