Should The Trust Have Invoked The ACV?

[singcobb]

I think that crystallises the moral standards that our current owners have, it’s business after all and pretty much anything goes.
I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around, karma comes to mind.

So basically you want the owners to fail and the club to go under.

[guest168]

All fair points - however given the very public deteriorating relationship between the owners and the trust, plus the fact the wider land deal has been now discussed for some time I think it is reasonable to assume some planning had been done prior to invoking the clause.

Perhaps you can help me on an outcome question - what happens to the status of the ACV if after the designated 6 month period the Trust are not able to buy the land (one would presume with some outside financial backers), and/or the council reject any planning application associated with it? - my understanding is the Trust's rights to the ACV are then lost, the land remains the property of the council with the lease held by CDNL - if this assumption is correct then it is surely a very dangerous game to invoke the clause without firm plans in place ? - if I'm incorrect on this, some factual clarification would be very helpful. 

But the ACV would be lost after 6 months assuming that the council sold it to KT.

That is what it is there for, to give notice to the community group it is up for sale and they have 6 months to raise the funds and make an offer.

Again the council and KT started the initial process by converting it from leasehold to freehold.

The completing the East stand is just another smokescreen that has suddenly been attached to that bit of land - when before it was no stand no land for the whole 20 acres

That is what supporters should be focussed on -

Get the council and club to agree to a legal document that allows KT to sell the 17 acres whenever he wants and completes the East stand within 18 months of the first sale of land

None of this wishy washy you can have the ACV for £1 if we DON'T build.  The point is we want it ffffff built ffs - how is that a deal that supporters can get behind?

[MCHammer]

After, he said that if the Trust wanted to take up their place on the board, which had been agreed with NBC, that it would be a deal breaker. The only reason we agreed to that was that he would finish the East stand, there were others interested in buying the club but no others said they would finish the stand, and it would be with "ringfenced" money , not directors loans.

So from reading your answers the owners actually said this...

"The only reason we agreed to that was that he would finish the East stand, there were others interested in buying the club but no others said they would finish the stand, and it would be with "ringfenced" money."

not this....

"The only reason we agreed to that was that he would finish the East stand, there were others interested in buying the club but no others said they would finish the stand, and it would be with "ringfenced" money , not directors loans."

You've just added that last bit in red yourself to make the point you didn't consider this money a loan.  Not that the owners physically said that?

None of it excuses not fulfilling the original promise but surely you can see there is a clear difference in meaning by including that as something the owners said?

[BedsCobb]

Random,

I have to ask as reading over the years your business acumen has left me wondering a little.

I am currently in the process of managing a development for my company in Canada. This portion of real estate right now is worth about $800,000. We are building some commercial and industrial units on said piece of land and our overall costing with developing the units is going to be approx $2.5million. We are going to lease these units out and over the 25 year period of the mortgage we are going to make approx 13% ROI, so about $37,000 a year. Not a great deal you would agree however gives us more collateral with the bank for further financing for other developments. The real money is when we sell these units in 7-9 years time with settled tenants to a property management company, approx $6-$8million based on our history. We essentially have an end play to get a larger amount of cash back to then start the process again.

Now I read earlier in the thread where you were asked how your infrastructure fund is going to be profitable and you said rent. Unfortunately I am sure your investors will want some kind of ROI on the money they assist you with in building your east village dream. The trust may have an ACV, but i very much doubt the means to fund it.

I would suggest until their investment is paid back, your investors would let very little go into an infrastructure fund for the club. You also wouldn't be suggesting you would get some of the profits of the businesses in your village to pay you some "cobblers tax" they will already have enough of that with the council. So if you attempt to do that your expected tenants might be few and far between. Your investors, one I am assuming is a developer, may also want some end game in terms of a large sell off of finished units... which also doesn't play into your suggestions of a long term fund. The long and short of it is, I do not foresee a massive pot of gold at the end of the rainbow landing in the athletic track ruins.

Also in regards to the stopping of talking to buckinghams by the club... I would do exactly the same if there was a hostile bid taking place on a piece of land leased to me that provided access to my current build.

While we might not like all the things going on with the development we are at a point where the club was seemingly coming to the end of the journey and things were going to happen. Whether you like it or not and bleat on saying the club can still finish the stand the trust are not stopping it. Well yes, yes the trust is. The club made a statement to that effect before the acv was invoked and that is what has happened.

Long term, if the club make a small ROI out of this land each year that would be cool. If they sell it off to reduce the director loans, I am fine with that too. Would surely make us look more solvent!

So Random… how does your vision make money for the infrastructure fund?

Yet again,  another poster confusing a communities football club, how it operates by getting tv monies, sponsorship, affiliation Payments from the football league,  season tickets,  matchday sales of food and beverages and its reliance on supporters good will.
A comple contrast to a failing poorly timed a peice of real estate and commercial property development..

