Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[everbrite]

Everbrite - don't worry about me including you. With your persistent small minded snipes I can assure you no one was farther from my mind at the time of posting.  I haven't a clue what you stand for other than pettiness.

Ok wise one!

[Vintage Cobbler]

No, Everbrite, you can't get away with nonsense all the time.   If can stop yourself making snide comment for just once, share your thoughts with us.  That is what this site is meant to be about after all.

[EB Claret]

This just proved what I suspected, Always looking for the very worst comparison and give thanks for extremely small mercies!
Really.. Are you a Thomas face friend? 🤣🤣🤣
Give it a rest😂😂😂

How ridiculous are you?? Give it a rest!

[EB Claret]

What a lot of people seem to forget is that one of the main factors in KT buying NTFC for a minimal amount was on the condition of finishing the East Stand.

Very true. I'm guessing that, sadly, if there was any "ring fenced" money it was used to fill the void left by the non-arrival of the Chinese millions.

[DrillingCobbler]

IMO this debate has taken a bit of an interesting turn of focus. Can I ask a genuine hypothetical question of you Drilling? Imagine you had brought the club, ring fenced 4 million of your own money and expressed an intention to spend it on the East Stand to complete it. Now let’s suppose following the acquisition of the club, as he did, Chris Wilder left? Now lets also imagine the legal wrangles about the land associated with the stand were sorted within 18 months, but during that time the club has suffered 2 straight relegations and went out of the football league? Now in that hypothetical position, would you still spend the 4 million sitting in your bank on the ground of a non league club? If the answer is yes, congratulations you have balls of steel? If the answer is no, then whist I accept this was not the situation, you also should accept that any financial commitment is dependant on the conditions at the time you fulfil that commitment, and that is subjective? Therefore, it could be argued that it is reasonable that the current owners re-evaluated their commitment according to the current circumstances and not those made at the time the acquisition occurred? So as a result, the truth is, it can be argued that it is acceptable that in the event circumstances change it is also reasonable that people may amend any commitments and obligations? In light of this argument do you still stand by the comment shown in your post and believe that the owners have a moral and ethical duty to complete the stand irrespective of any change in circumstances? I am genuinely interested in how people imagine they would act should they find themselves confronted with this dilemma?

Like I said mate. There is no economic/business argument to expand the ground. At the end of the day, football is a bottomless pit (as I demonstrated with my previous post about losses in the championship) so for me, that side of things is totally irrelevant. Even if we got to the championship, shoving a couple of thousand extra seats in the ground and some boxes isn't gonna cut it.

So if I bought a football club it would be for only one reason. To inflate my ego and p1ss a load of money up the wall, trying to make a football club/team successful. So the answer to your question is a tricky one, because I wouldn't have gone about it the way KT has. Thats not to criticize his approach, but Im a football fan and I try and make my money away from football.

My view is that KT saw a financial opportunity, and a way to cash in on a football club on its knees but with land. The rest, as things stand, is history. To be fair to him though, he's funded the team well and I don't doubt for one minute that he wants us to do well, and see's the project as a mutually beneficial one.

Id just rather have an owner who is in it purely for football, and would be only interested in trying to take us up the leagues whilst increasing our support base. I appreciate they are liking rocking horse sh1t though! 

[guest3264]

SHOCK realism breaks out on football messageboard!!
Long may it continue.

Has KT and NBC been asked if they would attend a public meeting together so Cobblers fans can ask questions and see the white's of their eyes when they reply?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Like I said mate. There is no economic/business argument to expand the ground. At the end of the day, football is a bottomless pit (as I demonstrated with my previous post about losses in the championship) so for me, that side of things is totally irrelevant. Even if we got to the championship, shoving a couple of thousand extra seats in the ground and some boxes isn't gonna cut it.

So if I bought a football club it would be for only one reason. To inflate my ego and p1ss a load of money up the wall, trying to make a football club/team successful. So the answer to your question is a tricky one, because I wouldn't have gone about it the way KT has. Thats not to criticize his approach, but Im a football fan and I try and make my money away from football.

My view is that KT saw a financial opportunity, and a way to cash in on a football club on its knees but with land. The rest, as things stand, is history. To be fair to him though, he's funded the team well and I don't doubt for one minute that he wants us to do well, and see's the project as a mutually beneficial one.

