Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[singcobb]

Not sure from what angle you're coming from, but, all I want to see is an established L1 club with ambition of taking the next step up, playing in an exciting stadium that holds 12000 to allow just a tiny 2.5% upto 3% proportion of its vast catchment to attend regularly allowing upto 3000 visitors,  space permitting.
I don't care where these fans parents migrated from, be it London, the commonwealth or Ireland like my parents did in 1957, I was born in 1961, my first game in 1966 then regularly from 1970..
Football is entertainment,  the Stadium is its theatre and if it looks professional, fans will flock.

It's not an angle, it is just pointing out the realities to you when you come up with your búlls*** figures. When I was at school in the whole of my year there was perhaps half a dozen Cobblers  fans, of which only two went regularly. Your ársepulled catchment area figure is just that, something you pulled out of your árse.

[guest168]

You know how much they received. You don't know how much they spent.
The independent assessor was appointed by the council, you know that right.

sorry spent on what?

yeah it was more the extensive bit, yes 90 pages but no breakdown of area costs. It focused on the development options but used the costs based upon one scenerio

and wasn't red box, so not worth the paper it was written on.

[guest3338]

Glad you got the humour....I sense you may have missed the intended irony.   

Nope, still not laughing with you McHammer 
Dig Lazarus dig.

You weren't that fella who came up with the easier games to come thread I don't suppose?

[guest168]

Derek - I'm not trying to be deliberately contrary here and yes you are right it is fairly well documented that the club was sold for the figure you state - what I have not seen is evidence of, is any monies KT & DB did or did not pay to take back ownership of the club - of course it suits your argument that they paid nothing and therefore "pocketed" the original amount but frankly the thought that the Chinese simply walked away with that loss or had no contingency for a deal failure is hard to believe. Some of your colleagues claim to have evidence that this was a net profit but consistently refuse to provide details.

I think this is really important to clarify - if your thoughts are true essentially the owners have already recovered their loans of approx 7 million and I 100% agree that there should be more continued pressure for the club to benefit more from any land deal - if on the other hand they paid the Chinese a similar amount back it puts a different complexion on how much investment has been made in the club.

So in summary if you have the evidence that they paid nothing to get the club back why do you not publish those details as it would significantly strengthen your argument.  

Hi Peter, thanks for your measured and sensible reply.

We can't provide evidence of a payment they didn't make. How do you prove something that didn't happen?

What I can say is that is has NEVER been argued by the owners that they had any significant costs / paid the money back. Considering the amount of interviews, updates and access KT has to the media, if you were him, and I was saying something that was incorrect and damaging, don't you think  you would have least set the record straight.

[guest3338]

My understanding is the report is deemed not of sufficient level/detail for the process hence why the requirement for the red book version.

  

On a more serious note, how has this come to be your understanding?

[guest168]

Have you forgotten to take your Meds again?
It is alleged, no one else has confirmation of what happened to the Chinese money, as affirmed by KeithB on here.

No mate  

A board advisor DOES have confirmation of the payments received and the share sales etc.

He was a solicitor for 40 + years, so yes I believe him

[guest168]

Random, I haven't seen it reported that the council are saying the report is useless. How do you know this or have I missed something?

Unless you tell me otherwise I have to assume that this is feedback from the liaison between the two council members and the trust, which has always felt uncomfortable to me. Somehow smacks of the equivalent of Parliamentary Lobbying.

Standing by with my hard hat.

Hi, Because parts of the council and other parties have called for a stand alone meeting on the subject and are insisting on a 'red box' valuation. Red Box I believe is where the valuers "guarantee" it's appraisal

Basically in general terms, land with permission to build is worth around £1m+ per acre. The site is 20 acres, some of it virtually ready to build on, some needing little remediation, and some of it a lot. The report breaks down none of this. So even if just 4 acres we ready to build on, then it has a value of between £4-6m. and thats just to sell it on to a developer. so how on earth is the land value just £890k ? 

So of 90 pages, how much is the running track worth?  its been capped apparently and is ready to build on.

Also then factor in that what you want to build is directly connected to the amount and cost of the remedial works required. The report say remediation was over £10m as it was based upon the highest level of remediation required, due to high density housing and retail. Report doesn't say how much remediation is needed for warehousing.

Hope that helps

[Peter Frost]

No mate  

A board advisor DOES have confirmation of the payments received and the share sales etc.

He was a solicitor for 40 + years, so yes I believe him

Derek - I don’t think the sale is in dispute it’s monies paid (or not) to regain ownership - if there is evidence of that why not disclose?

As I said previously I’m not raising this to be decisive I just think if the owners truly pocketed the proceeds of the sale and your adviser has proof why would you not disclose or provide source as it would significantly strengthens your argument.

[Coolcat]

Your not very good at distances are you ? look at Google Earth, half way across the athletics track is less than half the distance to Five Guys and in case you haven't realised Five Guys  isn't a warehouse, some of which can be 30Mts high.

Milkshakes to die for, free nuts while you wait, though I can only manage the kids burger - too many skin fries!
Sorry, back to the car park debate. 

[guest168]

Derek - I don’t think the sale is in dispute it’s monies paid (or not) to regain ownership - if there is evidence of that why not disclose?

As I said previously I’m not raising this to be decisive I just think if the owners truly pocketed the proceeds of the sale and your adviser has proof why would you not disclose or provide source as it would significantly strengthens your argument.

Perhaps he is protecting a source but also possibly not the sort of thing to be publishing on an open forum is it.

Unsure why you and others cannot believe 1. what he says and 2. what KT has not said or done.  1+1=2

[guest168]

Milkshakes to die for, free nuts while you wait, though I can only manage the kids burger - too many skin fries!
Sorry, back to the car park debate. 

agree with the milkshakes especially after discovering asking for double peanut butter 

[Coolcat]

Derek - I don’t think the sale is in dispute it’s monies paid (or not) to regain ownership - if there is evidence of that why not disclose?

As I said previously I’m not raising this to be decisive I just think if the owners truly pocketed the proceeds of the sale and your adviser has proof why would you not disclose or provide source as it would significantly strengthens your argument.

Divisive surely?

Oh and Carton...You're. Evers will be onto you or me! 

[Peter Frost]

Divisive surely?

I’m certain I can’t make up my mind!

[guest168]

I would argue that The Trust Board has been majorly complicit in the division(s) between the supporters, the club, any community spirit and sense of togetherness that there ever was.

I agree that the Trust itself could do more but remember the Trust has done plenty in the last 30 years to ensure the continuation of our football club.

Indeed now, that is our main concern, the medium and long term future of the football club. But I appreciate most fans only really worry about the here and now.

When YOU represent the Trust at Exeter next week, by way of free hospitality (meal, ticket etc) courtesy of the Exeter Supporters Trust, you might witness some of the community spirit. It will be interesting to see if you can sense any differences.

I would like to thank Exeter for their kindness and hopefully it indicates to you, that at least they, recognise that YOUR Trust has made a worthwhile contribution to both NTFC and ECFC.

The community spirit has to come from the club and owners, to create a story, an adventure, a plan and a journey, togetherness. Do you recognise any of that at NTFC?  

[guest168]

why did KT employ a manager that in 20 years had never achieved promotion?

Why when we fluked promotion, did the owners do virtually nothing to prevent our relegation back to L2?

Why our owners now putting maximum effort into getting a land deal, yet put little to no effort or imagination into improving the offerings to supporters?

Please let me know

Thanks

[Peter Frost]

Perhaps he is protecting a source but also possibly not the sort of thing to be publishing on an open forum is it.

Unsure why you and others cannot believe 1. what he says and 2. what KT has not said or done.  1+1=2

It is not a question of who one believes - if you continue to make an implied accusation without providing any evidence (a point one of your trust colleagues actually made on this forum) you simply lose credibility. 

You always want to fight with people who don't agree with your views and again you miss the point - please consider some of these people are not anti-trust, sheep or KT's puppets but perhaps trying to help you strengthen your argument  - personally I would prefer the (somewhat unlikely scenario) that the owners had made that sum of money from the sale of the club and then getting it back for nothing because it does lessen any view of a benevolent action of investing/lending the club 7 million - (of course if this is the case someone outside any interest in the football club would probably say perfectly legal shrewd business).

 if a trust adviser has legally & ethically obtained proof of this why is there a need to protect a source?

 I do however agree disclosing via this type of forum is inappropriate but a formal legally approved statement from the trust would endorse an argument which currently unfortunately is simple heresay.

[Carton Lid]

Divisive surely?

Oh and Carton...You're. Evers will be onto you or me! 

Don't know what you are on about   

[Manwork04]

It is not a question of who one believes - if you continue to make an implied accusation without providing any evidence (a point one of your trust colleagues actually made on this forum) you simply lose credibility. 

You always want to fight with people who don't agree with your views and again you miss the point - please consider some of these people are not anti-trust, sheep or KT's puppets but perhaps trying to help you strengthen your argument  - personally I would prefer the (somewhat unlikely scenario) that the owners had made that sum of money from the sale of the club and then getting it back for nothing because it does lessen any view of a benevolent action of investing/lending the club 7 million - (of course if this is the case someone outside any interest in the football club would probably say perfectly legal shrewd business).

 if a trust adviser has legally & ethically obtained proof of this why is there a need to protect a source?

 I do however agree disclosing via this type of forum is inappropriate but a formal legally approved statement from the trust would endorse an argument which currently unfortunately is simple heresay.

The Chinese did start legal action against KT and DB if that’s any clue.
https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/chinese-investors-claim-they-are-still-major-stakeholders-cobblers-despite-apparent-split-309497

[guest168]

It is not a question of who one believes - if you continue to make an implied accusation without providing any evidence (a point one of your trust colleagues actually made on this forum) you simply lose credibility. 

You always want to fight with people who don't agree with your views and again you miss the point - please consider some of these people are not anti-trust, sheep or KT's puppets but perhaps trying to help you strengthen your argument  - personally I would prefer the (somewhat unlikely scenario) that the owners had made that sum of money from the sale of the club and then getting it back for nothing because it does lessen any view of a benevolent action of investing/lending the club 7 million - (of course if this is the case someone outside any interest in the football club would probably say perfectly legal shrewd business).

 if a trust adviser has legally & ethically obtained proof of this why is there a need to protect a source?

 I do however agree disclosing via this type of forum is inappropriate but a formal legally approved statement from the trust would endorse an argument which currently unfortunately is simple heresay.

Sorry Peter, I am not looking to fight anyone, but I am stating what has happened. Time and time again, people who should know better, refuse for whatever reason to believe what I say / KT doesn't say.

I'm not sure how you want me to say it nicer? More questions should be ask of KT as to why he sold our club and didn't tell us all but there you go

Here is the statement from the Trust. Look forward to hearing your thoughts

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/concerns-about-club-finances-and-transparency

Thanks

[Manwork04]

Can someone lend this guy a fag packet  

How can you possibly say something is realistic if it hasn't been costed.

As I said elsewhere I'd back this option if someone tells me how it's going to be funded and profit the club long term and can support that argument with actual figures.

I’ve just told you that 1000 per seat is used in the stadium business as a rule of thumb.
If I was the owner I would commission a reputable consultant to look at how best to achieve the stand required, there are lots of funding routes and having a robust business plan helps unlocking favourable terms.
I’m sure for around £100k you could achieve a good quality report.

Here’s a starter for 10: https://footballfoundation.org.uk/grant/football-stadia-improvement-fund
https://stirlinginfrastructure.com/industry-sectors/sport-and-entertainment-financing/