[Manwork04]

So basically you want the owners to fail and the club to go under.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

[Carton Lid]

So from reading your answers the owners actually said this...

"The only reason we agreed to that was that he would finish the East stand, there were others interested in buying the club but no others said they would finish the stand, and it would be with "ringfenced" money."

not this....

"The only reason we agreed to that was that he would finish the East stand, there were others interested in buying the club but no others said they would finish the stand, and it would be with "ringfenced" money , not directors loans."

You've just added that last bit in red yourself to make the point you didn't consider this money a loan.  Not that the owners physically said that?

None of it excuses not fulfilling the original promise but surely you can see there is a clear difference in meaning by including that as something the owners said?

The 2 words "Directors Loans" were not used  in any negotiations that the Trust had at the time. Why would the Trust give up their seat on the board if we thought that we were not getting the East finished, no mention of directors loans but plenty of mentions of ringfenced money when talking about the stand. That would mean we would have given up our seat for nothing. I doubt that KT said the East would be paid for by directors loans to NBC, as that would have put the future of the club in danger again, something NBC definitely didn't want to do. Remember that the CDNL land wasn't in the equation at this time so directors loans would have went straight onto the clubs balance sheet, and the club had no visible assets.
  

[GrangeParkCobbler]

MC, genuine question..... in the latest deal it was said that NTFC would complete the East Stand "using the owners own funds", ie it was not reliant on the land deal itself (this was of course back in the no stand no land days)....... how do you interpret "from the owners own funds"..... is this another way of saying Director Loans?

[Peter Frost]

But the ACV would be lost after 6 months assuming that the council sold it to KT.

That is what it is there for, to give notice to the community group it is up for sale and they have 6 months to raise the funds and make an offer.

Again the council and KT started the initial process by converting it from leasehold to freehold.

The completing the East stand is just another smokescreen that has suddenly been attached to that bit of land - when before it was no stand no land for the whole 20 acres

That is what supporters should be focussed on -

Get the council and club to agree to a legal document that allows KT to sell the 17 acres whenever he wants and completes the East stand within 18 months of the first sale of land

None of this wishy washy you can have the ACV for £1 if we DON'T build.  The point is we want it ffffff built ffs - how is that a deal that supporters can get behind?

Derek - not really answer to my question (which I believe a lot of people would like clarification on) - it’s simple really - what happens to the ACV in 6 months time if the trust cannot buy the land and/or the council reject any planning application?

[guest49]

MC, genuine question..... in the latest deal it was said that NTFC would complete the East Stand "using the owners own funds", ie it was not reliant on the land deal itself (this was of course back in the no stand no land days)....... how do you interpret "from the owners own funds"..... is this another way of saying Director Loans?

Maybe if they said “From the owners funds, which won’t be added to the club debt, nor will be reliant on bankrolling the money on the back of income from the land, which has never, ever got to be repaid and is a gift to the town of Northampton…we promise.” would people be happy. Only for a covert picture of KT to emerge a year later where he actually has his fingers crossed behind his back.

My memory isn’t what it was but I’m sure when they rocked up the expectation was that they had money to build the East. I’m not too sure there was much focus of where that ‘debt’ would sit, considering I have more assets in my loft.

[guest3338]

Maybe if they said “From the owners funds, which won’t be added to the club debt, nor will be reliant on bankrolling the money on the back of income from the land, which has never, ever got to be repaid and is a gift to the town of Northampton…we promise.” would people be happy. Only for a covert picture of KT to emerge a year later where he actually has his fingers crossed behind his back.

My memory isn’t what it was but I’m sure when they rocked up the expectation was that they had money to build the East. I’m not too sure there was much focus of where that ‘debt’ would sit, considering I have more assets in my loft.

Didn't he say something like 'we have 4 million ringlanced for the completion of the stand' which most right minded people would have interpreted as the funds were available at that time, not that I'm gonna buy a club with no assets and then ringfence 4 million of debt against it by way of a loan.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Derek - not really answer to my question (which I believe a lot of people would like clarification on) - it’s simple really - what happens to the ACV in 6 months time if the trust cannot buy the land and/or the council reject any planning application?

The ACV option disappears!!

As per the link below....the clock starts when the Council serves notice of intention to sell....from then the ACV "holder" has six weeks to express an interest. If they don't within that time the ACV lapses. If they do then they have the balance of 6 months from the original notification date to make an offer.

This 6 month moratorium is built into the legal process.....should 6 months elapse with no outcome then the ACV lapses.

