The Hotel End
March 29, 2024, 08:35:05 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Downloads Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register Chat  

Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

Pages: 1 ... 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 [1332] 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 ... 2181   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?  (Read 1822012 times)
Melbourne Cobbler, Another Pedj (+ 1 Hidden) and 49 Guests are viewing this topic.
crazycobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1081


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Combination Topic Starter Poll Voter
« Reply #26620 on: March 11, 2020, 23:30:57 pm »

Mr Thomas swooped in and bought us when we were on the brink of extinction and has turned us back into a stable, largely well run football club. For that I will always be grateful. However, my belief is that we (i.e the club nor Mr Thomas personally) currently have the money to complete the stand and take the club forward. He also needs to think more about the comments he makes to fans about the East Stand. We’ve supposedly been close to getting it sorted for the last two years. I know he is trying to be transparent, but I can’t help but feel like at times he’s slightly misled people.
Report Spam   Logged
guest3086
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26621 on: March 12, 2020, 06:47:52 am »

Very strange that there is no date on the Council letter that the club have posted on their site. Even stranger the level of secrecy about the plans and discussions.
Report Spam   Logged
crazycobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1081


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Combination Topic Starter Poll Voter
« Reply #26622 on: March 12, 2020, 07:03:21 am »

Very strange that there is no date on the Council letter that the club have posted on their site. Even stranger the level of secrecy about the plans and discussions.

I spotted that as well. Very odd.
Report Spam   Logged
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2531


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26623 on: March 12, 2020, 07:15:56 am »

What the councillors are asking is why haven’t NTFC’s owners done what they said they would do, i.e. use the money they satisfied NBC they had in 2015 to do what these councillors understood would happen when NBC allowed them to buy the club.  That understanding has not been honoured.  

What KT is saying impliedly is that under his ownership only through an enabling deal on the land will be the East Stand be finished. That means the owners are not willing to spend their own money on the East Stand contrary to the basis on which they acquired the club. Discussions, discussions ad nauseam with George Candler, CEO, are in play is the response of KT to the councillors' complaints.  This is KT's version of "progress".

Whilst it looks like within NBC that the right arm doesn’t know what the left arm is doing as always with KT he is blurring matters.  The councillors are challenging KT in public to honour his word and saying that he must complete the East Stand first before advancing wider development plans.  Spend the cash you have is the councillors position.  This appears to be the view of Tory councillors Larratt & Hadland and the opposition parties spokespersons.  There seems to be within the Council's members an underlying distrust of our owners.  
Report Spam   Logged
guest3359
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26624 on: March 12, 2020, 08:29:54 am »

There seems to be within the Council's members an underlying distrust of our owners.  

I think the lack of trust is significant on both sides. Council not trusting KT because he hasn't finished the stand as suggested, and I wouldn't trust a guy who says one thing publicly when letters from the council appear to show the opposite.
Based on that I wouldn't trust the guy to hold talks about further land development after finishing the stand which is the council position.
Report Spam   Logged
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4639



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Spammer 25 Posts in one day Avatar Search
« Reply #26625 on: March 12, 2020, 08:49:34 am »

Sorry to everyone for continuing with the mantra, but here we go again. Everyone is focusing on the morality of perceived broken promises and the desire to complete the abomination that is the East Stand. Leaving that aside, please consider the implications regarding the circumstances with any financial commitment. How is the club exposed, what are the risks, what are the conditions or obligations regarding any financial decisions? It is all very good holding the current incumbents to account, but what does it entail for the club? Irrespective of the moral dimension, the fact is a large capital expenditure is nonsense with regards to the club at this time. I would say keep a realistic perspective over these events as they unfold and as patronising as it sounds try and think with your head rather than your heart? As a collective are we saying spend what it takes and damn the consequences? Sorry if it’s a frustration but I continually reiterate this with only the best intentions. It’s a fact that if lower league football is to continue and possibly thrive, over exposure to financial risk and commitment has to be reduced not increased. Any demands by the council or anyone else to spend unconditionally or else, may be fraught with danger for the club? The owners need a return and they may just embark on a misguided strategy to get it? As my dear old mum used to say, be careful what you wish for.
Report Spam   Logged

Not a real supporter but unelected chair of the Northampton Town Honorary Supporters Club. (Please note: any opinions given may not necessarily be shared by proper supporters. In incidents of conflict the views of real supporters shall take precedence).
guest3264
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26626 on: March 12, 2020, 11:37:04 am »

What the councillors are asking is why haven’t NTFC’s owners done what they said they would do, i.e. use the money they satisfied NBC they had in 2015 to do what these councillors understood would happen when NBC allowed them to buy the club.  That understanding has not been honoured.  