Id just rather have an owner who is in it purely for football, and would be only interested in trying to take us up the leagues whilst increasing our support base. I appreciate they are liking rocking horse sh1t though! 

Fair comment

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I am sure KT must be dancing a jig that MC, supported by a few others, is stating the case for mothballing the East Stand and by extension of the argument anything else with the stadium. 

Meanwhile at Cambridge, Luton, Peterborough and already at MK we are surrounded by clubs with more ambitious and wealthy owners.  We are at high risk of being a footballing backwater permanently with the cracks in our inadequate infrastructure and nagging questions about our owners’ intentions being papered over by better results on the pitch which undoubtedly diverse attention.  As we have seen throughout our L2-L1 yo yo years only temporarily do we play at a higher level and people ask the reasons why. 

In this debate we should not lose sight of the fact the land on which the wider development is to take place was public owned land for the benefit of the residents of Northampton and in 2013 NBC allowed the transfer of this land to CDNL for free on the understanding that the football club was to benefit long term from the development gain.  Of course, we now know there was skullduggery afoot but that does not change the underlying principles and how any profit from this land should be applied.

Just giving an alternative opinion Vintage. I accept I may well be proven wrong and there are alternative viewpoints that may have merit? What I do know is that the vast majority on here that are demanding various action would act somewhat differently regarding those demands should they ever find themselves in a similar position.

[Vintage Cobbler]

And you are absolutely right to express an alternative viewpoint, MC.  I understand your pragmatic businessman's approach but what I am saying is that the issue needs to be considered in its full context and that includes the reasons behind the Council granting CDNL the two leases in 2013.  So far as I know nothing fundamental has changed in the period of time since. 

There appears to be the possibility of sizeable profits to be earned from the development of the the land concerned and where any profit goes.  As you know KT has in his typical fashion said nothing at all of any detail and that has to be a cause of great concern.  You and I exchanged posts recently on this thread on how events may unfold. Nothing has changed and KT maintains radio silence. 

[BedsCobb]

Spending means you have the capital, raising means you need to get it? Without being sarcastic or engaging in our normal banter I can advise you of another fact. I know you believe you can fund it through operating profit, but that option aside investing 7 or even 6 figures in a business or enterprise raises the pulse considerably, and is an entirely different experience to commenting on here. Trust me, almost without exception in that position individuals are rarely reckless and cavalier and tend to be obsessively cautious in the extreme.

You're not seeing us for what we hopefully will become, and that is a community based asset that individuals, local commerce and council will want to work with to get things moving as opposed to what it is now, a secretly guarded private business that's standing still.

[BedsCobb]

"Give it a rest" Fine coming from someone without the balls to answer questions to back up his insane rantings. You sir are the ultimate, cowardly keyboard warrior.

I genuinely have no idea what questions you talk about, but I bet I can answer it without even knowing it!
A.. to unknown question.. The very same way as every other club of a similar stature does.
Hope that helps.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

And you are absolutely right to express an alternative viewpoint, MC.  I understand your pragmatic businessman's approach but what I am saying is that the issue needs to be considered in its full context and that includes the reasons behind the Council granting CDNL the two leases in 2013.  So far as I know nothing fundamental has changed in the period of time since. 

There appears to be the possibility of sizeable profits to be earned from the development of the the land concerned and where any profit goes.  As you know KT has in his typical fashion said nothing at all of any detail and that has to be a cause of great concern.  You and I exchanged posts recently on this thread on how events may unfold. Nothing has changed and KT maintains radio silence. 

Well you say nothing has changed but when KT took over Chris Wilder was the manager, and the 2 clearly had a tight relationship. Within a matter of months CW was off and since then we have had 5 additional managers with the contractual arrangements to account for? Was KT let down by CW? The 5U sport Deal went AWOL and who knows what contractual obligations had to be honoured as a result? My point is, is it ever acceptable to withdraw from an obligation, or should one honour it irrespective of what events occur? What I am saying is that at this point in time there is no financial incentive to develop the ground? Should KT do it anyway and damn the consequences, well that is a different matter? If you accept that in certain circumstances it is acceptable to not honour a commitment, then you are into the realms of subjective opinion as to whether it is justified? I had a friend once who shook hands on a deal to buy a property in Florida. There was nothing legal, just a gentlemans agreement. Whilst the legals were being drawn up the financial crash happened and my friend stood to lose 7 figures so he withdrew. Now on the one hand the vendor was incensed. He claimed he had turned down other offers. My friend claimed that he had agreed to buy a property that was worth X and now it wasn’t? So who’s right, and who’s wrong? After all a gentlemans word is his bond? My point is if you were in that position would you honour that commitment and lose a couple of million on a handshake or would you pull out. I promise you when push comes to shove you protect yourself from ruination. I am not suggesting this is the case with NTFC, only that this idea that it was indicated at the front end, so do it and damn the consequences possibly lacks empathy and may, and I emphasise may, be unreasonable as no reasonable person would honour that commitment in certain circumstances?

[Vintage Cobbler]

MC, when I said nothing fundamental has changed I was referring to the land and not those footballing and financial matters for which KT must take responsibility.  Be that as it may, our owners are seemingly intent on developing the land held by CDNL under the leases. So, if, for example, CDNL gets outline planning permission and then DB/KT sell on CDNL for a big profit where should the profit go?  Will the East Stand be finished out of the profit? Where will the remaining profit end up?  The same question applies if KT stays on for the duration of the development and profits accrue from the sales of the various plots in the usual way.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

MC, when I said nothing fundamental has changed I was referring to the land and not those footballing and financial matters for which KT must take responsibility.  Be that as it may, our owners are seemingly intent on developing the land held by CDNL under the leases. So, if, for example, CDNL gets outline planning permission and then DB/KT sell on CDNL for a big profit where should the profit go?  Will the East Stand be finished out of the profit? Where will the remaining profit end up?  The same question applies if KT stays on for the duration of the development and profits accrue from the sales of the various plots in the usual way.

Very good point well made. All I am suggesting is perhaps a bit of empathy wouldn’t go amiss in this debate, as it may not be as straightforward as people sometimes suggest?

[singcobb]

I genuinely have no idea what questions you talk about, but I bet I can answer it without even knowing it!
A.. to unknown question.. The very same way as every other club of a similar stature does.
Hope that helps.

You have been told what the questions are, they have been hi-lighted in red so it is easy for you to find them.
You are simply a person who hides behind his keyboard and is afraid to back up his pathetic ramblings with answers to genuine questions. You lack all credibilty and you are showing yourself to be a complete and utter waste of oxygen.

[Vintage Cobbler]

MC, I am sure KT doesn't give a damn but he has made a rod for his own back on this matter with his lack of communication and obfuscation.  The situation is a s clear as mud.  That in turn inevitably gives rise to many questions and doubts about the owners' intent rather than having empathy with them.

[singcobb]

MC, I am sure KT doesn't give a damn but he has made a rod for his own back on this matter with his lack of communication and obfuscation.  The situation is a s clear as mud.  That in turn inevitably gives rise to many questions and doubts about the owners' intent rather than having empathy with them.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Yes, all of us would like to see the East finished and better facilities in general, but we have to accept that this will not happen until KT thinks it is finacnially viable to do so, but the void created by the lack of information is as bad as seeing a lack of action.

[Knockingonabit]

Round and round we go but I always keep coming back to the same question, who in their right mind would spend money on finishing the pile of s***e that represents the East Stand?

[guest1269]

Round and round we go but I always keep coming back to the same question, who in their right mind would spend money on finishing the pile of s***e that represents the East Stand?

Every time I look at it - quite a few times now I still cannot believe the nonsensical design - it really does beggar belief all that steel for one horizontal concourse and a row of executive boxes - and surely (but probably not) the council should have had at the very least seen those plans given it was their money building it.

It's a structure beyond redemption and whilst not defending KT I certainly would spend anything on finishing it .

[Melbourne Cobbler]

MC, I am sure KT doesn't give a damn but he has made a rod for his own back on this matter with his lack of communication and obfuscation.  The situation is a s clear as mud.  That in turn inevitably gives rise to many questions and doubts about the owners' intent rather than having empathy with them.

You won’t get an argument from me regarding communication VC. For me from a selfish perspective this debate at times is absolutely fascinating.