|
Melbourne Cobbler
|
As we seem to be progressing to the sharp end of proceedings many have probably been giving some thought to how this has played out, especially in light of recent developments and the recent statement from KT?
Despite the comments of councillor Hadland, it is fairly clear that there probably was no real commitment to finish the east stand despite the use of the word? What probably happened was that when the offer was made for the club, the council requested an assurance that the East Stand would be finished? At that point I think any reasonable person would have had to have stated that this would be conditional on the performance of the club post purchase? I think what probably was in the thoughts of the owners was that they were buying a club that was about to be promoted, under the guidance of a manager they knew and had confidence in? If the club continued to progress in division 1 under Chris Wilder and the gates continued to swell, demand for tickets would eventually regularly outstrip supply and development of the stand would become almost a necessity in terms of the growth of the club? That was probably what was anticipated or at the very least hoped for by the owners, subject of course to the unpredictability of football? It is my belief that was almost certainly the position of the owners at that time, who reasonably believed that if events did indeed unfold as anticipated they had every intention of developing the stand? However, there was absolutely no way that either they or any other reasonably minded investor would have legally committed themselves to that, as it was conditional on circumstance and frankly rightly so? As I said previously a legally binding unconditional commitment to finish the stand would have slapped a valuation of millions onto the club at that time and comes at what I believe was an unacceptable and ridiculous risk? Councillor Hadlands statement that there was a commitment and even KT’s admission on this is frankly nonsense, because it begs the question why it wasn’t drafted into a legally binding document? It wasn’t because it was probably a statement of intent, subject to conditional circumstances being fulfilled? The council probably accepted this as their options were limited and then as we all know events unfolded rather differently to those that were anticipated by everyone, including the owners? They have subsequently spent millions trying to get a performance out of the club on the pitch and we arrive at the present day? So, the question is what is the way forward? The stand needs to be finished but nothing will be achieved if the owners are given an ultimatum of ‘finish the stand and then there will be progress on the land deal”. When placed in that position there is absolutely no way that any reasonably minded business person is going to adhere to that, I wouldn’t and they won’t. Frankly why should they, this belief that they were asked to finish the stand and they gave an unconditional commitment to do so didn’t happen, I promise you. Think about it, to reiterate NTFC would have been valued at millions as a result, and the council’s legal representatives would have had that commitment drafted into a contract for consideration within about half an hour and there was no such contract was there? In any event how could anyone reasonably establish what the cost was to complete the stand and to what extent? Is the suggestion that all that expenditure was ascertained in the days before the club went under and was pulled back from the brink? Is the assumption the current owners committed to spending an indeterminate number of millions to complete the stand as a condition of buying the club irrespective of what subsequently happened post purchase, all on a second division club hours from going t1ts up? Anyone who thinks that is a reasonable assessment of what transpired has to be on class A drugs? Logic and a dispassionate evaluation of events tells you what almost certainly happened and I’d bet my house that my version isn’t too far off the truth?
As unpalatable as some may find it, the way forward simply has to be to draw a line under what happened previously and progress matters from here with a clean slate otherwise the stand will almost certainly never get finished, and the state of limbo will continue indefinitely? Or is it the hope that we kick the current owners out and a white knight with cash on the hip will come galloping in to save the day, give me an effing break? Make a deal on the land that is mutually acceptable and beneficial to all parties and forget this childish mantra of ‘but you promised” because it almost certainly never happened? Although the owners may have expressed every intention of doing so if circumstances allowed and meant it, they would have been out of their minds to unconditionally commit to it? If I’m wrong perhaps it’s about time the council released the evidence to support this claim of a commitment, even if it’s not in a legally binding document? An email, a letter, a text anything, but I don’t think they have a shred of proof that there was an unconditional commitment, and a conditional commitment is not a commitment at all is it? However, whilst a line should be drawn as the trust have said one of the conditions has to be that the deal is open to public scrutiny? Uncomfortable and unusual maybe, but there is absolutely nothing to fear if any deal really is mutually acceptable? Also, the deal and project should be evaluated, audited and monitored by suitably qualified individuals and/or organisations who can subsequently be held accountable to ensure the people of Northampton’s interests are being fully represented and protected. They are owed that at the very least. It is no secret on here that I have been a supporter of the current owners and wholeheartedly believe that they have done all that could be reasonably expected of them in their position, if not more? I think they are decent and genuine people who would like their legacy to be one that shows they always acted in the best interests of the club, and despite the critics on here I will always be grateful to them, as will the majority of others despite what some would have you believe? Where I would disagree with Mr Thomas though is in regards to his comment that any deal has nothing to do with what went on previously, I think this is somewhat naive? With respect the supporters of the club and the people of Northampton generally are the pulse and life blood of the club, and they have rather obviously been severely burned by the activities of the owners of the club in the past? Therefore, I believe that any deal has everything to do with what occurred previously and the people of the town have every right to demand transparency and ultimately confidence regarding any deals involving the football club given what has transpired in the past? Whilst this has nothing to do with Kelvin Thomas, it has everything to do with the football club, its supporters and the people of Northampton and I think Mr Thomas would be best placed to perhaps give consideration to this suggestion moving forward, and I feel it would be disingenuous to do otherwise to use the current popular term?
|
