Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[The 12th Marquis of Sixfields]

How on earth is item 1 an assertion?! It is undisputable. 

How is pointing out facts "lefty and remainer"? It has been an absolute horror story from start to wherever we are now (which is certainly not the finish) and a lot of solely down to the lack of leadership and whatever leadership we did get was woeful.

[guest3086]

Blimey a true Remainer and Lefty response....Items 1 and 3 are are not facts but merely mostly assertions. As a matter of interest if other Ministers and PM are not fit for the Job so who do you suggest? That's a direct question to you.

Item 1 is an actual fact. You need to return to Northampton High School immediately. I will see if I can get you fast-tracked before you make yourself look silly. Oops, oh well.

[WadeyCobbler]

So, back to Sixfields.....my wife came with me on Saturday for the play-off photo; her first visit to Sixfields since about 2003. When I said she would once again be walking into the Mecca she just laughed at me. But sadly the whole place felt run down and nothing special at all. The faded West Stand seats, peeling paintwork, untidiness. The small stands, open corners and open unfinished East Stand make it a grim looking football ground. When it's full of fans it looks and feels better but it was a bit of a site really. Unfortunately I can't see anything changing anytime soon.

[everbrite]

How on earth is item 1 an assertion?! It is undisputable. 

How is pointing out facts "lefty and remainer"? It has been an absolute horror story from start to wherever we are now (which is certainly not the finish) and a lot of solely down to the lack of leadership and whatever leadership we did get was woeful.

So who would you recommend to lead us out of this mess. No good pointlessly mowing down the Governing Party if you can't suggest a candidate.

[singcobb]

Not correct. You said  "there will be no fans at matches for the the next season".

It is a possibility, especially with people ignoring the social distancing and large gathering rules.

[The 12th Marquis of Sixfields]

So who would you recommend to lead us out of this mess. No good pointlessly mowing down the Governing Party if you can't suggest a candidate.

I'd have let the professor's and dr's have more of a say than Dominic Cummings for a start. I thought your sort of people hated unelected bureaucrats? You've got one running the country now.

[guest3086]

Interesting quote re Wigan 'It is understood the administrators declined to speak to prospective purchasers who were keen on using land owned by the club - which includes two training grounds - for development.'

[JollyCobbler]

I don't think either of you are correct as the Pandemic started 2/3 weeks prior to the UK so it stands to reason that the UK will resume 2/3 weeks later. If and when the European Clubs do actually reopen to spectators based on your 'whole lot sooner' theory   as both Italy and Spain are experiencing significant spikes with Covid-19. I am well aware of your political leanings but please clarify 'mockery of governance'.
One thing to remember is that The UK health secretary Matt Hancock, is ordering an urgent review of the daily Covid-19 death statistics produced by Public Health England, after it emerged that they may include recovered former sufferers who could have died of other cause; source the Guardian. Too early to call 'of Governance' at the moment unless of course you both have agenda's to prove?

There's a whole lot wrong with the way the death statistics are being correlated. At the end of February the UK government instructed that deaths be assigned to COVID based on symtoms rather than confirmed diagnosis, i.e. no autopsy or inquest required so long as the patient meets the COVID related profile. We lost a family member. She was eighty-eight and had been ill since last October, and finally succumed to pneumonia in April. No test carried out, but listed as COVID related because of breathing difficulties.

My best mate lost his aunty (also in April). She had Liver cancer for eleven months, and although no test for COVID was carried out her death was also listed as 'related'. We won't know the truth for a year or so, not until all the yearly statistics are released and can be compared openly and across the board. But I believe the reason the death rate in this country is so high, it is largely down to the procedure being used. Time will tell.

[JollyCobbler]

I'd have let the professor's and dr's have more of a say than Dominic Cummings for a start. I thought your sort of people hated unelected bureaucrats? You've got one running the country now.

Nothing wrong with Dominic Cummings. The bloke is amazing. He can even drive his car while blind. Almost a superhero.

[Another Pedj]

I have been doing that you 50 years.

[guest3338]

There's a whole lot wrong with the way the death statistics are being correlated. At the end of February the UK government instructed that deaths be assigned to COVID based on symtoms rather than confirmed diagnosis, i.e. no autopsy or inquest required so long as the patient meets the COVID related profile. We lost a family member. She was eighty-eight and had been ill since last October, and finally succumed to pneumonia in April. No test carried out, but listed as COVID related because of breathing difficulties.

My best mate lost his aunty (also in April). She had Liver cancer for eleven months, and although no test for COVID was carried out her death was also listed as 'related'. We won't know the truth for a year or so, not until all the yearly statistics are released and can be compared openly and across the board. But I believe the reason the death rate in this country is so high, it is largely down to the procedure being used. Time will tell.

and the flip to that is I lost my father in May to Covid, that is according to the nurse in charge of his home (someone with a virtual lifetime of experience nursing dementia patients) 'he would not have gone down that quickly without Covid' was her conclusion. He was tested six days before his death and the result came back inconclusive. Because of that, he only has old age and dementia on his death certificate so won't be included in any covid stats.
I wonder how many more deaths will have been recorded like my dads?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

and the flip to that is I lost my father in May to Covid, that is according to the nurse in charge of his home (someone with a virtual lifetime of experience nursing dementia patients) 'he would not have gone down that quickly without Covid' was her conclusion. He was tested six days before his death and the result came back inconclusive. Because of that, he only has old age and dementia on his death certificate so won't be included in any covid stats.
I wonder how many more deaths will have been recorded like my dads?

Once you have a diagnosis of dementia, you are pretty much nailed on to have it on your death certificate, no matter what. As with most terminal diagnoses.

As an oncologist friend of mine once said... “why would you ruin a decent primary diagnosis with the facts”.

[JollyCobbler]

I have been doing that you 50 years.

 

[guest3338]

Once you have a diagnosis of dementia, you are pretty much nailed on to have it on your death certificate, no matter what. As with most terminal diagnoses.

As an oncologist friend of mine once said... “why would you ruin a decent primary diagnosis with the facts”.

I believe so yes, although my mother didn't and she had a much longer history of dementia against her than dad.
Indeed, why let facts get in the way of a good diagnosis, and never go for a ddx unless you absolutely need to, is I expect the accepted protocol.

[Manwork04]

1. Other countries took decisive action ie: implementing lockdown much earlier in the timeline than the UK did and, when doing so, actually enforcing a lockdown. Not this pathetic half arsed attempt that we did. They closed their borders. They tested people
2. They do not know what they're doing. 45,000 deaths. By FAR the highest total in Europe - and from a starting point 2/3 weeks behind everybody else according to your own figures.
3. Like many other ministers, this man is not fit for the job.
4. It isn't. 45,000 deaths, remember.

How's the "world beating test and trace" app coming along?

Read this and take off your blue glasses https://time.com/5823382/britain-coronavirus-response/ It on;y goes up to April. Lucky really, because it only got worse from then.

You’re right, it would have been much better if Steptoe and Uncle John had won the election! What With Ms Abbot counting the dead we would be at 47,000,000 infections and 2 deaths.
I do happen to agree with you on your assessment of Mr Hancock, the man is utterly out of his depth and needs to go.

[guest3359]

You’re right, it would have been much better if Steptoe and Uncle John had won the election! What With Ms Abbot counting the dead we would be at 47,000,000 infections and 2 deaths.
I do happen to agree with you on your assessment of Mr Hancock, the man is utterly out of his depth and needs to go.

Luckily we have Priti Patel keeping count "three hundred thousand, and thirty four, nine hundred and seventy four thousand".

So about the stadium... 7 days until the deadline, but I'm not holding my breath on any sort of statement anywhere close to that date.

[Ragdoll Cobbler]

So, may as well lock this thread as fvck all going to be happening anytime soon...if only the council/opposition were this interested when our previous chairman was at the helm!

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/politics/opposition-calls-sixfields-deal-be-open-scrutiny-council-denies-agreement-reached-cobblers-2923102

Opposition calls for Sixfields deal to be ‘open to scrutiny’ – but council denies agreement is reached with Cobblers

Opposition councillors called for Northampton Borough Council to be open and transparent about any deal it does with the Cobblers for land next to Sixfields Stadium.

The leaders of Labour and the Liberal Democrats also called for thorough due diligence to be carried out, after recent media reports that a deal on land next to the East Stand was close to being struck.

The issue was a hot topic of discussion at Monday’s full council meeting (July 20), but the council stressed that ‘no agreements’ were in place, and that it would carry out thorough checks before concluding any deal.

Last month, the BBC reported that a £500,000 deal was close to being struck which would allow the football club to be given an option to buy borough council-owned land next to Sixfields, on condition the East Stand was finished.

It would then see the council sharing the proceeds of any subsequent development with the club. It was also reported that a £3 million cap on the cost of completing the stand was also likely to be part of the deal.

A criminal investigation is still ongoing examining how £10.25 million of taxpayers’ money, lent by the borough council to the club in 2013 to complete the redevelopment at the stadium, was allegedly ‘misappropriated’.

Current Cobblers chairman Kelvin Thomas acquired the club from former chairman David Cardoza in 2015. A spokesman for the club had told the BBC last month: “The overriding principle, as it always has been, is the development of the East Stand and that is an agreed point with Northampton Borough Council.

“In addition, NBC will need to demonstrate best value for any disposal of the freehold land, which is also accepted by the football club.”

Labour leader Councillor Danielle Stone was keen to see mistakes of the past not repeated, and tabled a number of written questions to the council’s cabinet member for regeneration and enterprise, Councillor Tim Hadland.

Councillor Stone asked: “Can the council confirm that all the details of the Option Agreement including any letters of intent, Memorandum of Understandings and the like will be open to scrutiny and debate by all councillors and the wider public before anything is signed?”

Responding, Councillor Hadland said: “We can confirm that should there be any deal acceptable to the council we will follow our established governance processes, including formal decision-making by cabinet. This will allow scrutiny by the public and councillors in accordance with our normal procedures.”

Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Sally Beardsworth wanted to find out more about the structure of the reported deal, asking: “The media reports state a 50/50 split of ‘profits’ is agreed between NTFC and NBC from the development. Precisely, what expenditure is to be deducted from the top line sale proceeds before determining the actual divisible profit?”

Councillor Hadland responded: “The terms of any deal have not yet been agreed and discussions are ongoing. The council will comply with its duties to achieve best value for the taxpayers of the town.”

The questions were tabled during a week in which all councillors were sent an open letter by the club’s supporters’ trust urging them to press for ‘full disclosure’ of the deal so that taxpayers’ and the club’s supporters would not be ‘ripped off all over again’.

The open letter read: “We believe it is the intention of those in charge of the negotiations with the owners of the football club to conclude a deal without allowing scrutiny of its details and therefore proper consideration of whether it is in the best interests of council taxpayers and the football club’s supporters.

“We urge you to press for full disclosure of the deal in the interests of openness and transparency, which is the very least the long-suffering football fans and council taxpayers of Northampton deserve.”

Councillor Stone ended the discussion by saying she was a bit more ‘reassured’ having been told that opposition parties would be kept in the loop with regular briefings, but added: “Rebuilding trust with the supporters is going to be really really important given the history of what has gone on. Speculation is very damaging to everybody, we need to be as open and transparent as we possibly can be and rebuild that trust so that everyone knows what is going on.”

Below are the written questions, and answers, in their entirety from Monday’s meeting.

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone (Labour leader):

“We know the Memorandum of Understanding entered into in November 2015 between Northampton Borough Council and the club’s owners is legally non-binding. But why are none of its commitments being honoured? This includes the commitment of the club’s owners to complete the East Stand from their own funds given to the Council in 2015?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland (Conservative, cabinet member for regeneration and enterprise):

“For some time, the football club have been keen to pursue development of land in the area of the Sixfields Stadium, and have put forward ideas for a number of possible development schemes. Although discussions are ongoing between the club and the council there are no agreements in place and any deal must deliver best value for the taxpayer.

“The non-binding commitments in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into in November 2015, were made at a point in time and have, where possible been largely honoured.

“There was no commitment given in the MoU for the completion of the East Stand. In discussions with NBC, Kelvin Thomas and David Bower [club director] did make commitments at the time to build the East Stand but this was not part of the MoU or any formal binding agreement.”

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone:

“An article in The Athletic stated that a ‘significant sum’ of money had changed hands in 2017 when the Chinese owned 5USports acquired control of NTFC’s holding company, Northampton Town Ventures Ltd. No receipt of any funds is recorded in the statutory accounts of Ventures or its controlling company at that time, the English registered Fantastical Ltd.

“Given the existence of serious questions surrounding this transaction, the wider ethical issue of an English local authority dealing with a company under the ultimate control of an offshore tax haven company in respect of the sale and development of public land, can you confirm that full professional due diligence has been carried out on NTFC and all its connected companies to satisfy the council of their finances, source of funds and the tracing and whereabouts of any Chinese funds?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

“As with any commercial transaction the council enters into, appropriate checks will be undertaken at the relevant time to ensure that the council’s interests are protected. These checks vary in their scale according to the size and type of agreement, but we can confirm that thorough checks will be undertaken in relation to any transaction around Sixfields.”

Question from Councillor Danielle Stone:

“Kelvin Thomas in response to the recent media reports said in a BBC Northampton interview on June 25 that he expects any new agreement between the club and the borough to be open to public scrutiny. Can the council confirm that all the details of the option agreement, including any letters of intent, MoUs and the like will be open to scrutiny and debate by all councillors and the wider public before anything is signed?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

“We can confirm that should there be any deal acceptable to the council we will follow our established governance processes, including formal decision-making by cabinet. This will allow scrutiny by the public and councillors in accordance with our normal procedures.”

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth (Liberal Democrat leader):

“This agreement is being negotiated at a time when the CPS has not yet filed charges and the KPMG [auditors] report is not finalised. What protocols are being followed regarding delegation of authority to councillors and officers to agree terms and involving the section 151 officer [chief finance officer]?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

“Any agreement will be made in line with the council’s formal procedures with recommendations being taken to cabinet for a decision to be made. Relevant officers, including the section 151 officer will be involved in the normal way. Full due diligence will be undertaken of any agreement in relation to this matter with appropriate levels of scrutiny.”

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth:

“What protections will be contained in any agreement for NTFC (meaning its supporters as distinct from its owners) concerning its original leasehold land and the future retention within the club of income from the development rather than it being moved through the club to repay debt to the club’s owners?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

“There have been no changes to the agreement with CDNL (County Developments (Northampton) Ltd) since the agreements entered into in 2015. Any new agreement will need to consider and undertake the obligations relating to the site as an Asset of Community Value. It will be up to NTFC, which is a separate legal entity to decide how it allocates its finances relating to its business.”

Question from Councillor Sally Beardsworth:

“The media reports state a 50/50 split of ‘profits’ is agreed between NTFC and NBC from the development. Precisely, what expenditure is to be deducted from the top line sale proceeds before determining the actual divisible profit?”

Response from Councillor Tim Hadland:

“The terms of any deal have not yet been agreed and discussions are ongoing. The council will comply with its duties to achieve best value for the taxpayers of the town.”

[BackOfTheNet]

I think what we will see now is the club becoming a political football; the council at the time of the original dodgy deal was blue and so is the council now, so the other parties see the opportunity to imply some sort of impropriety by tarring them all with the same brush in an attempt to gain a bit of cheap political capital.

Of course, it's absolutely right and proper that all future agreements are open, above board and subject to proper scrutiny, but I have my doubts that is what Councillors Stone and Beardsworth are really worried about here.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Wasn't that a waste of time?
Cllr Hadland has almost answered all questions with "the Council will comply with current policy and in accordance with normal procedures" or words to that effect, which already includes the full and transparent dealings being open to public scrutiny?

[GrangeParkCobbler]

The original deal was not dodgy, it was a good deal all laid out and structured accordingly. Where it went wrong is that the Council forwarded sums of money to the Club before the relevant parts of the deal had been completed. Before we knew it we'd had most of the money forwarded but very little work done.
The opportunity was then therefore the money to be squirrelled away.....

If everyone (Owners and Council) had followed the terms of the original deal we'd be sitting pretty in a redeveloped ground by now.

As it is now we have another deal on the table.....my question with this one was not about the terms of the deal or the outcomes, but what would happen by deadline day, 31st July, as I always felt that we were never going to be in a position to have anything signed and sealed by then. It seemed like the Council could sell off the land to someone else. We (the club) had first dibs, but the time for action on land redevelopment has come, and if its not us (the club) it will be someone else benefitting from the land.