guest3338
|
You been told an equal amount of times that he was never going to do it unless the appropriate safeguards were put into place, and when he got the land… They we’re not incorporated into the negotiations. He didn't use the much fabled 4 million, except to bankroll us since. So that makes those that made that observation at the start of his tenure right. Activating smug mode Did he lie then. Ringfenced I thought means leaving to one side for a specific purpose? Or was he just really dumb and underestimated how much NTFC would take to run.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
You don't sound very grateful. For all your hyperbole it can't be denied that act saved the club
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
still haven't...
which to me is indicative that the treasure is pretty deep lying and hasn't been hidden by fools out of their depth (forgive the pun) Daddy bears gonna be 80 soon, I doubt he's too concerned about the future.
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
Did he lie then. Ringfenced I thought means leaving to one side for a specific purpose? Or was he just really dumb and underestimated how much NTFC would take to run.
Neither… He was just shrewder than the others in the room.
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
You don't sound very grateful. For all your hyperbole it can't be denied that act saved the club
And their necks. More importantly to them. Naivety abounds..
|
|
|
|
Grove
|
£3.5m and looks very basic. A lot of that must have been taking the old one down. Nice video though. There’d be a lot of sunrises/sunsets on ours!
And false dawns
|
|
|
|
Shoemender
|
Neither… He was just shrewder than the others in the room.
Don't know about shrewder. More brass neck maybe.
|
|
|
|
Larry
|
which to me is indicative that the treasure is pretty deep lying and hasn't been hidden by fools out of their depth (forgive the pun) Daddy bears gonna be 80 soon, I doubt he's too concerned about the future.
I still think they will put together a prosecution. Criminal law runs slowly, it's not governed by commercial factors and the longer it runs the more likely a result. AC has already had his brush with HMRC over vat and I'm sure they will like to bring him in after he's been living the high life from that dodgy deal.
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
Captain Tony and Private Eye was an interesting read. Certainly more of a shark than first thought
|
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
|
|
|
guest3338
|
Neither… He was just shrewder than the others in the room.
Shrewder? Operating losses of 7 million over six years with no end in sight is staggeringly shrewd.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
And their necks. More importantly to them. Naivety abounds.. Please explain why Mary Markham needed to write off the debt in order to save her own neck, why precisely it needed saving in the first place, and why you think writing off the debt curried more favour with the electorate than doing nothing and watching the Cobblers going under.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
I still think they will put together a prosecution. Criminal law runs slowly, it's not governed by commercial factors and the longer it runs the more likely a result. AC has already had his brush with HMRC over vat and I'm sure they will like to bring him in after he's been living the high life from that dodgy deal.
You could well be right and like all I hope justice prevails, but I disagree that they were out of their depth on a criminality scale, aside from perhaps the chairman.
|
|
|
|
Peter Frost
|
Shrewder? Operating losses of 7 million over six years with no end in sight is staggeringly shrewd.
Actually it could be shrewd - it’s very unlikely the owners entered this circus not knowing costs circa £1 million pa - a £7 million loss could have significant tax advantages depending on their other businesses. Particularly when you add in a likely longer term return easily covering those losses when the land deal is completed - however as I’ve alway said there are easier ways of making a profit so I refute the theory the current owners had no interest in running a football club and it was only about profit on the land deal.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Well the brain of bedfordshire reckons the south stand would cost £1.5m and considering that they both look to be about the same length you really have to wonder where he gets his figures from
look at what Watford built for £4m at the same time as the east stand build failed.. 5000 seats, changing rooms media centre etc. £1.5m to build a safe but basic bank of old school terracing up behind the left in situe south stand seats is about right.
|
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
Actually it could be shrewd - it’s very unlikely the owners entered this circus not knowing costs circa £1 million pa - a £7 million loss could have significant tax advantages depending on their other businesses. Particularly when you add in a likely longer term return easily covering those losses when the land deal is completed - however as I’ve alway said there are easier ways of making a profit so I refute the theory the current owners had no interest in running a football club and it was only about profit on the land deal.
I think running the football club was part of the business plan, I am pretty sure that they didn’t think it would take 7/years to get to a heads of term agreement. Let’s just get one thing straight it’s not a great deal for the club it’s just the only one on the table at the moment. Let’s see what the Trust comes up with……..
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Peter Frost
|
I think running the football club was part of the business plan, I am pretty sure that they didn’t think it would take 7/years to get to a heads of term agreement. Let’s just get one thing straight it’s not a great deal for the club it’s just the only one on the table at the moment. Let’s see what the Trust comes up with……..
Agreed
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
Actually it could be shrewd - it’s very unlikely the owners entered this circus not knowing costs circa £1 million pa - a £7 million loss could have significant tax advantages depending on their other businesses. Particularly when you add in a likely longer term return easily covering those losses when the land deal is completed - however as I’ve alway said there are easier ways of making a profit so I refute the theory the current owners had no interest in running a football club and it was only about profit on the land deal.
Fair enough on the tax advantages, I really haven't got a clue so far as that is concerned. I agree there's easier ways of making a buck though, as I've said before. For that reason my assumption are there has always been a lot more for them in the land deal than have most assumed and/or they expected to turn it around in the very short term. Selling or attempting to sell to the Chinese would suggest they were out to cut their losses a couple of years back. Were they also attempting to seperate the club from its land at the same time in order retain their big pay off day?
|
|
|
|
Peter Frost
|
Selling or attempting to sell to the Chinese would suggest they were out to cut their losses a couple of years back. Were they also attempting to seperate the club from its land at the same time in order retain their big pay off day?
Not sure on this one - it’s been much debated - certainly the facts in the public domain would suggest the club was essentially sold to the Chinese which would support your theory above - what is less clear is the mechanisms to get the club back - of course it suits the rhetoric of the “KT is a wicked land speculator“ to say he got it back for next to nothing so profited circa £6 million but when asked for any evidence on this claim the rather weak argument that comes back is you have to believe us on this and it’s a matter of confidentiality- so to be honest I have no idea on the truth of that aspect other than a slightly incredulous view that you can sell something for millions and get it back for nothing. Certainly I agree with you that this whole circus has gone on far longer than any interested party wanted - including us the fans!
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
I think running the football club was part of the business plan, I am pretty sure that they didn’t think it would take 7/years to get to a heads of term agreement. Let’s just get one thing straight it’s not a great deal for the club it’s just the only one on the table at the moment. Let’s see what the Trust comes up with……..
Spot on Manny.
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
Please explain why Mary Markham needed to write off the debt in order to save her own neck, why precisely it needed saving in the first place, and why you think writing off the debt curried more favour with the electorate than doing nothing and watching the Cobblers going under.
Your turning into Random, boring. You’ve had your answers. Let go of the gorgeous juicy bone now…
|
|
|
|
|