Peter Frost
|
|
« Reply #360 on: September 23, 2022, 11:58:15 am » |
|
Why go to the trouble of removing that clause if you are, 100%, going to complete the stand? There is no logic in that whatsoever, is there? It was nothing to do with "like for like" with the Cilldara bid, as their bid never included the running track, CDNL's did. Maybe someone on here can come up with an explanation, have I missed something?
Sorry, for me there is plenty of logic - the first is in any business agreement remove as many clauses/conditions as possible and whilst it doesn't mean you are not going to do them but gives you options. The second and more psychological/brinkmanship reason is given some individuals have been very vocal re KT/DB running off with all the profits and not completing the stand the scenario pans out that he does indeed complete the stand as promised along with other positive actions like the training ground and he emerges the good guy whilst they just appear as naysayer with little remaining credibility. Of course the agenda will change - in fact it already has in that the same individual will be shouting "it should have been done sooner" or "it's a missed opportunity to do more with the land" etc etc - or perhaps with a significant degree of brass tech suggest it only happened because of their pressure.. I have never disagreed that it should have been done sooner and it would be great to have a more significant share of any land profits but I continue to disagree with the approach by some, since like it or not the owners have, and continue to hold most of the cards whilst working (being kind here) a weak and naive council. I know some individuals will label my post as anti trust - it's not but until people can take even a little step aside from their own beliefs on how things should be done they will always interpret it as thus. .....of course nothing has actually happened yet so I think there is still some milage to run.
|
|
|
|
JSO
|
|
« Reply #361 on: September 23, 2022, 11:58:25 am » |
|
I don't think the Trust can take the moral high ground after what was shown last night.
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
|
« Reply #362 on: September 23, 2022, 12:32:39 pm » |
|
Sorry, for me there is plenty of logic - the first is in any business agreement remove as many clauses/conditions as possible and whilst it doesn't mean you are not going to do them but gives you options.
The second and more psychological/brinkmanship reason is given some individuals have been very vocal re KT/DB running off with all the profits and not completing the stand the scenario pans out that he does indeed complete the stand as promised along with other positive actions like the training ground and he emerges the good guy whilst they just appear as naysayer with little remaining credibility. Of course the agenda will change - in fact it already has in that the same individual will be shouting "it should have been done sooner" or "it's a missed opportunity to do more with the land" etc etc - or perhaps with a significant degree of brass tech suggest it only happened because of their pressure..
I have never disagreed that it should have been done sooner and it would be great to have a more significant share of any land profits but I continue to disagree with the approach by some, since like it or not the owners have, and continue to hold most of the cards whilst working (being kind here) a weak and naive council.
I know some individuals will label my post as anti trust - it's not but until people can take even a little step aside from their own beliefs on how things should be done they will always interpret it as thus.
.....of course nothing has actually happened yet so I think there is still some milage to run.
I don't disagree with anything you have said there bar I'm not sure the council are as weak and naive as some people believe. However, until Carlton or anyone else for that matter explain how the "No stand, No Land" clause could have ever been included in the improved CDNL offer the rest of the points you raise are kind of irrelevant. The question shouldn't be why it was removed but how could you include a clause that was no longer physically possible. I suggest the reason that nobody ever answers that question is a) they don't understand the deal properly or b) it suits their argument to say it was done for nefarious reasons or maybe even both.
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
|
« Reply #363 on: September 23, 2022, 12:33:22 pm » |
|
I don't think the Trust can take the moral high ground after what was shown last night.
What do you mean exactly?
|
|
|
|
Peter Frost
|
|
« Reply #364 on: September 23, 2022, 12:48:13 pm » |
|
The question shouldn't be why it was removed but how could you include a clause that was no longer physically possible.
Sorry I still don't get this point - the argument I heard at the time was to render the two offers more "like for like" - but they never were as they involved differing pockets of land so why was it physically impossible to keep that clause in?
|
|
|
|
CobblersToMePod
|
|
« Reply #365 on: September 23, 2022, 12:54:31 pm » |
|
Hi everyone, The recording of last night's event is now available to listen to on our podcast feed. Firstly, let me apologise for the sound quality as it isn't the best. Unfortunately, one of the microphone's didn't work properly and it was the one the Kelvin was meant to be using. I've done my best with what was captured and you can hear everything that was said. However, the quality isn't great and for that, as a professional audio person, I apologise. Thanks to those who came last night. I'm glad I didn't have to resort to the list of questions I'd pre-prepared. And thanks to the club for asking us to host once more. Anyway, here's the direct link to the recording - https://player.captivate.fm/episode/0bfbaa00-5511-418c-9bbb-0f5f3340b83dYou'll also find it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and all the other podcast players as soon as they update. Charles
|
|
|
|
JSO
|
|
« Reply #366 on: September 23, 2022, 13:15:56 pm » |
|
What do you mean exactly?
