I’ve honestly heard no names.
My assumption (and it’s only that) although when I was told things it does make sense is that certain individuals who want to see value for money for the club before any land deal and have the ear of the council may have pointed out that there has been no redevelopment and no long term investment in the playing side of things showing only minimal commitment…
Maybe just maybe the council would like to see more tangible long term investment to help the future stability of the club to appease individuals concerns before green lighting a land acquisition.
I think it could be argued that is a valid point.
Maybe the board have realised without further long term commitment to the actual football club the chances of land acquisition are slimmer than a board that is fully behind a push for promotion.
Just the vibes I’m getting but as I say that makes sense to me and would perhaps begin to bridge the gap between board and individuals who currently seem against anyone profiting to the tune of millions without first showing long term commitment.
I’m pretty sure the next few days will be exciting and may begin to bring the waring factions closer together rather than leave them further apart than ever.
If correct that’s got to be a good thing….
* please note the positive post
Shoey you have over the years posted not too dissimilar 'information' which can be grossly misleading either by intention or otherwise! Fortunately you do advise that your theory is an assumption. Whether your assumption is correct or not ....will have to wait and see. Apologies for being a sceptic. Please try and get to a Cobblers game as every little helps!