Another Pedj
|
The initial injection was I believe £1.25M This increased to approx £1.5M but additional losses have accumulated over the last year. They are looking to recover the cash injections to date this plus a premium, hence why none of the interested parties have come forward with an acceptable offer.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
The initial injection was I believe £1.25M This increased to approx £1.5M but additional losses have accumulated over the last year. They are looking to recover the cash injections to date this plus a premium, hence why none of the interested parties have come forward with an acceptable offer.
Would that be the same as the mythical £8.5m cardoza put in which despite being enough to expand the staduim to 12,000 and still have £5m to spend on players, we had jack s*** to show for it? Why didnt KT use that money, £1.2m on finishing the east and the other £300k to keep us in league 1? With the improved gates in L1, the previous 2 years of selling 15 corporate boxes would not only have repaid his initial investment but we would've been making an extra £1m a year more now than we are. There is no excuse for lack of investment when we have such poor infrastructure, if he's really spunked that amount of money, which I dont believe, then more fool him for trying to buck the trend that he has now found out always results in relegation and melt down.
|
|
|
|
Another Pedj
|
The initial injection was to pay the Paye, the 2/3 months unpaid salaries, more for some backroom staff and other creditors. In addition the legal bills relating to the deal including David Cardozas costs.
Additional funds were required before the club was in a break even position. This was established until last season and then....
If you can get a fans led consortium then please do but i at least prepare a meaningful business plan rather than your constant waffle. If its that easy ask your self why all these local businessman havent snapped his hand off.
|
|
|
|
meccanostand
|
The initial injection was I believe £1.25M This increased to approx £1.5M but additional losses have accumulated over the last year. They are looking to recover the cash injections to date this plus a premium, hence why none of the interested parties have come forward with an acceptable offer.
We'll have to take your figures with a pinch of salt but if we did take them on face value. If you had £1.5 million + and were interested in the club would you hand that over to cover what could be sunk (unrecoverable) costs from Bower's running of the club? Unlikely. You'd wait until the club was next up for sale at a fair price. Clubs are well known money pits, the way you increase their value is via infrastructure, significant fan-base growth and ultimately success on the pitch and access to improved TV payments. The current owners as yet have done little on these fronts. The club has minimal infrastructure, potentially accumulated losses that you point out and an East Stand to finish etc etc. We all laughed at Giovanni De Stefano who offered a pound, Cardoza said in court he traded it to the Bower consortium for a quid. There's a pattern forming.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 16:06:45 pm by meccanostand »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
The initial injection was to pay the Paye, the 2/3 months unpaid salaries, more for some backroom staff and other creditors. In addition the legal bills relating to the deal including David Cardozas costs.
Additional funds were required before the club was in a break even position. This was established until last season and then....
If you can get a fans led consortium then please do but i at least prepare a meaningful business plan rather than your constant waffle. If its that easy ask your self why all these local businessman havent snapped his hand off.
When there is pay dirt to be extracted those digging are very protective of their land, there was no way anyone else was getting a look in these past 15 years. This time the pay out looks like being half the running track secured for the sums of money needed to take over our football club, so this initial outlay was for land and not to benefit the football club perhaps? You need to remember its the clubs fans and sponsors that keep this club alive and will go on doing so long after this latest lot cashes in.
|
|
|
|
Another Pedj
|
So no plan then!
I will go once more then leave it. The land as it stands has no value to the current owners or indeed any prospective owners of NTFC. It requires the council to grant planning permission. I am not au fait with development terms or regulations but this land was I believe part of a special designated area. It is not worth anything until the Council says so.
The land is a red herring. The lease tidy up was to clarify the position but it does not produce a windfall for either the club or its shareholders
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
Pedj - thats how I understand it as well. Would the council, given that KT has p1ssed them off, grant planning permission in any case? I don't know or understand the legal stuff but I don't think its a case of land is worth X amount etc.
As for the club itself, again from my understanding, projected losses this year/season/financial year were circa 1million quid. The wage bill is astronomical relative to this level of football. Id say (to add balance) that KT didn't sell anybody, invested in a new striker, and was prepared to carry those losses hoping that the team would do well. Whether he takes a similar approach in January, who knows.
If I came in with a £1 and he agreed to sell it to me, I suspect Id have to write off 400k-500k to see the season out. I could of course downsize the squad etc, but we are not exactly safe from the trap door are we? The squad needs investment in my opinion, for example KVV and Crookes leaving could be disastrous if they were not adequately replaced.
So either way, to get us through to next summer, you'd need circa 500k. Yeah, Im playing with numbers here, but we are not talking about a few quid here and there.
Long term, buying into the club may be different, but with all of the large contracts currently in place Id have thought it would make it doubly difficult to convince a buyer to part with anything more than a token £1, not factoring in the land/potential there. If I had 100million quid sitting in a drawer Id offer him a pound, as I would have done under DC. No more and no less. Id agree to take on the losses and split the profits from any money made on the land so he/they get their money back and a bit more. Maybe.
|
|
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 17:54:14 pm by DrillingCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
So no plan then!
I will go once more then leave it. The land as it stands has no value to the current owners or indeed any prospective owners of NTFC. It requires the council to grant planning permission. I am not au fait with development terms or regulations but this land was I believe part of a special designated area. It is not worth anything until the Council says so.
The land is a red herring. The lease tidy up was to clarify the position but it does not produce a windfall for either the club or its shareholders
Thomas has had 3.5 years to clarify his position as to what he intended to do with the club and any proposed redevelopment etc, he chose to stay silent and keep his nut down so why should we worry if the land he fought so hard to aquire disappears down a bloody great sink hole? It's his all his own doing not our football club. Unlike us lot, they have no ambition for NTFC beyond the cash out date. So whilst these latest lot are still ensconced theres little point in our football trust producing a plan, but it's good to to put forward ideas just incase.
|
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
Ask yourselves the question - why are our owners here in the first place? For the love of football and, specifically, NTFC or the opportunity (real or imaginary) of a significant killing on the adjoining land? Both? DB has a long history in football?
Before people come on here reminding us that the CDNL land is contaminated remember London Docklands, Salford Quays, Meadowhall etc etc.
PS. In case it has escaped attention KT has reduced his 22.5% holding in Ventures to 10%. DB owns 90%. The ownership of CDNL remains 50% each DB/KT according to the latest available public information.
|
|
|
|
|