Some of the things that were shown last night about some of the Trust board is shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
|
« Reply #368 on: September 23, 2022, 14:08:27 pm » |
|
I look forward with interest to the Trusts response on these points raised.
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
|
« Reply #369 on: September 23, 2022, 14:11:17 pm » |
|
I look forward with interest to the Trusts response on these points raised.
I'm sure it will be verbose and angry, assuming Johnny Boy's head doesn't explode before he's finished typing it
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
Tabasco Kid
|
|
« Reply #370 on: September 23, 2022, 14:22:44 pm » |
|
WOW. Which just goes to prove the point, watch what you post on social media, certain people did themselves no favours whatsoever.
|
Were in the pipe 5 by 5.
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
|
« Reply #371 on: September 23, 2022, 14:37:14 pm » |
|
Sorry I still don't get this point - the argument I heard at the time was to render the two offers more "like for like" - but they never were as they involved differing pockets of land so why was it physically impossible to keep that clause in?
It was not about being "like for like" in terms of the exact land more "like for like" on the offer Cilldara made. Easiest way to explain is to compare the offers: CDNL first offer £790k was an OPTION TO BUY. This bit is important because it was what enabled "No Stand No Land". In simple terms CDNL finish the East Stand within 5 years and they then can execute an option to purchase the development land at the agreed price. If they don't finish within five years the Council keep the development land. Downside for the council they potentially don't get any money for 5 years if at all. Upside massive incentive for CDNL to complete the stand as it unlocks the supposed riches of the development land. Cilldara come in with various higher monetary bids and eventually also agree to indemnify the Council against legal costs to break the CDNL leases on the dev land. Upside for the council much more money, all paid up front not an "Option To Buy" like above. Downside it's reliant on Cilldara legally breaking the lease and the risk they might not be able to. CDNL at this point could have stuck with the original offer. The council were obligated to, legally, accept the offer that provided best consideration for the tax payer financially. So which of those two should they accept? CDNL clearly felt they were likely to lose the deal so therefore offered a deal more "like for like" in that it was a straight purchase of the dev land not an "Option To Buy" and matched Cilldara financially, at the time it was made. Essentially CDNL said to the council we will make it easier for you. Here's £2m up front as soon as we complete contracts no potential 5 year wait with a risk of non completion. Upside council get way more money and much sooner than 5 years or never. Downside control over the dev land is given up straight away on completion so you physically can't do "No stand, No Land" cause they already have the land. I've missed loads of other detail and I'm not trying to provide an exact timeline here, before anyone comments, I'm simply trying to demonstrate why the CDNL deal HAD to change their offer. So next time someone says I still want "No Stand, No Land" I think it's perfectly fair to ask how they would achieve that given the reality of the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
guest3529
|
|
« Reply #372 on: September 23, 2022, 15:00:59 pm » |
|
I look forward with interest to the Trusts response on these points raised.
So do I. For starters there's 2 allegations from the club there of the Trust lying to the council. I'm in no way legally qualified, nevertheless I struggle to see how those quotes can be viewed as lies. They are beliefs expressed as such. It's for the council to interprete how they see fit, presumably after also taking council from others, the club included. Personally I think it's quite sad that the club have felt the need to stoop to this level. They are clearly rattled by the Trust, which I find surprising. I assumed most fans are already on side with the club and I thought the club assumed that too. All this diatribe does for me now is make me think its not so cut and dried and that the Trust may indeed have something valid to offer.
|
|
|
|
|
1971cobbler
|
|
« Reply #374 on: September 23, 2022, 15:24:58 pm » |
|
Ok, so this isn't great reading, but we need to be careful here as this is from one side only. I would welcome the Trust response to all of these matters to allow me to form a more complete opinion. It's good to hear about the upgrade on the training facilities.
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
|
« Reply #375 on: September 23, 2022, 16:11:00 pm » |
|
Probably a good time to break my silence!!
Firstly, the presentation as laid out by the club for supporters to see last night and now in writing does not make great reading and certainly shows or at least attempts to show the Trust board, certain board members in particular, in a very bad light.
What I would say is that as posted above, this is one side of the story, and for me a lot of it has no context added and can be read in a number of ways. I was not involved in 2018 so I can't go back that far and relate to any of this with any certainty. I am still somewhat surprised that the club have felt they needed to go to this level to basically rubbish the Trust. It shows how far downhill relationships have got.
I might expect the Trust to come back with their own "mudslinging stories", and believe me there are a few of those too!!
For everyones information though I now announce that I resigned from the Trust Board on 30th August. There were a number of reasons for this, pressure of my work, family related issues, but also I found myself to not agree with some of the Trusts methods and the direction of travel on certain issues. That's all i'm going to say on the matter!
I'm not the first to resign from the Trust board and I won't be the last! I just want to get back to posting normally on here without having to face questions about this that and the other!!