What KT is saying impliedly is that under his ownership only through an enabling deal on the land will be the East Stand be finished. That means the owners are not willing to spend their own money on the East Stand contrary to the basis on which they acquired the club. Discussions, discussions ad nauseam with George Candler, CEO, are in play is the response of KT to the councillors' complaints.  This is KT's version of "progress".

Whilst it looks like within NBC that the right arm doesn’t know what the left arm is doing as always with KT he is blurring matters.  The councillors are challenging KT in public to honour his word and saying that he must complete the East Stand first before advancing wider development plans.  Spend the cash you have is the councillors position.  This appears to be the view of Tory councillors Larratt & Hadland and the opposition parties spokespersons.  There seems to be within the Council's members an underlying distrust of our owners.  

Is your point that KT 'said', NBC 'said' or are there any legal documents that KT has signed to complete the East Stand when he took the ownership of NTFC?
Report Spam   Logged
JollyCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5068


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Combination Topic Starter Poll Voter
« Reply #26627 on: March 12, 2020, 12:50:48 pm »

Is your point that KT 'said', NBC 'said' or are there any legal documents that KT has signed to complete the East Stand when he took the ownership of NTFC?

He signed a Memorandum of Understanding to this effect, and this was a main reason both the Council and the Cardozas accepted his original sales pitch. Unfortunately an MoU is exactly as it says on the header. It is basically an agreed course of action. But the Council and Cardozas agreed the deal without further legal bindings because NTFC was days away from the HMRC court action. They took a gamble on KT in order to safeguard the immediate future of NTFC.

Another part of the MoU sets out how all of the CDNL land would be returned for the benefit of NBC and the citizens of Northampton. Bower and Thomas then went behind the Council's backs, paid the liquidators 170 grand and gazumped the Council for ownership of the CDNL held land leases.
KT has always claimed they only did this because NBC was acting too slowly, and so they moved in order to protect the club/land/leases from any third party bid. This may be true, but it is a fact that this was a second issue which majorly put the Council's nose out of joint.

In a nutshell: NBC shouldn't have supported the deal until all of the stadium/stand issues had been nailed down in a watertight document. However, they did support the deal because KT threatened to walk if they failed to do so, and he seemed a better prospect than the local consortium (which, contrary to some on here, did exist and would have acted to halt the court proceedings). Basically, NBC acted to try and halt the original (loan monies go missing) wrong, because that was a wrong for which they were/are partly culpable.

Neither party is blameless, but who remains most culpable comes down to an individual point of view. It's like this: A young lad knocks your granny's door and asks if she needs anything fetching from the shops. Granny gives the kid a twenty and he disappears with the note, never to be seen again. Granny wasn't very wise, but did that justify ripping her off?   
Report Spam   Logged
everbrite
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20217


Steve Howard best since Cliff Holton


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
20000 Posts Search Apple User
« Reply #26628 on: March 12, 2020, 13:38:16 pm »

Sorry to everyone for continuing with the mantra, but here we go again. Everyone is focusing on the morality of perceived broken promises and the desire to complete the abomination that is the East Stand. Leaving that aside, please consider the implications regarding the circumstances with any financial commitment. How is the club exposed, what are the risks, what are the conditions or obligations regarding any financial decisions? It is all very good holding the current incumbents to account, but what does it entail for the club? Irrespective of the moral dimension, the fact is a large capital expenditure is nonsense with regards to the club at this time. I would say keep a realistic perspective over these events as they unfold and as patronising as it sounds try and think with your head rather than your heart? As a collective are we saying spend what it takes and damn the consequences? Sorry if it’s a frustration but I continually reiterate this with only the best intentions. It’s a fact that if lower league football is to continue and possibly thrive, over exposure to financial risk and commitment has to be reduced not increased. Any demands by the council or anyone else to spend unconditionally or else, may be fraught with danger for the club? The owners need a return and they may just embark on a misguided strategy to get it? As my dear old mum used to say, be careful what you wish for.

