Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[everbrite]

What charming supporters we have! You couldn't make it up.

You ain't much better

[Melbourne Cobbler]

MASSIVE CUUUUNT

Je ne connais pas le vernaculat. Voulez-vous dire grand vagin par chance?

[MCHammer]

So just to clarify the latest stance of some.  Not happy about the toxic debt but we want him to add another 3 million to it to it by finishing the East a Stand as promised.

Oh no sorry he should gift it to us and write off the other debt.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So just to clarify the latest stance of some.  Not happy about the toxic debt but we want him to add another 3 million to it to it by finishing the East a Stand as promised.

Oh no sorry he should gift it to us and write off the other debt.

Irrelevant, the costs for any sort of construction work that involves sawing, drilling and hammering etc doesn’t count as debt, everybody knows that!

[BedsCobb]

Irrelevant, the costs for any sort of construction work that involves sawing, drilling and hammering etc doesn’t count as debt, everybody knows that!

Thomas isnt exactly spending much or will ever on concrete over the intended small token gesture should he have got his greedy hands on the vast millions of council land he assumed he had got control over!

MC hammer,  all the toxic debt is his own making, nothing spent on the building up of our club and it infrastructure or support base these past 4 years has led to a massive down turn  on and off the pitch, and subsequent loss in potential earnings.
Dumping his failure in our laps is not warranted,  he needs to get out and take his nonsensical self earned debts with him to allow others better equipped and more ntfc centric to allow our club the oppertunity to grow and prosper.
Why is he even still here?

[Vintage Cobbler]

Because of that land behind the East Stand

[guest1269]

Because of that land behind the East Stand

Or because those others better equipped seen somewhat shy in coming forward..........

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Transfer and agents fees, and then the players salaries are all running costs aren't they?

Would suspect that the bulk of the so called "toxic" debt was spent in those areas?

Yes, I agree...but why was that? Because we spent big on players and a manager before the Chinese money didn't materialise. Then when it went wrong on the pitch we spent big again trying to stay up, and when that didn't work we spent again....etc etc.

£2.6m of the "debt" was put in as a direct result of the 5USports debacle, that's the money owed to B-D-J in the Virgin Isles.

When I said above about Bower and Thomas "calling in the debt".....you're quite right, its their money so what would they get back? Not a lot! They could put the club into administration.....after not paying creditors for a while to write off some more debt that they could otherwise be liable for perhaps. The balance sheet and accounts state each year that the club can only continue as a going concern through the continued investment from the owners. What if they stop and say enoughs enough? The "debt" on the balance sheet is enough to put anyone off buying the club isn't it?

The reported £4m price tag........for what? What actually does a buyer get for that? Nothing......no land, no stadium, nothing! Its all leased, there are no assets!

Probably controversial here.....but we have spent TOO MUCH for the size of club and the level we are at......too much to still be in League 2 with nothing to show for it.

In a round about way that's Beds point.......£5m pumped in and for what?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Because of that land behind the East Stand

Which will be the main attraction for anyone, including the name that was mentioned by the Trust.

[guest3293]

Which will be the main attraction for anyone, including the name that was mentioned by the Trust.

 

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Yes, I agree...but why was that? Because we spent big on players and a manager before the Chinese money didn't materialise. Then when it went wrong on the pitch we spent big again trying to stay up, and when that didn't work we spent again....etc etc.

£2.6m of the "debt" was put in as a direct result of the 5USports debacle, that's the money owed to B-D-J in the Virgin Isles.

When I said above about Bower and Thomas "calling in the debt".....you're quite right, its their money so what would they get back? Not a lot! They could put the club into administration.....after not paying creditors for a while to write off some more debt that they could otherwise be liable for perhaps. The balance sheet and accounts state each year that the club can only continue as a going concern through the continued investment from the owners. What if they stop and say enoughs enough? The "debt" on the balance sheet is enough to put anyone off buying the club isn't it?

The reported £4m price tag........for what? What actually does a buyer get for that? Nothing......no land, no stadium, nothing! Its all leased, there are no assets!

Probably controversial here.....but we have spent TOO MUCH for the size of club and the level we are at......too much to still be in League 2 with nothing to show for it.

In a round about way that's Beds point.......£5m pumped in and for what?

But as I sad before. It makes no odds. 5 million or 50 million, it doesn’t matter. They are not getting it back, unless they make it more of an asset.

Nobody is touching the club anyway. Nobody as ever touched the club unless it’s debt free. In recent years they only bother with t because of the land. That attracted DC. It attracted KT. It was the only thing that made the club attractive. I say was... But not know it's a community asset.. Own goal or what? 😁😁😁

[Zen Master]

The Asset of a Community Value isn't really an own goal in my opinion as I’ve always thought it was a a worthwhile exercise. This being on the basis of it being owned by the council, that it should continue to be a focal point of community inclusion (something that is well done by the Football in the Community Trust which is a separate entity in its own right), potentially gives the heads up of any sale should the Trust be able to mobilise a realistic bid ( I have my doubts) and send a message to owners that the fans\ locals are integral to a football club and are nothing without it.

The reality of the land is two fold.
 The original footprint, which should have been reinstated by the regularisation of the lease issues, inc old athletics track. This is substantial in its own right and would definitely form part of any club sale. There would be reasonable value in this.
The secondary larger parcel of development land under the control of CDNL (ie KT & DB) but would this be included in any club sale when it is leased and controlled by a completely separate entity albeit with the same ownership?

My main issue is that as I head into my mid forties I might never see any of this resolved!!!
Just get on with it, whatever it is.

[Vintage Cobbler]

ACV or not KT is pursuing his quest for commercial development on the land behind the East Stand and having led us a merry old dance up until June 2018 about the boundary issue  being the only matter holding up the completion of the East Stand has since then declined to sign the document that would reinstate the boundary to what it should have been if the Council had not made an error at the time CDNL and NBC carved out land for CDNL on which commercial development was to take place.  According to a club statement (i.e. KT statement) reported in the Chronicle on 4 May in response to comments made by Council Leader, Jonathan Nunn, that there is nothing stopping the stand being built now KT said “There is an agreed principle between all the parties that completion of the East Stand will happen at the start of a wider plan to benefit the club, the council and the wider community”.  Translated this means KT has moved the goalposts on us supporters and is making the completion of the East Stand conditional on wider planning consent for that land behind the East Stand.  The boundary issue has all the hallmarks of a red herring.  To me this is outrageous and if this doesn’t demonstrate to one and all what Beds has been banging on about for ages concerning the agenda of our owners is basically accurate then nothing will.   It is as clear as daylight.

The likes of Hamster can have their cheap swipes at the Trust as above but supporters needs to realise that in the absence of supporters en masse protesting at the situation the only group that is going to stand up to our owners manoeuvres on the land is the Trust and that it is doing.  This is the underlying reason why KT and the Trust are not on good terms.  The owners resent anyone standing in the way of their ambitions.  These are ruthless people quite prepared to move goalposts on us and NBC (e.g. the 2015 MOI) if that what it takes to get their way on the land behind the East Stand. 

Consider what may happen.  NBC indicate to KT that his development plans will be approved (the Chronicle article of 4 May indicates this is very much in progress), KT obtains outline planning consent, KT and DB sell CDNL for a very significant profit, KT and DB in their generosity write-off the debt owing to Ventures and the BVI company and disappear into the sunset leaving NTFC and us supporters with Sweet Fanny Adams.

Discuss.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Yes, I agree...but why was that? Because we spent big on players and a manager before the Chinese money didn't materialise. Then when it went wrong on the pitch we spent big again trying to stay up, and when that didn't work we spent again....etc etc.

£2.6m of the "debt" was put in as a direct result of the 5USports debacle, that's the money owed to B-D-J in the Virgin Isles.

When I said above about Bower and Thomas "calling in the debt".....you're quite right, its their money so what would they get back? Not a lot! They could put the club into administration.....after not paying creditors for a while to write off some more debt that they could otherwise be liable for perhaps. The balance sheet and accounts state each year that the club can only continue as a going concern through the continued investment from the owners. What if they stop and say enoughs enough? The "debt" on the balance sheet is enough to put anyone off buying the club isn't it?

The reported £4m price tag........for what? What actually does a buyer get for that? Nothing......no land, no stadium, nothing! Its all leased, there are no assets!

Probably controversial here.....but we have spent TOO MUCH for the size of club and the level we are at......too much to still be in League 2 with nothing to show for it.

In a round about way that's Beds point.......£5m pumped in and for what?

Doesn’t work like that GPC. Any new vendor would have no obligation to take on the debt and the terms and conditions of sale would clarify the financial obligations to be honoured if any. In the same way that the current owners purchased the club with the caveats abstaining liability for any previous debts other than the tax bill. As stated debt to the owner means absolutely nothing other than the owners determination to recoup their loses modifying spending. Debt to outside investors, creditors (such as suppliers, construction companies re redevelopment) and the inland revenue are an entirely different proposition. The definition of toxic debt is an inability of the lender to recover their credit. Therefore the only entity possibly saddled with toxic debt is the owners themselves, not the club. This is really not complicated. Should just chuck this into the mix, if you take profit or sell assets any profits are subject to standard tax rates. If you sell a business any profits are subject to entrepreneurial tax at 10%, so you can make a tidy additional sum. Therefore how debt is structured and the type of debt listed can be dependent on your intentions moving forward? Not sure how relevant that is in this case but thought it may be of interest to some?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

ACV or not KT is pursuing his quest for commercial development on the land behind the East Stand and having led us a merry old dance up until June 2018 about the boundary issue  being the only matter holding up the completion of the East Stand has since then declined to sign the document that would reinstate the boundary to what it should have been if the Council had not made an error at the time CDNL and NBC carved out land for CDNL on which commercial development was to take place.  According to a club statement (i.e. KT statement) reported in the Chronicle on 4 May in response to comments made by Council Leader, Jonathan Nunn, that there is nothing stopping the stand being built now KT said “There is an agreed principle between all the parties that completion of the East Stand will happen at the start of a wider plan to benefit the club, the council and the wider community”.  Translated this means KT has moved the goalposts on us supporters and is making the completion of the East Stand conditional on wider planning consent for that land behind the East Stand.  The boundary issue has all the hallmarks of a red herring.  To me this is outrageous and if this doesn’t demonstrate to one and all what Beds has been banging on about for ages concerning the agenda of our owners is basically accurate then nothing will.   It is as clear as daylight.