I have tried to remain a "moderate" throughout the whole process and have hopefully stayed away from personal attacks on anyone, and I think by and large people have done the same with me. I'm not confrontational on here, have tried to remain calm and measured but even that was becoming difficult in the end!!
I have been active on here for many years, did a lot of digging into the Cardoza plans and subsequent unravelling of them. My actions in the past few weeks do not mean suddenly that i'm "pro-owners"...I still think there is a lot of talk and in my opinion have seen very little action in the past seven years. So my feelings towards certain aspects have not changed. I will still comment and criticise as I see fit, and also give praise where praise is due.
I hope you will understand the reasons for my silence in the past few weeks, and as I say i'm not going to go into any more detail about anything on that matter.
I still want what I truly believe that we all want, that is the best for our football club, but I will do that as a regular supporter now, not as a Trust Board member.
UTC..... GPC..... Simon
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
|
« Reply #376 on: September 23, 2022, 16:15:21 pm » |
|
I've got to admit when I saw the comments on this thread I was expecting it to be worse than it actually is. Maybe it's just me but I'm not shocked by any of the social media posts because I reckon I read most of them at the time and plenty more that weren't even mentioned. Add to this that certain board members/advisors have secondary twitter accounts that are anonymous where they sometimes make far worse comments or accusations. I've even seen a certain advisor reply to his own tweet using a different account!
It's been going on for years and people have been warned many times their online conduct would come back to bite them. It's just bizarre that you would accuse the Council/Senior Councillors of being corrupt when they are the very people you need to work with on a professional level.
It's just all so depressingly avoidable and could so easily be better.
|
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
|
« Reply #377 on: September 23, 2022, 16:20:42 pm » |
|
Fair play GPC. You've always been a moderate voice and I'm sure we have all appreciated your attempts to mediate between the different strong personalities involved.
On the one hand I think it's a shame that the Trust have lost a cool head and temperate voice, but on the other I think you are better off out of it!
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
Tom
|
|
« Reply #378 on: September 23, 2022, 16:23:09 pm » |
|
It's really sad to see how some trust board members have behaved, not just to the club which is bad enough but to the very fans it's supposed to represent.
I hadn't seen some of the social media posts until today but there is some astonishingly unprofessional behavior.
The trust needs to take a very very long hard look at itself. In its current form, with its current board members & with the behavior demonstrated in that presentation, I'm ashamed that it's associated with our club.
It's also a shame that the trust is taking the spotlight here as there are quite a few really bright things in that presentation, training facilities, improvements to scouting etc
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
|
« Reply #379 on: September 23, 2022, 16:26:18 pm » |
|
Probably a good time to break my silence!!
Firstly, the presentation as laid out by the club for supporters to see last night and now in writing does not make great reading and certainly shows or at least attempts to show the Trust board, certain board members in particular, in a very bad light.
What I would say is that as posted above, this is one side of the story, and for me a lot of it has no context added and can be read in a number of ways. I was not involved in 2018 so I can't go back that far and relate to any of this with any certainty. I am still somewhat surprised that the club have felt they needed to go to this level to basically rubbish the Trust. It shows how far downhill relationships have got.
I might expect the Trust to come back with their own "mudslinging stories", and believe me there are a few of those too!!
For everyones information though I now announce that I resigned from the Trust Board on 30th August. There were a number of reasons for this, pressure of my work, family related issues, but also I found myself to not agree with some of the Trusts methods and the direction of travel on certain issues. That's all i'm going to say on the matter!
I'm not the first to resign from the Trust board and I won't be the last! I just want to get back to posting normally on here without having to face questions about this that and the other!!
I have tried to remain a "moderate" throughout the whole process and have hopefully stayed away from personal attacks on anyone, and I think by and large people have done the same with me. I'm not confrontational on here, have tried to remain calm and measured but even that was becoming difficult in the end!!
I have been active on here for many years, did a lot of digging into the Cardoza plans and subsequent unravelling of them. My actions in the past few weeks do not mean suddenly that i'm "pro-owners"...I still think there is a lot of talk and in my opinion have seen very little action in the past seven years. So my feelings towards certain aspects have not changed. I will still comment and criticise as I see fit, and also give praise where praise is due.
I hope you will understand the reasons for my silence in the past few weeks, and as I say i'm not going to go into any more detail about anything on that matter.
I still want what I truly believe that we all want, that is the best for our football club, but I will do that as a regular supporter now, not as a Trust Board member.
UTC..... GPC..... Simon
Thanks for the time you gave to it and while we disagreed on many aspects I think it will be a big blow to the Trust Board that you are no longer part of it. The big shame for me is that people like yourself and others like Drilling etc. step away rather than being able to change it for the better from within. However I realise that's easier said than done although we keep getting told we should all do so ourselves. Maybe you could return one day when the Trust becomes more what it should always have been than what it has become. I'd hate for it to disappear completely. Enjoy being a supporter again...we've missed your pre match write ups.
|
|
|
|
|