Decent article and it questions the wisdom of some who quite rightly raise moralistic views regarding completion of the East Stand. Melly's one line 'careful what you wish for' is a reminder to all of us to consider the ramifications of what we demand.
Report Spam   Logged

2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
guest3264
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26629 on: March 12, 2020, 15:09:54 pm »

He signed a Memorandum of Understanding to this effect, and this was a main reason both the Council and the Cardozas accepted his original sales pitch. Unfortunately an MoU is exactly as it says on the header. It is basically an agreed course of action. But the Council and Cardozas agreed the deal without further legal bindings because NTFC was days away from the HMRC court action. They took a **** on KT in order to safeguard the immediate future of NTFC.

Another part of the MoU sets out how all of the CDNL land would be returned for the benefit of NBC and the citizens of Northampton. Bower and Thomas then went behind the Council's backs, paid the liquidators 170 grand and gazumped the Council for ownership of the CDNL held land leases.
KT has always claimed they only did this because NBC was acting too slowly, and so they moved in order to protect the club/land/leases from any third party bid. This may be true, but it is a fact that this was a second issue which majorly put the Council's nose out of joint.

In a nutshell: NBC shouldn't have supported the deal until all of the stadium/stand issues had been nailed down in a watertight document. However, they did support the deal because KT threatened to walk if they failed to do so, and he seemed a better prospect than the local consortium (which, contrary to some on here, did exist and would have acted to halt the court proceedings). Basically, NBC acted to try and halt the original (loan monies go missing) wrong, because that was a wrong for which they were/are partly culpable.

Neither party is blameless, but who remains most culpable comes down to an individual point of view. It's like this: A young lad knocks your granny's door and asks if she needs anything fetching from the shops. Granny gives the kid a twenty and he disappears with the note, never to be seen again. Granny wasn't very wise, but did that justify ripping her off?   
Thank you for the detail...............so no legal obligation to complete the East Stand!
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #26630 on: March 12, 2020, 15:26:25 pm »

No legal obligation at all....

The Council should have put this in place before the takeover was agreed...it is after all THEIR asset which would benefit from any improvements.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5110


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 5000 Posts Level 6
« Reply #26631 on: March 12, 2020, 16:36:12 pm »

No legal obligation at all....

The Council should have put this in place before the takeover was agreed...it is after all THEIR asset which would benefit from any improvements.

You wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of shifting the club ownership to anyone, had you made it absolutely contingent on the new owner sorting that stand out. The council wanted the saga of Sixfields off their hands and back in the lap of somebody else immediately. It was as much their fault (bless them  Grin JUST FOR THOSE THAT STILL ATTACH AN OUNCE OF CREDIBILITY TO THE JOKERS) as it was DC's that were in the mess we were. Stop praising these muppets, and start realising they were in no position to call the shots at the time. They wanted anybody's name above the door, so they could get on with the important work of blaming them for not mopped up after their incompetence. There is no way that they could have stood a chance of thrusting the completion of the East stand on any prospective owner at the time anyway. It was still wrapped in all sorts of legal shyte with Buckinghams. The only thing that surprises me, is that it has took them this long to come out of the woodwork and point the finger at KT & DB.

Let's face it. As I have said from day one. You will only know what's going to happen with that stand, once a land deal is done. If the council had an ounce of sense, they would start shaping a deal with KT & DB around a specific schedule of works for the stadium, that comes into force on completion of the handover/sale of the land. It is the only way they can tie the current owners into something that is tangible. Everything that is being discussed, is all about a ship that has already sailed. The only way to secure a reasonable result that suits the council, the club and the supporters, is to leave it to the CEO of the council, and other trained staff, to negotiate a deal that ensures the future safety of the club. Then in the meantime, all the boring fcukers who keep banging on about the naughty boys who lied, can change the record, and give the rest of us a rest.  Tongue
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #26632 on: March 12, 2020, 18:17:07 pm »

"You wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of shifting the club ownership to anyone, had you made it absolutely contingent on the new owner sorting that stand out."

You know this how??

There was no chance of anyone taking on the club unless they paid the VAT bill....that was for sure. The rest is pure conjecture.

If there was no commitment, no promise, no requirement even, for the stand to be finished, why was it mentioned in Kelvins takeover interviews? From Day 1 he was saying about finishing the stand.  He said about the initial money, and that some of it would be used to finish the stand. I assume KT and DB had to show the Council that they had funds to take the club forward, and that would have included doing something about the ground.

