The Hotel End
January 28, 2022, 17:21:23 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

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

Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

Pages: 1 ... 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 [1483] 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 ... 1544   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?  (Read 1202260 times)
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #29640 on: October 12, 2021, 22:31:14 pm »

Genuine question here folks.....merging two recent themes into one question.....

If the Trust gave the money (and potentially a larger share of the money) to the new HE project and it was resurrected, and then it formed part of a possible infrastructure foundation going forward..... how many on here stand by their claims that they would not give a penny to anything that was Trust led/backed?

Sadly isn't it a bit of a pointless question as the situation since the project got shelved hasn't exactly improved.  After all isn't the whole idea of an Infrastructure Foundation kind of reliant on a decent relationship existing between all parties?

This is what I couldn't really get my head around when I read the Trust presentation to the Council.  It spent page upon page saying how badly the club is run, how shady our owners are, how poor the deal was and that they can't be trusted.  It then went on to suggest that despite all that we all work together as a TEAM (Together, Everyone, Achieves, More).  That the council should give these shady, untrustworthy owners a deal.  Part of which would form an Infrastructure Foundation which had no detail and I assume requires either the support of the current owners or brand new owners as you will be working on infrastructure they own/own the leashehold to.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 00:04:21 am by MCHammer » Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6484



View Profile
« Reply #29641 on: October 12, 2021, 23:23:34 pm »

Sadly isn't it a bit of a pointless question as the situation since the project got shelved hasn't exactly improved.  After all isn't the whole idea of an Infrastructure Foundation kind of reliant on a decent relationship existing between all parties?

This is what I couldn't really get my head around when I read the Trust presentation to the Council.  It spent page upon page saying how badly the club is run, how shady our owners are, how poor the deal was and that they can't be trusted.  It then went on to suggest that despite all that we all work together as a TEAM (Together, We, Achieve, More).  That the council should give these shady, untrustworthy owners a deal.  Part of which would form an Infrastructure Foundation which had no detail and I assume requires either the support of the current owners or brand new owners as you will be working on infrastructure they own/own the leashehold to.
WTF do you want them to tell the council? The time for pleasantries was over, our owners are fully on the exit ramp and couldnít give a damn about the football club.
They want to take as much money out as possible, the gloves are off.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29642 on: October 13, 2021, 08:11:45 am »

Genuine question here folks.....merging two recent themes into one question.....

If the Trust gave the money (and potentially a larger share of the money) to the new HE project and it was resurrected, and then it formed part of a possible infrastructure foundation going forward..... how many on here stand by their claims that they would not give a penny to anything that was Trust led/backed?


I wouldnít because the trust have proved before that they arenít very good at deciding whether they have given or loaned people money.
After six years the trust are still claiming they are owed £10,000 by the owners but havenít mentioned why after  six years they have been unable to recoup it for their members.

That level of incompetence would count me out of being involved with anything the trust did that involved them handling large amounts of money.

Explain to your members what actually happened with the £10,000 lent/given to the club.

1) there should have been something in writing regards the transaction and if so there would be no issue whatsoever in claiming it back.
2) after six years of not claiming it back the inference (rightly or wrongly) is that this wasnít the case which would show a great level of incompetence on the trusts part.

I think itís a bit of a cheek for the trust to want to get into another financial situation without first explaining to their membership what has happened regards their missing £10,000 from trust funds that they repeatedly mention.

Anyone from the trust like to explain the process of the club gaining £10,000 from trust funds and what measures/safeguards were in place for its return??
Report Spam   Logged
SadOldGit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446


View Profile
« Reply #29643 on: October 13, 2021, 08:46:55 am »

I wouldnít because the trust have proved before that they arenít very good at deciding whether they have given or loaned people money.
After six years the trust are still claiming they are owed £10,000 by the owners but havenít mentioned why after  six years they have been unable to recoup it for their members.

That level of incompetence would count me out of being involved with anything the trust did that involved them handling large amounts of money.

Explain to your members what actually happened with the £10,000 lent/given to the club.

1) there should have been something in writing regards the transaction and if so there would be no issue whatsoever in claiming it back.
2) after six years of not claiming it back the inference (rightly or wrongly) is that this wasnít the case which would show a great level of incompetence on the trusts part.

I think itís a bit of a cheek for the trust to want to get into another financial situation without first explaining to their membership what has happened regards their missing £10,000 from trust funds that they repeatedly mention.

Anyone from the trust like to explain the process of the club gaining £10,000 from trust funds and what measures/safeguards were in place for its return??

I remember going to the Coventry game thinking it could be the last ever as the club was on the brink. There was interest but although the players were being paid by their union, the staff were not and the staff were not exactly well paid. Now I am not sure exactly how it was arranged but the Trust paid the staff out of the 10k to keep them going and at the time I believe the favourites to purchase the club agreed to pay it back if they were successful. This was reported in the press. There certainly wouldn't have been time to draw up a legal document to guarantee in law but who cares? The staff were paid, that is the important thing. The money was never repaid and I imagine the Trust would not have wanted to sue a brand new owner at that time and in any case it would have cost a fair bundle knowing the legal profession.
If you are going to forever resent that organisation for not getting the money back in the circumstances in which it was paid then you need to look in the mirror, have a word with yourself and then sit down, take a deep breath and troll the internet for a new place to live where noone else does.
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #29644 on: October 13, 2021, 08:58:39 am »

Answers in red above.

As for your following post who are these other alternative supporters groups, plural, that are dependent on the Trust?  I don't think the New Hotel End Project were.  As Keith clarified earlier they sought the Trusts backing/support which was absoloutely the right thing to do but other than a financial contribution they had no other input at that stage.  Maybe dependence was the wrong word to use?  Partnership/support?
You used the phrase 'main supporters group' when describing the Trust yesterday in your post @18.56 and now you're asking me what the other groups are? I don't know McH, besides the HE I believe there's a supporters page on Facebook so there's two for starters. What about the travel groups that don't align themselves to the Trust, do they count as independent supporters groups?
'They (HE) sought the club's backing/support'. Yet you don't believe that action constitutes any form of dependency and you'd rather relationship described as supportive or a partnership.
OK, I'll rephrase my post.
It makes you realise how much these other groups seek to rely on the support of the Trust, (in going cap in hand to them), and how much criticism the Trust still receive from some inspite of responding positively to a request like that.
Thanks for your answers in red.
Report Spam   Logged
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


View Profile
« Reply #29645 on: October 13, 2021, 09:18:41 am »

They want to take as much money out as possible, the gloves are off.

Hi Manny. I've kept myself out of this one for a while but this is a point I always feel compelled to challenge...

I won't go over the numbers again - we've done that to death - but I think most on here broadly accept that in a best-case scenario (from their point of view) our current owners are somewhere near break-even on their investment in NTFC to date. In the worst-case (in my view, more plausible) scenario, they are in a £6-7m hole. After the next set of accounts are published I'd expect both scenarios to look c.£1m worse. Either way, any money they 'take out' will be off the back of a substantial further investment in the ground that they will need fund themselves.

This is not me supporting the owners or bashing the Trust. I just think we ought to keep things factual, especially if your aim is to take people with you.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 09:20:22 am by claretparrot » Report Spam   Logged
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29646 on: October 13, 2021, 09:28:36 am »

I remember going to the Coventry game thinking it could be the last ever as the club was on the brink. There was interest but although the players were being paid by their union, the staff were not and the staff were not exactly well paid. Now I am not sure exactly how it was arranged but the Trust paid the staff out of the 10k to keep them going and at the time I believe the favourites to purchase the club agreed to pay it back if they were successful. This was reported in the press. There certainly wouldn't have been time to draw up a legal document to guarantee in law but who cares? The staff were paid, that is the important thing. The money was never repaid and I imagine the Trust would not have wanted to sue a brand new owner at that time and in any case it would have cost a fair bundle knowing the legal profession.
If you are going to forever resent that organisation for not getting the money back in the circumstances in which it was paid then you need to look in the mirror, have a word with yourself and then sit down, take a deep breath and troll the internet for a new place to live where noone else does.
Wind your neck in.

Itís the trust who keep bringing up the £10,000 fiasco
Iím just responding to the fact that the trust keep mentioning it.
You can go back through threads to confirm that the trust keep bringing the situation up if you wish.

Weíre you on the trust board at the time?
If not how would you have any idea of timescales??

As for not having time to do thingsÖ
This is a usual response from the trust at every twist and turn.

It would take five minutes flat to draw up a legal document stating whether money is gifted or lent.
That isnít legal eagle stuff!!
Was no one on the board at the time intelligent enough to realise that this clarity was needed??
They should have been given what the club had just been through.

In the same way the trust point out that the club havenít delivered on their £4m redevelopment promise (was that ever in writing?) and constantly bring up the perceived failings of the clubs owners and keep banging on about unanswered questions , all I am doing is highlighting that the trust are acting in the same way.
Six years on no one has explained what actually went on with the 10k and what protocols were followed.

The trust seem very good at scrutinising others but are unable to answer extremely simple questions when faced with them themselves.

Are you suggesting from a position from within the trust that the 10k was given to the club on no more than a verbal agreement as that is what you seem to be insinuating with your pushed for time theory.

If not and you were not on the trust board at the time and therefore wouldnít actually know any more than other posters would someone from the trust please step up and answer the question once and for all (preferably someone who was making the decisions at the time however uncomfortable that may be).

Once that has been put to bed the trust will be in a better position to scrutinise the redevelopment or the Chinese investment or fan ownership or whatever scheme they think of next.

Tidy up your own desk and explain what actually occurred regards the 10k , who were the trust board members who decided to pass the money on and what protocols were in place.



Thankyou.
Report Spam   Logged
guest3359
Guest
« Reply #29647 on: October 13, 2021, 09:37:26 am »

Genuine question here folks.....merging two recent themes into one question.....

If the Trust gave the money (and potentially a larger share of the money) to the new HE project and it was resurrected, and then it formed part of a possible infrastructure foundation going forward..... how many on here stand by their claims that they would not give a penny to anything that was Trust led/backed?

As i've said before I would donate to anything tangible that will improve the club / fan experience. I dont care if its led by the club, the Trust, the NHE or anyone else.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6484



View Profile
« Reply #29648 on: October 13, 2021, 10:42:47 am »

Hi Manny. I've kept myself out of this one for a while but this is a point I always feel compelled to challenge...

I won't go over the numbers again - we've done that to death - but I think most on here broadly accept that in a best-case scenario (from their point of view) our current owners are somewhere near break-even on their investment in NTFC to date. In the worst-case (in my view, more plausible) scenario, they are in a £6-7m hole. After the next set of accounts are published I'd expect both scenarios to look c.£1m worse. Either way, any money they 'take out' will be off the back of a substantial further investment in the ground that they will need fund themselves.

This is not me supporting the owners or bashing the Trust. I just think we ought to keep things factual, especially if your aim is to take people with you.
Hi CP, thanks for your response, I take on board what you have said mate, but wasnít it KT and DB who said they had the money to finish the east stand, £4m ring fenced?
There is no way DB would be still involved if he was £7m down, I think the truth is something in the middle.
What I do know is that time is moving on and DB is not a young man, he will want a return very soon and KT is definitely not the right man to broker this deal, heís rubbed too many decision makers up the wrong way.
If I was DB Iíd bring in an independent company to broker a deal and take the emotions out of it.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29649 on: October 13, 2021, 11:01:42 am »

There you go Random, with idiotic people like you on the Trust board you sum up why people dont want the Trust as their voice.

Grange Park, see above as to why any Trust back project would not get a penny from me.

Always abuse - I asked you a simple question who does represent you after you stated it was not the Trust, thats all
Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29650 on: October 13, 2021, 11:18:06 am »

Hi Manny. I've kept myself out of this one for a while but this is a point I always feel compelled to challenge...

I won't go over the numbers again - we've done that to death - but I think most on here broadly accept that in a best-case scenario (from their point of view) our current owners are somewhere near break-even on their investment in NTFC to date. In the worst-case (in my view, more plausible) scenario, they are in a £6-7m hole. After the next set of accounts are published I'd expect both scenarios to look c.£1m worse. Either way, any money they 'take out' will be off the back of a substantial further investment in the ground that they will need fund themselves.

This is not me supporting the owners or bashing the Trust. I just think we ought to keep things factual, especially if your aim is to take people with you.

Hi Parrot, may I ask nicely why you say about keeping things factual but have said, I assume, that you don't believe the Chinese money happened.

Trouble is that as unbelievable as it is, it did happen.

The Chinese money and deal did go ahead, payments were made and received. Yes to me it doesn't make sense and I assume (as you say it's not plausible that it did) neither do you, which draws a conclusion of some sort of dodgy deal.

Having said that, deals that don't make sense to happen every day.

Why would someone, with no business history, suddenly pay £6.68m for a business that the owners had paid £1 and £166k debt for 2 years earlier. Yes there was some other investment but only £1m or so. On top of that, part of the deal is you agree to put in further funds. This bit didn't happen, so they agree a £1m loan to the business with the sellers.

This questionable very term loan was to be paid back in a few weeks otherwise you default and lose all your shares in that business. (as it was put up as security)

Totally agree with you that it's more plausible that it didn't happen. BUT IT DID !!!
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 12:47:55 pm by random » Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29651 on: October 13, 2021, 11:35:02 am »

Wind your neck in.

Itís the trust who keep bringing up the £10,000 fiasco
Iím just responding to the fact that the trust keep mentioning it.
You can go back through threads to confirm that the trust keep bringing the situation up if you wish.

Weíre you on the trust board at the time?
If not how would you have any idea of timescales??

As for not having time to do thingsÖ
This is a usual response from the trust at every twist and turn.

It would take five minutes flat to draw up a legal document stating whether money is gifted or lent.
That isnít legal eagle stuff!!
Was no one on the board at the time intelligent enough to realise that this clarity was needed??
They should have been given what the club had just been through.

In the same way the trust point out that the club havenít delivered on their £4m redevelopment promise (was that ever in writing?) and constantly bring up the perceived failings of the clubs owners and keep banging on about unanswered questions , all I am doing is highlighting that the trust are acting in the same way.
Six years on no one has explained what actually went on with the 10k and what protocols were followed.

The trust seem very good at scrutinising others but are unable to answer extremely simple questions when faced with them themselves.

Are you suggesting from a position from within the trust that the 10k was given to the club on no more than a verbal agreement as that is what you seem to be insinuating with your pushed for time theory.

If not and you were not on the trust board at the time and therefore wouldnít actually know any more than other posters would someone from the trust please step up and answer the question once and for all (preferably someone who was making the decisions at the time however uncomfortable that may be).

Once that has been put to bed the trust will be in a better position to scrutinise the redevelopment or the Chinese investment or fan ownership or whatever scheme they think of next.

Tidy up your own desk and explain what actually occurred regards the 10k , who were the trust board members who decided to pass the money on and what protocols were in place.



Thankyou.

Yes the £4m was in writing and they actually proved available funds of £11m

The £10k was actually me bringing this up and was to be more of a reflection of KT not the Trust. They acted in good faith to keep the club going, some of the £10k was paid to Country Lion so we could fulfil 2 away fixtures. (think it was included in the 10, not in addition to)

Like you, I did feel the Trust should have been stronger in chasing but they did have an understanding with KT that it would go into a project. But nothing further happened.

You wrath should be on KT for not contributing but he claims he didn't agree (think Whiting did I his behalf ?)

Very easy to sit back 6 years later after the storm has died down to say you should have done this, that and the other. Again the Trust was busy trying to ensure the club survived that was the goal.

They got the council to agree to write off the £10m which then mean KT was willing to take-over for £1

Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #29652 on: October 13, 2021, 11:50:36 am »

[quote author=Shoemaker link=topic=5547.msg449003#msg449003 date=1634113716

Itís the trust who keep bringing up the £10,000 fiasco
Iím just responding to the fact that the trust keep mentioning it.
You can go back through threads to confirm that the trust keep bringing the situation up if you wish.

It would take five minutes flat to draw up a legal document stating whether money is gifted or lent.
That isnít legal eagle stuff!!
Was no one on the board at the time intelligent enough to realise that this clarity was needed??
They should have been given what the club had just been through.

In the same way the trust point out that the club havenít delivered on their £4m redevelopment promise (was that ever in writing?) and constantly bring up the perceived failings of the clubs owners and keep banging on about unanswered questions , all I am doing is highlighting that the trust are acting in the same way.
Six years on no one has explained what actually went on with the 10k and what protocols were followed.

If not and you were not on the trust board at the time and therefore wouldnít actually know any more than other posters would someone from the trust please step up and answer the question once and for all (preferably someone who was making the decisions at the time however uncomfortable that may be).

Once that has been put to bed the trust will be in a better position to scrutinise the redevelopment or the Chinese investment or fan ownership or whatever scheme they think of next.

Tidy up your own desk and explain what actually occurred regards the 10k , who were the trust board members who decided to pass the money on and what protocols were in place.
.
[/quote]
  This is 100% factual about what happen.
Your first point, please show me where the Trust have bought up the £10K recently, the only person going on about it is you.
There was an agreement drawn up and signed by James Whiting on behalf of NTFC, and some of the people on the Trust board at that time were and still are a lot more intelligent than you.
The £4M development agreement was between NBC and KT/DB, the Trust only brokered the deal.
KT initially denied that the £10 was his debt, saying it was DC's debt, but changed his view after being told the details by JW. The Trust were, eventually, asked if they would be happy with the £10K being spent on supporters facilities to which they agreed. After a while NTFC said that they wanted a large marque behind the North and asked for more cash. The Trust were not happy about the security situation of a marque at the bottom of the hill, being open to having anything lobbed down on it and also the fact that nothing of value could be left in the marque, so declined the offer of putting £10K into something that would, probably, been damaged beyond repair inside the first year. That was the last time it was mentioned by NTFC. The money for the team coach to Crawley was not taken from the £10K loan, it was a separate "donation" from the Trust.
    The Trust board had total agreement to loan the club the £10K as we were told by JW that quite a few key members of staff would leaving if they didn't get paid and it would be difficult to run the club without these staff members
    For the majority of people on here, you will have read this time and time again, but Shoemakers selective memory seems to have skipped it.

 
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 11:59:46 am by Carton Lid » Report Spam   Logged
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29653 on: October 13, 2021, 12:30:55 pm »

[quote author=Shoemaker link=topic=5547.msg449003#msg449003 date=1634113716

Itís the trust who keep bringing up the £10,000 fiasco
Iím just responding to the fact that the trust keep mentioning it.
You can go back through threads to confirm that the trust keep bringing the situation up if you wish.

It would take five minutes flat to draw up a legal document stating whether money is gifted or lent.
That isnít legal eagle stuff!!
Was no one on the board at the time intelligent enough to realise that this clarity was needed??
They should have been given what the club had just been through.

In the same way the trust point out that the club havenít delivered on their £4m redevelopment promise (was that ever in writing?) and constantly bring up the perceived failings of the clubs owners and keep banging on about unanswered questions , all I am doing is highlighting that the trust are acting in the same way.
Six years on no one has explained what actually went on with the 10k and what protocols were followed.

If not and you were not on the trust board at the time and therefore wouldnít actually know any more than other posters would someone from the trust please step up and answer the question once and for all (preferably someone who was making the decisions at the time however uncomfortable that may be).

Once that has been put to bed the trust will be in a better position to scrutinise the redevelopment or the Chinese investment or fan ownership or whatever scheme they think of next.

Tidy up your own desk and explain what actually occurred regards the 10k , who were the trust board members who decided to pass the money on and what protocols were in place.
.

  This is 100% factual about what happen.
Your first point, please show me where the Trust have bought up the £10K recently, the only person going on about it is you.
There was an agreement drawn up and signed by James Whiting on behalf of NTFC, and some of the people on the Trust board at that time were and still are a lot more intelligent than you.
The £4M development agreement was between NBC and KT/DB, the Trust only brokered the deal.
KT initially denied that the £10 was his debt, saying it was DC's debt, but changed his view after being told the details by JW. The Trust were, eventually, asked if they would be happy with the £10K being spent on supporters facilities to which they agreed. After a while NTFC said that they wanted a large marque behind the North and asked for more cash. The Trust were not happy about the security situation of a marque at the bottom of the hill, being open to having anything lobbed down on it and also the fact that nothing of value could be left in the marque, so declined the offer of putting £10K into something that would, probably, been damaged beyond repair inside the first year. That was the last time it was mentioned by NTFC. The money for the team coach to Crawley was not taken from the £10K loan, it was a separate "donation" from the Trust.
    The Trust board had total agreement to loan the club the £10K as we were told by JW that quite a few key members of staff would leaving if they didn't get paid and it would be difficult to run the club without these staff members Shocked
    For the majority of people on here, you will have read this time and time again, but Shoemakers selective memory seems to have skipped it.

 
Lovely roger

First point
Show me where the trust have bought up the issue of 10k

Ok roger perhaps read the post above where random whoever he is (apparently something to do with the trust) admits he is responsible for raising the issue  Shocked


Is that factual enough for you ??

Apology on the way I assume??

Secondly youíve done everything but answer my question.
Were you on the board at the time and were any protocols put in place regarding the 10k or was it a case of Theres your ten grand perhaps,maybe , sometime youíd like to consider giving us it back old chap.

Once again is anyone from the trust actually going to show me the courtesy of answering that question

Iím aware of the reasons it was decided to pay it but that is clearly not the question I asked.

Something like Ďno we gave the 10k to the board without anything in writing and naively  believed in a verbal agreement
Or
We put several legal parameters in writing before handing over the money which stipulated it must be returned to the trust at a further dateÖ.

There you go Iím even trying to help you with some answers there ,seems as the trust find it so hard

Once again please answer the question so we can finally find out how the issue was dealt with.

It wasnít your money it was trust MEMBERS money and as MEMBERS they have the right to an honest answer.

Thankyou.
Report Spam   Logged
tcobb
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2880


View Profile
« Reply #29654 on: October 13, 2021, 12:31:46 pm »

Carton Lid, to be fair to Shoemaker, Random, on his own admission, in the post above yours brings up the subject of the £10,000, it seems his version of events differs to yours. My understanding is he is a Board member ? Also he constantly keeps bringing up the subject of the "Chinese Money" what he hopes to achieve by this I don't know, maybe as he is a board member you should be directing your questions at him, not Shoemaker.
Report Spam   Logged

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29655 on: October 13, 2021, 12:40:13 pm »

Carton Lid, to be fair to Shoemaker, Random, on his own admission, in the post above yours brings up the subject of the £10,000, it seems his version of events differs to yours. My understanding is he is a Board member ? Also he constantly keeps bringing up the subject of the "Chinese Money" what he hopes to achieve by this I don't know, maybe as he is a board member you should be directing your questions at him, not Shoemaker.
Thanks tcobb

Itís interesting that the trust board members canít even agree on the same version of events  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29656 on: October 13, 2021, 12:50:20 pm »

I find it interesting that according to roger (I believe other posters have mentioned that carton is indeed roger of the trust and accept my apologies if Iíve got the wrong end of the stick)Öas you rather insultingly say Ö.the trust members are far more intelligent than meÖ. thatís yet to be proven , suffice to say I personally have never given anyone £10,000 on the back of a verbal agreement and then mentioned it six years laterÖ

James whiting drew something upÖ
Was it regards the 10k
If so it would be interesting to see it.

It would be even more interesting if random who keeps raising these various issues could view it as then the trust could explain why if it is holding a legal document that says the club agree to repay the 10k that was apparently according to roger signed by JW there should be no trouble in repaying the 10k back to the trust , the cause that board member random is currently championing.

It would appear that roger and random are not on the same page , which would be worrying if one or either is actually on the trust boardÖ.
Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #29657 on: October 13, 2021, 13:09:13 pm »

Steve, time to put away the fishing gear. 
As has been pointed out hundreds of times, when the Trust put something out it goes on their web page, when people like GPC and Random post on here they are posting as individuals, unless, as GPC always puts "Trust hat on here". I post my thoughts as an individual as I am not on the Trust board. I do try and help when people, like yourself, post incorrect "facts".
    I'll spell it out for you for the last time, the £10K was loaned to NTFC after a request from James Whiting, to prevent losing key staff members. We could have said, "Sorry James, we'll have to put this out to the members, it will take 2 to 3 weeks" or even "OK James we are going to employ a lawyer to draw up this agreement, this will probably take a week". So James, you better let those key members of the staff go, you can always go down the jobcentre in a couple of weeks to fill the vacancies, if we still have a club. Can you imagine the stick we would have got if we went down either of these avenues ? If NTFC didn't have a full staff there could have been grave consequences with the Football League putting the future of NTFC in doubt.
         The Trust board took the decision, that in the best interests of NTFC in the future, to loan the money. JW acknowledged this by signing an agreement on behalf of NTFC, the loan was due to be repaid when the takeover was completed. I have explained why this didn't happen.
      So there you go, I've answered your question again, if I was you Steve, I'd stick to horse racing, your sh*t at fishing  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #29658 on: October 13, 2021, 13:16:44 pm »

  Cheesy
Would one of the wealthier posters amongst us please deposit 10k into his account in order to shut him up, he clearly takes this way to personally.

Report Spam   Logged
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


View Profile
« Reply #29659 on: October 13, 2021, 13:17:44 pm »

Hi Parrot, may I ask nicely why you say about keeping things factual but have said, I assume, that you don't believe the Chinese money happened.

Trouble is that as unbelievable as it is, it did happen.

The Chinese money and deal did go ahead, payments were made and received. Yes to me it doesn't make sense and I assume (as you say it's not plausible that it did) neither do you, which draws a conclusion of some sort of dodgy deal.

Having said that, deals that don't make sense to happen every day.

Why would someone, with no business history, suddenly pay £6.68m for a business that the owners had paid £1 and £166k debt for 2 years earlier. Yes there was some other investment but only £1m or so. On top of that, part of the deal is you agree to put in further funds. This bit didn't happen, so they agree a £1m loan to the business with the sellers.

This questionable very term loan was to be paid back in a few weeks otherwise you default and lose all your shares in that business. (as it was put up as security)

Totally agree with you that it's more plausible that it didn't happen. BUT IT DID !!!


I'm struggling to follow a bit mate but think I get the gist of your response.

My point about keeping things factual still stands. I expressed an opinion in my post and made it clear that's what it was. I did that because I don't have any way of proving, or indeed knowing for sure, what I suspect happened. You've gone beyond opinion into conjecture, and presented something as fact which time and time again you've failed to back up.

Show me something that will convince me you're right and my best guess is wrong. I know I'm banging the same old drum mate but it really is the only way to take anyone half-sensible with you.


Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 [1483] 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 ... 1544   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! | Upgrade This Forum
SMFServer.com - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy