Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[EB Claret]

Blimey, you have some very strong feelings on this issue Melbourne.
As I understand it, the money came from central government and was only overseen by your council in town so the rate payers of Northampton will probably not have lost out in the way you suggest?
I have to agree with the sentiments of SOG. You seem to be coming from a starting position of everyone being a crook who will seize upon a weakness of others. If I saw someone drop a fiver outside our village shop I wouldnt pocket it, I'd tap them on the shoulder (well not at the moment you understand) and alert them. I'd like think most members of society would do similar rather than take advantage. Perhaps your background in business has made you particularly aware of weaknesses in the system and how aware you have to be not to have your pants pulled down, but I'll ask you this...if that same opportunity that presented itself to the previous owner and his cronies presented itself to you, would you have? If yes, who would you blame yourself or the beaurocrat who dropped the bollock, and who would you expect the police to go chasing?
You dont need to answer the question btw Melbourne, I know the answer from your generous offer of welcoming and riding with me in your neck of the woods, that alone convinces me you and your business associates wouldnt trouser 10 million and run off with it and blame others, you are a normal human being with feelings and standards of conformity . Dont forget either, if the faulty process which enabled them to do so had not been there and the monies were withdrawn in installments as was supposed to happen, do you really think those fellas would have played by the rules and every penny been accounted for to this day? I dont.

OK so the villains were the ones currently under investigation for spiriting away the £10m.(allegedly)
Surely you can see that the Council was complicit because of it's incompetence. The money was to be handed over in instalments as each stage of the project was completed. Instead £10m was handed over for less than £2m worth of construction work! Money was still being passed to these characters when they had stopped paying Buckinghams. So if the Council was a victim it was a victim of it's own stupidity.
I can't explain it any better, although I thought Melbourne had already explained it perfectly.

[Larry]

To clarify what my post was about here is a recap. The reason we are in this mess regarding the ground is down to the councils procedures and processes. Had they had the correct checks and processes in place the money would never have disappeared in the first place. The whole outcome would have been completely different and we possibly wouldn’t have ended up with a 3 sided ground and on the brink and the rate payers wouldn’t have seen 10 million plus go down the tubes. Oh, and there wouldn’t have been a 5 year police investigation at the cost of a million either? Now you can blame various individuals and their nefarious activities if you wish but the bottom line is had the council managed the process properly it wouldn’t have played out that way? Fast forward 5 years and we are in the position of perhaps rectifying some of the damage? However since it involves the council, land and a deal involving the football club questions are rightfully being asked regarding the protections being afforded regarding the deal? And during the meeting when the very subject is crucially raised the whole town is served up that self serving, cliche ridden sanctimonious clap trap after all that’s gone on before? FFS Hadland is supposed to be serving the public? Open book and cards on the table. Frank, open and honest and absolutely nothing else will do, and if  other interested parties don’t want to play ball then the deal is off? Oh and Hadland should hang his head in shame!

Lets take a leap of faith and assume the council dont agree they are the incompetent idiots you portray them to be and are making decisions based on where they are rather than where they should be. Do you still not agree the deal offered by KY and co was the best to save the club?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Lets take a leap of faith and assume the council dont agree they are the incompetent idiots you portray them to be and are making decisions based on where they are rather than where they should be. Do you still not agree the deal offered by KY and co was the best to save the club?

Absolutely Larry, I just made the point that under current policy the requirement to adhere to any policy appears to be discretionary? And that is an issue because had it not have been then the whole incident would not have occurred in the first place?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Blimey, you have some very strong feelings on this issue Melbourne.
As I understand it, the money came from central government and was only overseen by your council in town so the rate payers of Northampton will probably not have lost out in the way you suggest?
I have to agree with the sentiments of SOG. You seem to be coming from a starting position of everyone being a crook who will seize upon a weakness of others. If I saw someone drop a fiver outside our village shop I wouldnt pocket it, I'd tap them on the shoulder (well not at the moment you understand) and alert them. I'd like think most members of society would do similar rather than take advantage. Perhaps your background in business has made you particularly aware of weaknesses in the system and how aware you have to be not to have your pants pulled down, but I'll ask you this...if that same opportunity that presented itself to the previous owner and his cronies presented itself to you, would you have? If yes, who would you blame yourself or the beaurocrat who dropped the bollock, and who would you expect the police to go chasing?
You dont need to answer the question btw Melbourne, I know the answer from your generous offer of welcoming and riding with me in your neck of the woods, that alone convinces me you and your business associates wouldnt trouser 10 million and run off with it and blame others, you are a normal human being with feelings and standards of conformity . Dont forget either, if the faulty process which enabled them to do so had not been there and the monies were withdrawn in installments as was supposed to happen, do you really think those fellas would have played by the rules and every penny been accounted for to this day? I dont.

I obviously have a different view to some, but also rather obviously I don’t believe that everyone is crook. However I think it is inconceivable that any organisation controlling funds of 10 million should lend it on faith? I’m sorry but that idea is beyond ludicrous, but be under no illusion that is exactly what happened. Of course I expect any criminal activity to be acted upon, but I also expect a government organisation to take responsibility to ensure it operates to the highest standards, otherwise it tends to cause a bit of a mess? Had it have applied the appropriate standards then the East Stand incident wouldn’t have occurred and we wouldn’t be having this conversation? True it may never have got the go ahead and been rebuilt in the first place, but as far as I can tell it hasn’t anyway, you see my point? Finally with regards to the money coming from central government, how much have the council spent chasing it and what impact has that had on essential services for some of the most needy and vulnerable in the town? Someone by the way who SOG sees a being a champion for, but only when it suits apparently? On the one hand let’s tax the sh1t out of everyone no problem and if poor old bumbling uncle council blows it in moment of incompetence, never mind let’s give him a cuddle and carry on regardless, it must be me? However, let me point out the bleeding obvious one last time. If the correct procedures and processes had been applied post deal the East Stand would have been built, the council wouldn’t have had to agree to the deal it did with KT, and everyone sitting in the West Stand would be experiencing a treat for the eyes? 10 million + of public money wouldn’t have gone down the tubes, the council wouldn’t have spent another couple of mill chasing it and the police wouldn’t have spent similar investigating it? Oh and we wouldn’t all be arguing about it?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Sorry, I forgot to add as part of the diligence process if you insist on auditing each phase of the draw down and that being approved as a condition of the next stage being issued then the funds wouldn’t be abused and every penny would be accounted for to this day? Alternatively, why didn’t the council pay Buckinghams directly in the first place. Why was it necessary to channel the funds through the club? This is basic stuff? Remember the reason the council were involved was because the banks weren’t an option. Therefore the council’s position should have been yes you can have the funds but you do it our way? If you buy a house a bank doesn’t give you the cash, it goes straight to the vendors legal representatives doesn’t it? Is that because the bank believes everyone is a crook, or because that is the responsible and obvious thing to do? Finally, I hope you are ok R and coping with all the other stuff you have had to deal with of late mate?

[Why?]

[guest3338]

I obviously have a different view to some, but also rather obviously I don’t believe that everyone is crook. However I think it is inconceivable that any organisation controlling funds of 10 million should lend it on faith? I’m sorry but that idea is beyond ludicrous, but be under no illusion that is exactly what happened. Of course I expect any criminal activity to be acted upon, but I also expect a government organisation to take responsibility to ensure it operates to the highest standards, otherwise it tends to cause a bit of a mess? Had it have applied the appropriate standards then the East Stand incident wouldn’t have occurred and we wouldn’t be having this conversation? True it may never have got the go ahead and been rebuilt in the first place, but as far as I can tell it hasn’t anyway, you see my point? Finally with regards to the money coming from central government, how much have the council spent chasing it and what impact has that had on essential services for some of the most needy and vulnerable in the town? Someone by the way who SOG sees a being a champion for, but only when it suits apparently? On the one hand let’s tax the sh1t out of everyone no problem and if poor old bumbling uncle council blows it in moment of incompetence, never mind let’s give him a cuddle and carry on regardless, it must be me? However, let me point out the bleeding obvious one last time. If the correct procedures and processes had been applied post deal the East Stand would have been built, the council wouldn’t have had to agree to the deal it did with KT, and everyone sitting in the West Stand would be experiencing a treat for the eyes? 10 million + of public money wouldn’t have gone down the tubes, the council wouldn’t have spent another couple of mill chasing it and the police wouldn’t have spent similar investigating it? Oh and we wouldn’t all be arguing about it?

Yes Melbourne, I absolutely agree it is bleedin obvious that not enough protocols were put in place to make the neer do wells jobs harder I'm not defending the council, amd I accept you'll probably know those procedural inadequacies far better than most certainly me, but then as far as I'm aware no one is attempting to prosecute the council as a body for wrong doing? I wasnt commenting on the current state of affairs between council and owners either.
Perhaps what isnt so obvious are the levels of duplicity those neer do wells applied in extracting those monies from apparently all? (the then new scoreboard was just about the only thing that no one was owed for I seem to remember). At the time and previously, the chief protagonist (or likely puppet) was often cited on here as being lacking in intelligence, a bit slow and not exactly up to speed. Without ever meeting the guy beyond bumping into him in the club shop, I never thought that, and I'll not forget the last time i saw him either, pulling out of the west carpark just before the end in his Porsche seemingly without a care in the world. I wonder just how good his current lifestyle is, still a lot better than most I'd hazard.
My take is someone people probably committed a crime (several crimes), whilst some others could have done their jobs better and been more watchful without actually breaking any laws, hence my point. The club was sold and saved, business being what it is, things were said and implied to push deals through non of which will stand up in any court if anyone cared to try, and we now have a stalemate between two sides whilst a third smaller party that's been pushed towards the sidelines still takes a disproportionate amount of flack on here for some reason. The current club incumbents take some flak from disgruntled supporters who quote them and their and ambitions for the club at takeover because football is a very emotive thing and they will feel (wrongly)entitled. Morally I agree with a lot of that criticism and that's why I would never have made a good businessman, but I accept that it shouldn't be looked at like that and rather the situation since takeover should be viewed through cold clinical eyes.

[guest3338]

OK so the villains were the ones currently under investigation for spiriting away the £10m.(allegedly)
Surely you can see that the Council was complicit because of it's incompetence. The money was to be handed over in instalments as each stage of the project was completed. Instead £10m was handed over for less than £2m worth of construction work! Money was still being passed to these characters when they had stopped paying Buckinghams. So if the Council was a victim it was a victim of it's own stupidity.
I can't explain it any better, although I thought Melbourne had already explained it perfectly.

Absolutely EB I'm not defending the council as said. Just trying to put events of the past into perspective maybe? Two wrongs dont make a right.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Absolutely EB I'm not defending the council as said. Just trying to put events of the past into perspective maybe? Two wrongs dont make a right.

I suppose I come from the angle of not worrying too much about the villains, I’ve always believed that will kind of take care of itself? There is no way plod would spend this amount of time and money on an investigation without being able to have a fair chance of nailing someone to the courtroom floor, senior plod would have pulled the plug about 3 years ago? I just believe that when people are holding the public purse strings they should have a greater moral duty to safeguard it than any poxy banker would with regards to its shareholders? However it often realise the opposite is true and that’s a shame? Anyway I’ve just watched Whys trip through the opium den, so I am going to have a lie down in dark room with a cold flannel.

[EB Claret]

Absolutely EB I'm not defending the council as said. Just trying to put events of the past into perspective maybe? Two wrongs dont make a right.

Agreed

[Deepcut Cobbler]

At the time and previously, the chief protagonist (or likely puppet) was often cited on here as being lacking in intelligence, a bit slow and not exactly up to speed.

Whenever I met him, he always reminded me of the Entertainments Manager at Maplins Holiday Camp (Hi-De-Hi), Professor Jeffrey Fairbrother (played by Simon Cadell), who was always given the run around by the street wise Ted Bovis. 

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I should just point out that whilst I am critical of the processes and procedures and a very select one or two at the very top, I would be reluctant to criticise other individuals and departments at the council. Not without knowing the working conditions anyway? My guess is they are probably underfunded under resourced and over worked? Bit difficult to do a decent job under those circumstances?

[Deepcut Cobbler]

I should just point out that whilst I am critical of the processes and procedures and a very select one or two at the very top, I would be reluctant to criticise other individuals and departments at the council. Not without knowing the working conditions anyway? My guess is they are probably underfunded under resourced and over worked? Bit difficult to do a decent job under those circumstances?

   Although, when £10m is involved it sort of concentrates the mind a bit? 

[BackOfTheNet]

I should just point out that whilst I am critical of the processes and procedures and a very select one or two at the very top, I would be reluctant to criticise other individuals and departments at the council. Not without knowing the working conditions anyway?

Series 2 episode 3 of this is worth a watch if you want to get a feel for what working conditions were like at the time, particularly the section filmed in the museum....

https://dave.uktv.co.uk/shows/ross-noble-freewheeling/

It's worth a watch if you haven't seen it anyway. I'm not the biggest fan of Ross Noble generally but this is quite a good laugh in places.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

On the whole I have stayed away from the recently. But what interests me is the need to keep regurgitating the same nonsense. We are way past the point where it is relevant what has been said in the past, or indeed what happened with DC and Co. I have made it very clear that in my opinion KT is no angel. In fact, he should not have promised certain things, and in my opinion, it would not have harmed him to foster a more transparent stance with the support and possibly the Trust. The impasse that we have come to, is not based on a pragmatic or productive stance. It is based on nothing more than muck racking and pettiness.

For the club to move forward KT has stated that they require enabling land. Now I know that he never said this originally, but what do you do with that information? Do all the parties involved, effectively starve each other out? Or do you come up with a solution? Somebody is going to get that land. If it is not KT, or a consortium that steps if KT knocks it on the head, it will go to a property developer, that has no allegiance to the club.

I am yet to see one side that is involved in this debacle, that can demonstrate a genuinely wholesome reason why they are entrenched in it. Some names that hovered in the background separate to the clubs proposal have absolutely no interest in the club, yet were approached to invest.

If it transpires that the land does become part of any deal, it is imperative that appropriate safeguards are sewn into the deal, to protect the club and the tax payers of Northampton. This is well within the capabilities of those involved, and is standard practice nationwide. I'm afraid this debacle has only proved to me that all involved, lack the emotional maturity and skills necessary to achieve what should be a common goal.

[1971cobbler]

On the whole I have stayed away from the recently. But what interests me is the need to keep regurgitating the same nonsense. We are way past the point where it is relevant what has been said in the past, or indeed what happened with DC and Co. I have made it very clear that in my opinion KT is no angel. In fact, he should not have promised certain things, and in my opinion, it would not have harmed him to foster a more transparent stance with the support and possibly the Trust. The impasse that we have come to, is not based on a pragmatic or productive stance. It is based on nothing more than muck racking and pettiness.

For the club to move forward KT has stated that they require enabling land. Now I know that he never said this originally, but what do you do with that information? Do all the parties involved, effectively starve each other out? Or do you come up with a solution? Somebody is going to get that land. If it is not KT, or a consortium that steps if KT knocks it on the head, it will go to a property developer, that has no allegiance to the club.

I am yet to see one side that is involved in this debacle, that can demonstrate a genuinely wholesome reason why they are entrenched in it. Some names that hovered in the background separate to the clubs proposal have absolutely no interest in the club, yet were approached to invest.

If it transpires that the land does become part of any deal, it is imperative that appropriate safeguards are sewn into the deal, to protect the club and the tax payers of Northampton. This is well within the capabilities of those involved, and is standard practice nationwide. I'm afraid this debacle has only proved to me that all involved, lack the emotional maturity and skills necessary to achieve what should be a common goal.

Brilliant post, and passage.
 

[Ragdoll Cobbler]

TRUST STATEMENT - 28th July 2020

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/reservations-about-sixfields-deal-and-call-for-open-discussions

Reservations about Sixfields deal and call for open discussions

THE board of the Supporters Trust has a number of reservations about the deal in progress around the completion of the East Stand at Sixfields and the associated development of wider land around the stadium.

The board believes the deal does not represent the best interests of either Northampton Town FC (NTFC) or its supporters. It is for the local politicians to say as to whether or not it delivers best value for the local council taxpayer.

As a result of a lack of specific information provided to supporters by both NTFC and Northampton Borough Council (NBC), the Trust made a third Freedom of Information (FOI) request to NBC and the disclosures indicate that preparations for a Sixfields deal – reported by the media last month - are well advanced.

The deal stipulates that NTFC must first complete the East Stand from its own coffers but the club’s owners will get up to £3 million paid back to them, together with other agreed development costs, from the gross sales proceeds of the associated development land. NBC and NTFC will then split the profits 50/50 after the agreed deductions.

This is a clear breach of the ‘three red lines’ which NBC emphasised to the Trust in 2019 were an inviolable part of any Sixfields deal – 1) that the leasehold land behind the East Stand, subject to a second lease granted by NBC to County Developments Northampton Ltd (CDNL), be reconciled to NTFC by CDNL giving up that land; 2) that the stand is completed and 3) that then, and only then, would negotiations begin in relation to the surrounding development land.

The disclosures also indicate that there appears to be no legal or financial scrutiny of the deal taking place within NBC. Internal correspondence from Francis Fernandes, Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer and Stuart McGregor, Chief Finance Officer, contained in the FOI disclosures, reveals that as recently as 9 June 2020 they were both completely unaware of the details of the deal under discussion with the club’s owners.

This sits uncomfortably with the fact that NBC is still in the process of trying to recover the missing millions of pounds from the scandal of the last Sixfields land deal five years ago, with the results of a police investigation and an external audit report still pending.

The Trust has requested an urgent meeting with NBC leader Jonathan Nunn who has said he is willing to meet. This follows last week’s full council meeting at which opposition leaders posed a number of questions to the administration about the Sixfields deal. The questions, and the answers to them, can be found on the Trust’s website.

Board members are extremely concerned that the details of this deal are once again being kept private under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’ when openness and transparency should be an imperative.

The Trust has consistently stated it wants the East Stand completed to an acceptable standard as soon as possible. If this is part of a good deal for the town and club, there should be no need for secrecy.

It appears that:-

·         The club will pay a nominal fee to take up an option to purchase from NBC the freehold titles of the development land at Sixfields. The option period is to be five years and if the option is not exercised within that period it will lapse.

·         The club will complete the East Stand to as yet an unknown standard – no start or finish date is mentioned in the disclosures but work on the stand may not start for several years.

·         Once the stand is completed, the club can exercise the option to buy the land for £500,000 and so sell and/or develop the other 22 acres of land. The land valuation and development appraisal were redacted from the disclosures. The Trust will strongly resist any attempt to earmark the original community stadium footprint land for industrial development.

·         The club will be able to claim back the costs of completing the stand up to an amount of £3 million, the £500,000 paid on exercise of the option and other land development costs from the gross sales proceeds received from the disposal of land within the 22 acres.

·         After the deduction and reimbursement to the club of the above sums and other agreed items, the remaining profits will be split 50/50 between NBC and NTFC. There is no mention of any protections for the football club in the event of its sale, or that any profits earned from the development land are to be retained by the club for its future benefit.

 

To be constructive, the Supporters Trust would broadly support a deal in which:-

The East Stand is completed from the funds of the club’s owners, as they clearly committed to when they were allowed by NBC to buy the club for £1 in 2015
The East Stand is completed without further delay and to a standard enabling the future progression of the football club
Community land from the East Stand to the far side of the old athletics track land, previously leased to the club before 2014, is returned to the club and not used for industrial development – the stadium, West Stand car park and the land extending to the far side of the old athletics track land has been classified as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) and for which the Trust is the registered holder. We are not opposed to development on NTFC leasehold site covered by the ACV, as long as any proposal is aligned to the original intent of a community stadium.
Development land gain from a joint venture partnership delivers guaranteed future benefit to the club. While accepting that legitimate indebtedness needs to be repaid the club and its supporters, as well as the owners, should also benefit from the receipt of any surplus development profits.
The aims of the town’s sport, health and wellbeing strategy are met as part of Northampton’s local plan.

[guest3264]

I don't normally comment on the Trust's statements but on this occasion I believe today they have issued a balanced detailed press release, well done.

Now it needs NBC to be open and tell the electorate their plans and timescales!

Will July 31st be just another false dawn?

[threeinabed]

Will July 31st be just another false dawn?

yes

[BackOfTheNet]

Oooh, hear that paper tiger roar.