The Council didn't want the saga of Sixfields off their hands.....they still own the stadium, they still own the land surrounding the ground. They are still £10.25m down the pan, they are still, even now paying out towards the criminal case.

Sixfields and its saga will never be off their hands.....unless they sell the lot, stadium and land lock, stock and barrel. But then thats nothing to do with Kelvin Thomas and David Bower is it?

Remember this gem from the BBC interview on 20th November 2015, the week before the takeover was completed....

"Thomas' statement added: "We were not interested in the development land (around the stadium) as we are businessmen with experience in football clubs, and not large scale developers that a project like that requires."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34785725

How has that worked out?
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #26633 on: March 12, 2020, 19:03:42 pm »

"You wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of shifting the club ownership to anyone, had you made it absolutely contingent on the new owner sorting that stand out."

You know this how??

There was no chance of anyone taking on the club unless they paid the VAT bill....that was for sure. The rest is pure conjecture.

If there was no commitment, no promise, no requirement even, for the stand to be finished, why was it mentioned in Kelvins takeover interviews? From Day 1 he was saying about finishing the stand.  He said about the initial money, and that some of it would be used to finish the stand. I assume KT and DB had to show the Council that they had funds to take the club forward, and that would have included doing something about the ground.

The Council didn't want the saga of Sixfields off their hands.....they still own the stadium, they still own the land surrounding the ground. They are still £10.25m down the pan, they are still, even now paying out towards the criminal case.

Sixfields and its saga will never be off their hands.....unless they sell the lot, stadium and land lock, stock and barrel. But then thats nothing to do with Kelvin Thomas and David Bower is it?

Remember this gem from the BBC interview on 20th November 2015, the week before the takeover was completed....

"Thomas' statement added: "We were not interested in the development land (around the stadium) as we are businessmen with experience in football clubs, and not large scale developers that a project like that requires."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34785725

How has that worked out?
Be sure your lies will find you out.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
guest3264
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26634 on: March 12, 2020, 19:10:47 pm »

"You wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell of shifting the club ownership to anyone, had you made it absolutely contingent on the new owner sorting that stand out."

You know this how??

There was no chance of anyone taking on the club unless they paid the VAT bill....that was for sure. The rest is pure conjecture.

If there was no commitment, no promise, no requirement even, for the stand to be finished, why was it mentioned in Kelvins takeover interviews? From Day 1 he was saying about finishing the stand.  He said about the initial money, and that some of it would be used to finish the stand. I assume KT and DB had to show the Council that they had funds to take the club forward, and that would have included doing something about the ground.

The Council didn't want the saga of Sixfields off their hands.....they still own the stadium, they still own the land surrounding the ground. They are still £10.25m down the pan, they are still, even now paying out towards the criminal case.

Sixfields and its saga will never be off their hands.....unless they sell the lot, stadium and land lock, stock and barrel. But then thats nothing to do with Kelvin Thomas and David Bower is it?

Remember this gem from the BBC interview on 20th November 2015, the week before the takeover was completed....

"Thomas' statement added: "We were not interested in the development land (around the stadium) as we are businessmen with experience in football clubs, and not large scale developers that a project like that requires."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34785725

How has that worked out?
Like Jolly you have gone down the 'he said, she said' route. It has gone on sooooooo long that is irrelevant, which is why I said the only point is the legal point!

I believe NBC are culpable for so much in the current situation but the Chief Executive / KT discussions are the best hope of a legal solution.

All I ask is they agree a plan, put it to the full Council and tell the fans sooner than later..............before a virus cuts my life shorter!!!
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #26635 on: March 12, 2020, 19:25:00 pm »

Like Jolly you have gone down the 'he said, she said' route. It has gone on sooooooo long that is irrelevant, which is why I said the only point is the legal point!

I believe NBC are culpable for so much in the current situation but the Chief Executive / KT discussions are the best hope of a legal solution.

All I ask is they agree a plan, put it to the full Council and tell the fans sooner than later..............before a virus cuts my life shorter!!!

He said she said maybe.....but I usually deal in facts and use quotes to show them, rather than speculate and make stuff up!

He said she said is a matter of trust....and when trust is gone you’ve lost most of the battle.

That said, I agree with your last paragraph!!
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
JollyCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5068


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Combination Topic Starter Poll Voter
« Reply #26636 on: March 12, 2020, 19:33:31 pm »

He said she said maybe.....but I usually deal in facts and use quotes to show them, rather than speculate and make stuff up!

He said she said is a matter of trust....and when trust is gone you’ve lost most of the battle.

That said, I agree with your last paragraph!!

I don't think I went down the "he said she said" route, either. I simply stated the facts as they are. And you are right:when trust is gone you’ve lost most of the battle. This is why we are where we are. Nail on head.
Report Spam   Logged
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2531


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26637 on: March 12, 2020, 21:28:15 pm »

He signed a Memorandum of Understanding to this effect, and this was a main reason both the Council and the Cardozas accepted his original sales pitch. Unfortunately an MoU is exactly as it says on the header. It is basically an agreed course of action. But the Council and Cardozas agreed the deal without further legal bindings because NTFC was days away from the HMRC court action. They took a **** on KT in order to safeguard the immediate future of NTFC.

Another part of the MoU sets out how all of the CDNL land would be returned for the benefit of NBC and the citizens of Northampton. Bower and Thomas then went behind the Council's backs, paid the liquidators 170 grand and gazumped the Council for ownership of the CDNL held land leases.
KT has always claimed they only did this because NBC was acting too slowly, and so they moved in order to protect the club/land/leases from any third party bid. This may be true, but it is a fact that this was a second issue which majorly put the Council's nose out of joint.

In a nutshell: NBC shouldn't have supported the deal until all of the stadium/stand issues had been nailed down in a watertight document. However, they did support the deal because KT threatened to walk if they failed to do so, and he seemed a better prospect than the local consortium (which, contrary to some on here, did exist and would have acted to halt the court proceedings). Basically, NBC acted to try and halt the original (loan monies go missing) wrong, because that was a wrong for which they were/are partly culpable.

Neither party is blameless, but who remains most culpable comes down to an individual point of view. It's like this: A young lad knocks your granny's door and asks if she needs anything fetching from the shops. Granny gives the kid a twenty and he disappears with the note, never to be seen again. Granny wasn't very wise, but did that justify ripping her off?   


An excellent post. I agree entirely. Also GPC has made some very accurate comments today.

The clock is ticking down for KT and, as demonstrated by yesterday's media comments, he knows it. 
Report Spam   Logged
St Edmundsbury Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 6 Search Windows User
« Reply #26638 on: March 12, 2020, 21:36:57 pm »

Ticking down to what?
Report Spam   Logged

2022/23 Prediction League Champion
2022/23 Guess The Attendance Champion

Claret & White - Nothing Else Matters
Vintage Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2531


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
« Reply #26639 on: March 12, 2020, 21:49:18 pm »

I think you can work that out for yourself unless you are a member of the KT fan club admiring the progress on and off the pitch for the past 5 years
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 [1332] 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 ... 2181   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Parental guidance is urged as this messageboard may not be suitable for all persons especially those under the age of 16 as the forums may contain words, phrases and expressions not considered appropriate for a younger audience so please express caution. If any posts in the forums offend you, please let us know and we will look at them and if we agree with your complaint, we will remove them. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and may be sued should your posting contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. We check the forums at various times of the day and remove offending posts. Other supporters are welcome but abusive or silly posts will be removed and the offenders potentially barred from future access to the site. We advise that you never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: telephone number, home address or email address), and please do not include postal addresses of any kind. This messageboard is not endorsed or in any way affiliated with Northampton Town FC. All postings on this board become copyright of The Hotel End & may not be reproduced without the permission of the board administrator. By signing up to this message board you agree to this. The Hotel End cannot be held liable for the actions or postings of its members. The Hotel End reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. The Hotel End may disclose user information to government authorities at their discretion or when required by law. The Hotel End may also disclose user information when The Hotel End has reason to believe that someone is causing injury to or interference with its rights or property, other The Hotel End users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. By registering for The Hotel End, you agree to indemnify The Hotel End its representatives, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims (including claims for legal fees) which may arise from your participation on the The Hotel End. You also agree that The Hotel End is not responsible for the materials posted by users of The Hotel End. In addition, you grant The Hotel End and its affiliates, worldwide, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or content posted on The Hotel End and/or e-mail sent by you to The Hotel End (in whole or in part). The Hotel End reserves the right to make the rules up as it goes along. Thank you - The Hotel End I love Quidco
Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy