GrangeParkCobbler
|
No not possible. They have issued a lease, well 2 in fact. They cannot just say we want it back.
Well all the reports at the time stated that the Council took back the leases in return for wiping out the debt liability from the club. This is one of them...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-34996932The Council were going to sell off the land and then use the proceeds to pay back the 10.25m. What happened? How did the land (leases) end up back with the club and CDNL???
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
|
|
|
Another Pedj
|
The land that was surrendered back to the council is not the same land for which the 2 leases have been granted. The 2 are very different.
|
|
|
|
guest2934
|
Warming up nicely isn't it!
At least we have some close season entertainment.
Can't we just swap with the cricket club? Always thought Sixfields would've been more suitable for cricket. Might have even got some one day internationals being close to the M1.
Knock the fucking abortion down and get out the Qualcast.
Owzat.
|
|
|
|
guest1269
|
In the absence of any definitive and gaureenteed benefits set in stone concrete metal and glass for the future benefits of for the Football club of Northampton and its public.. I believe the council have played a blinder. If theres nothing in it for our club, why are we bothered about any financial benefits to be gained for speculators? We need the supporters trust on the board that fights the clubs corner and that is objectionable.
No democratically elected body that does not respond either positively or indeed negatively to a legitimate request has played a blinder - and to suggest so is frankly idiotic and not in the interests of anyone. This aside any update on these local, non-speculators waiting in the wings you promised us - or they still residing in La La land?
|
|
|
|
guest143
|
Who can infiltrate the Council to conduct a putsch?
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
No not possible. They have issued a lease, well 2 in fact. They cannot just say we want it back.
They can if the holders of the lease renege on stipulations laid down in the agreement. Mind you, we are talking papers drawn up by NBC...so probably not.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
The land that was surrendered back to the council is not the same land for which the 2 leases have been granted. The 2 are very different.
Feel free to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Shadowstorm
|
I can see this getting very messy...if it isn't already.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
This is not quite true. I have checked with KT and it is literally a case of the council having granted two leases on the same part of land. CDNL want to surrender that part of their their lease. Therefore the Club will have the ‘only’ lease on that part of the land.
The extra land comment from the council is not true.
I admit it's confusing given all the variables, but looking at the papers Grange just posted it's not quite so straightforward. Setting the actual stadium aside, it looks as though NTFC held a lease covering the area of the athletics pitch, which they surrendered to the council to allow for the proposed development. NBC then issued a fresh lease to County Developments, which covered the athletics area and a significantly extended plot of land. Here may be the sticking point; NBC will not allow NTFC a lease covering the extended plot offered up to County, and why should they? Or does Kelvin want to hold on to the County plot, but release the athletics area back to the club's control? And all of this is assuming Pedj knows what he's talking about, and these plots are not included in what was supposed to have been surrendered back to the council. Who knows? Long and short of it, if KT is simply wanting to surrender the athletics area back to the club, then NBC's current stance makes little sense. But if KT is wanting to hold onto the extended plot - or for NTFC to acquire this plot - then I can sort of understand why NBC are fudging. Sure, he paid money to acquire County Developments, but NBC are still smarting from having their fingers burned. Kelvin Thomas should just come out and lay plans on the table. Show the fans exactly which area of land this issue covers, and name who will hold leases for this and the surrounding areas. Only then will we fans know which stance to support.
|
|
« Last Edit: May 24, 2018, 18:50:56 pm by JollyCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
I admit it's confusing given all the variables, but looking at the papers Grange just posted it's not quite so straightforward. Setting the actual stadium aside, it looks as though NTFC held a lease covering the area of the athletics pitch, which they surrendered to the council to allow for the proposed development. NBC then issued a fresh lease to County Developments, which covered the athletics area and a significantly extended plot of land.
Here may be the sticking point; NBC will not allow NTFC a lease covering the extended plot offered up to County, and why should they? Or does Kelvin want to hold on to the County plot, but release the athletics area back to the club's control?
And all of this is assuming Pedj knows what he's talking about, and these plots are not included in what was supposed to have been surrendered back to the council. Who knows?
Long and short of it, if KT is simply wanting to surrender the athletics area back to the club, then NBC's current stance makes little sense. But if KT is wanting to hold onto the extended plot - or for NTFC to acquire this plot - then I can sort of understand why NBC are fudging. Sure, he paid money to acquire County Developments, but NBC are still smarting from having their fingers burned.
Kelvin Thomas should just come out and lay plans on the table. Show the fans exactly which area of land this issue covers, and name who will hold leases for this and the surrounding areas. Only then will we fans know which stance to support.
I've been saying for the best part of 2 years (which I know most people disagree with) that we should be shown 'what we are going to get' on the assumption that the council gives KT what he wants. KT's reasoning for not giving out this information - 'we don't want to make promises unless we can actually delivery, unlike the last chairman' blah blah blah simply doesn't wash with me. I think thats bullsh1t basically. Whereas most people are happy with that stance. Id say about 85%! I think thats what it comes down to in terms of supporting KT on this issue or not. You are either happy playing 'secret santa' or you want to see what you can win first before trying to score 101 or more with 6 darts!
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
Could we turn the East Stand into some form of water park?
?
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
|
guest3063
|
We always seem to have something to talk about during the summer, don't we?
Reminds me of the last time we were in League 2. Takeover by Indian consortium announced before pre-season then possible liquidation, KT takeover and great but worrying (to start) season on the pitch.
Hopefully, it won't be as eventful this time off the pitch but I'll take the same on the pitch any day.
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
Sounds sensible, but also too much like hard work for a council who have shown themselves to be lazy, incompetent and completely indifferent to this whole saga (aside from the money they carelessly chucked away).
You are probably right but your summary on the Council is damning in the extreme. They did at least effectively save us!
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
You are probably right but your summary on the Council is damning in the extreme. They did at least effectively save us!
NBC saved us? Of course they bloody did; it was as much down to their ineptitude as it was the Cardozas' willful shenanigans that we ever found ourselves facing extinction.
|
|
|
|
Dr Feelgood
|
|
For goodness sake Doc we are NOT going down you heard it here 1st (I damn well hope that does not come back to haunt me)
|
|
|
|
LeeleeSTAR
|
All this for a stand that's a bloody ****-poor design anyway.
Indeed my hope is that by the time this is resolved the club have the money (either through a takeover or injection of money) to pull the abomination down and build a fresh new stand. I'm very doubtful of that occurring though.
|
|
|
|
guest3114
|
So on the one hand there is a council that can’t sort out a bit of paperwork? On the other there is a council that can put together a loan deal for over 10 million in about the same length of time? The contrast is extraordinary, what changed, how could they be so proactive one minute and so apathetic the next? Oh yes, Mackintosh, perhaps he wasn’t so bad after all, we should bring him back?
|
|
|
|
guest2995
|
The one thing this sorry saga cries out for is face to face communication . It is in both parties’ interests to resolve this before any more public embarrassment continues . Surely this can be facilitated
|
|
|
|
|