It can be reapplied for but the whole process would need to start again and that can not happen within the "protected period" which is 18 months from the date of the notice of intention to sell.  What that means is that if the ACV lapses or any bid on the land is turned down then the Council would have to sell in the following 12 months or else someone could apply for an ACV on the land again.

https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/fin_guidance_note_3_formanaging_the_right_to_bid_moratorium_period_amends_july_2014-2.pdf

[Carton Lid]

Didn't he say something like 'we have 4 million ringlanced for the completion of the stand' which most right minded people would have interpreted as the funds were available at that time, not that I'm gonna buy a club with no assets and then ringfence 4 million of debt against it by way of a loan.

100% correct

[Peter Frost]

The ACV option disappears!!

As per the link below....the clock starts when the Council serves notice of intention to sell....from then the ACV "holder" has six weeks to express an interest. If they don't within that time the ACV lapses. If they do then they have the balance of 6 months from the original notification date to make an offer.

This 6 month moratorium is built into the legal process.....should 6 months elapse with no outcome then the ACV lapses.

It can be reapplied for but the whole process would need to start again and that can not happen within the "protected period" which is 18 months from the date of the notice of intention to sell.  What that means is that if the ACV lapses or any bid on the land is turned down then the Council would have to sell in the following 12 months or else someone could apply for an ACV on the land again.

https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/fin_guidance_note_3_formanaging_the_right_to_bid_moratorium_period_amends_july_2014-2.pdf

Thank you - much clearer & confirms my understanding but emphasises the trust surely must have a plan and financial backers or the current action is totally pointless from any practical perspective.

[guest168]

Derek - not really answer to my question (which I believe a lot of people would like clarification on) - it’s simple really - what happens to the ACV in 6 months time if the trust cannot buy the land and/or the council reject any planning application?

sorry Peter, what are you getting at?

The answer above is pretty clear surely?

After that time the freeholder can sell the asset

[guest168]

Thank you - much clearer & confirms my understanding but emphasises the trust surely must have a plan and financial backers or the current action is totally pointless from any practical perspective.

Thanks GPC for spelling it out !

So what was the alternative? Let KT take our ownership of our land, when we don't have to ??

Again the process was not started by the Trust, it was forced upon us by KT & WNC

Not sure if you are trying to find another stick to beat us with (which I know is not your style) but it was either try to find a solution or allow KT to take it and sell it for what we all expect is for his personal gain.

as almost everyone I here, who cared to comment, agreed, that the land is better off with supporters (might argue which supporters) than with KT / DB

Not sure why it is wrong for us not to have everything tied before we registered our interest. We have had a few offers of interest already. (and that is without even talking to those that had expressed various interests in the past)

[Peter Frost]

sorry Peter, what are you getting at?

The answer above is pretty clear surely?

After that time the freeholder can sell the asset

Derek - clear now from above GPC reply - not having a go at your reply but I was specifically asking what the process and options are after the 6 months and it was not clear to me.

Again I wasn’t asking about alternatives or what KT was or wasn’t doing - nor criticising the decision - sometimes good to keep things simple and understand people don’t always have an agenda

[guest49]

Didn't he say something like 'we have 4 million ringlanced for the completion of the stand' which most right minded people would have interpreted as the funds were available at that time, not that I'm gonna buy a club with no assets and then ringfence 4 million of debt against it by way of a loan.

TBH an opening PowerPoint of “We’re not going to finish the stand but will generate £7m of debt, although we will maintain our league status” would have seen him welcome with such open arms. 

[Jonesy9]

Not public as such, they asked their members. Less than 200 responded, just over half of which were in favour.

To me then, this is the crux of the problem.
A true Supporter’s Trust is run to get across the will and desire of the majority of supporters.
A trust should not be able to pick and choose what it peddles based upon a few people in positions of power deciding that they are more knowledgeable that everyone else, and can decide for everyone else what is best. That is the complete opposite of what a supporter’s trust is for.

If they want to keep up the argument against the approach that the club are taking then they should take a vote to the entire supporter base and then base their agenda on that.

Otherwise what’s stopping a group of supporters starting up their own ‘trust’, getting in contact with the club and putting in place a relationship that truly benefits the club and majority of supporters. A Supporter’s Trust 2.0?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Fûck me this thread is so toxic

I’m not sure it is. It looks to me like the vast majority of questions are constructive and the answers from the likes of GPC are in the same vein. If you put aside a few, shall we say provocative remarks, the thread is getting more informative.

As for your remark about giving equal time to the Trust. Like the club, they have had years to prepare for this moment. I’m sure you will be equally scathing of them, if their plans seem no more advanced than sitting out the next five months. That would appear to be nothing more than plain old retribution. I’m sure we’re all hoping they are a bit bigger than that. Time will tell.. 

[singcobb]

Are the two mutually exclusive?

You mean inclusive