The likes of Hamster can have their cheap swipes at the Trust as above but supporters needs to realise that in the absence of supporters en masse protesting at the situation the only group that is going to stand up to our owners manoeuvres on the land is the Trust and that it is doing.  This is the underlying reason why KT and the Trust are not on good terms.  The owners resent anyone standing in the way of their ambitions.  These are ruthless people quite prepared to move goalposts on us and NBC (e.g. the 2015 MOI) if that what it takes to get their way on the land behind the East Stand. 

Consider what may happen.  NBC indicate to KT that his development plans will be approved (the Chronicle article of 4 May indicates this is very much in progress), KT obtains outline planning consent, KT and DB sell CDNL for a very significant profit, KT and DB in their generosity write-off the debt owing to Ventures and the BVI company and disappear into the sunset leaving NTFC and us supporters with Sweet Fanny Adams.

Discuss.

How do you balance all this with paying off 4 managers and backing the current manager in the transfer market? If it was just about the land why not stick with Rob Page cut the budget for the playing squad, use the yoof players and ride off into the sunset with the maximum amount of cash? Whilst the owners have made a right pigs ear of things and have been misleading at times with their intentions at best, genuinely I am struggling to match the contradictions? Discuss.

[1971cobbler]

How do you balance all this with paying off 4 managers and backing the current manager in the transfer market? If it was just about the land why not stick with Rob Page cut the budget for the playing squad, use the yoof players and ride off into the sunset with the maximum amount of cash? Whilst the owners have made a right pigs ear of things and have been misleading at times with their intentions at best, genuinely I am struggling to match the contradictions? Discuss.

+1

[Vintage Cobbler]

How do you balance all this with paying off 4 managers and backing the current manager in the transfer market? If it was just about the land why not stick with Rob Page cut the budget for the playing squad, use the yoof players and ride off into the sunset with the maximum amount of cash? Whilst the owners have made a right pigs ear of things and have been misleading at times with their intentions at best, genuinely I am struggling to match the contradictions? Discuss.

Whatever I may think of our owners and the running of our football club, stupid they are not.  Consider if you would the comments you make in the context of the 5USport relationship. That is all I will say. 

Your comment about backing the current manager in the transfer market is, I suggest, just what the owners want supporters to focus on whilst KT concentrates on bending NBC to his will.  But the reality is that the playing budget has been slashed.  The big earners Crooks, Van Veen, Taylor and others are off the payroll. Largely, this close season has been a case of one in one out.  I expect Adams is on a good deal but the remainder will be inexpensive acquisitions.  What many are seeing as good news may be tempered by bad news if Pierre is sold and certainly that possibility cannot be ruled out. Remember NTFC's income is not solely reliant on DB's money.

There are no contradictions in what I have written and what I have written is what is in progress.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Whatever I may think of our owners and the running of our football club, stupid they are not.  Consider if you would the comments you make in the context of the 5USport relationship. That is all I will say. 

Your comment about backing the current manager in the transfer market is, I suggest, just what the owners want supporters to focus on whilst KT concentrates on bending NBC to his will.  But the reality is that the playing budget has been slashed.  The big earners Crooks, Van Veen, Taylor and others are off the payroll. Largely, this close season has been a case of one in one out.  I expect Adams is on a good deal but the remainder will be inexpensive acquisitions.  What many are seeing as good news may be tempered by bad news if Pierre is sold and certainly that possibility cannot be ruled out. Remember NTFC's income is not solely reliant on DB's money.

There are no contradictions in what I have written and what I have written is what is in progress.

I didn’t say there were contradictions in what you had written, more why the spend on the squad if it was just about greed? They are under no obligation to spend anything? I am still waiting for someone to come up with a valid reason why they have? You have stated 1 in 1 out, it could have been all out none in if that’s the way they chose it to be?

[Vintage Cobbler]

My take on the situation is clearly stated.

KT needs to keep the supporter base quiet whilst he gets on with what I said. Frankly, he is succeeding.  There is no progress by him on the East Stand or any investment in our infrastructure.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

My take on the situation is clearly stated.

KT needs to keep the supporter base quiet whilst he gets on with what I said. Frankly, he is succeeding.  There is no progress by him on the East Stand or any investment in our infrastructure.

Why? There is no need for any of them to turn up at the ground again. KT could jet off back to the States never to be seen again, flog the land and let the club sink into oblivion? I understand what you are getting at Vintage and there is no doubt we as a support base have been let down over the East Stand, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me?