Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[guest3086]

Why?

Presumably you mean 'why not'? Ask Tom Markham.

[singcobb]

The value of a club is not decided by the owner.

Oh yes it is. If I own a house that I value at 2,000,000 then that is it's value.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Presumably you mean 'why not'? Ask Tom Markham.

You made the comment and it doesn’t make any sense. Presumably you don’t know the answer so allow me to elaborate. I own the club and have no intentions of selling. You are desperately keen to buy it. In that scenario it is up to me to decide on a value of offer I can’t refuse. Therefore I have set the sale value. However, I accept it may be possible to influence the figure in some circumstances. Hypothetically as an example if the club was losing money year on year it may be possible to increase the desire of any owner to sell by engaging in activities to influence any plans to generate income. This may have an impact on the value the owner is prepared to accept. Activities of this nature may also reduce the attractiveness of the club to any investors looking to purchase potentially further reducing its value. There are of course any number of possibilities, but in the first instance the value of the club was driven by what the owner was prepared to accept.

[guest2608]

you need to be careful as you might be pre-justice the outcome

What I am saying re KT is history is repeating itself in the way the club is being run,

1. Hiring and firing of managers and their staff
2. No medium term transfer policy
3. Pennies put into the upkeep of the ground (the seats for the East stand were already there waiting to be installed btw)
4. Total focus and desperation to get development done by way of a "gift" from our local council
5. No imagination into extra facilities - just a "just fit for purpose" - basic East stand, with no extra seats
6. Little real investment into the matchday experience
7. The catering offering for example is still awful and expensive
8. The questionable financial events connected to NTFC
9. Club shop still franchised out
10.No modernisation of the ground - sorry think you can pay by card machine now
11.same staff structure and personnel
12.£6-7m debt to the owners with no / little increase in asset / balance sheet valuation
13 Talk of the East stand being the saviour for the club but only after the council effectively give the owner the funds to do it
14 Threats that if the development or loan (DC) doesn't happen the club would be in very serious position
15 Yo-yo of promotion & relegation L1 & L2
16 No long term plan for the football club
17 Owners looking to get their badly spend debt back ASAP (KT has said that they will pay their debt back first from land profits although after the East stand is done)
18 Both have paymasters who I expect are demanding some return on their in investment - afterall it was mainly DC father and David Bower's money not DC or KT

Where KT is different from DC

1. He is very willing to talk to all fans at all times
2. He smiles and is very friendly - especially to those who like him  


Re the illegal stuff, if you follow the events of the Chinese money, none of it makes any sense on a business level, so a natural conclusion is that something doesn't add up. Thinking, believing and proving something is very different -

19. The chairman has failed to prevent grey skies on some match days.

[guest3481]

Have any of the ‘KT is £6m richer’ brigade asked Tom yet or do you not actually care about knowing the answers?

[guest3338]

You made the comment and it doesn’t make any sense. Presumably you don’t know the answer so allow me to elaborate. I own the club and have no intentions of selling. You are desperately keen to buy it. In that scenario it is up to me to decide on a value of offer I can’t refuse. Therefore I have set the sale value. However, I accept it may be possible to influence the figure in some circumstances. Hypothetically as an example if the club was losing money year on year it may be possible to increase the desire of any owner to sell by engaging in activities to influence any plans to generate income. This may have an impact on the value the owner is prepared to accept. Activities of this nature may also reduce the attractiveness of the club to any investors looking to purchase potentially further reducing its value. There are of course any number of possibilities, but in the first instance the value of the club was driven by what the owner was prepared to accept.

Perhaps it'll make sense if you draw a distinction between a things price and its value?
Kinda appropriate for those parties interested in the land surrounding the ground.

[Peter Frost]

Have any of the ‘KT is £6m richer’ brigade asked Tom yet or do you not actually care about knowing the answers?

If you are in the KT is the devil personified brigade you already have decided the answer, equally if you are in team KT is ok you have also decided the answer that suits your bias - the actual facts might be an inconvenient truth for one party with such entrenched views.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

If you are in the KT is the devil personified brigade you already have decided the answer, equally if you are in team KT is ok you have also decided the answer that suits your bias - the actual facts might be an inconvenient truth for one party with such entrenched views.

What about us that are in between the two, not holding any particular allegience?

Shouldn't The Trust be holding that position, receiving the answer and providing us with evidence of the response?
I forgot, they already have, at least part of it they have anyway.

[Peter Frost]

What about us that are in between the two, not holding any particular allegience?

Shouldn't The Trust be holding that position, receiving the answer and providing us with evidence of the response?
I forgot, they already have, at least part of it they have anyway.

I think most people are between the two - as always it's a case of the noisy minority on the other two fronts.

I've read and reread the trust's publication of financial events - its a bit of a tangled web and payment for the club seems clear but the reacquisition carries no financial details so frankly based on no facts for me the jury's out 

[guest3086]

You made the comment and it doesn’t make any sense. Presumably you don’t know the answer so allow me to elaborate. I own the club and have no intentions of selling. You are desperately keen to buy it. In that scenario it is up to me to decide on a value of offer I can’t refuse. Therefore I have set the sale value. However, I accept it may be possible to influence the figure in some circumstances. Hypothetically as an example if the club was losing money year on year it may be possible to increase the desire of any owner to sell by engaging in activities to influence any plans to generate income. This may have an impact on the value the owner is prepared to accept. Activities of this nature may also reduce the attractiveness of the club to any investors looking to purchase potentially further reducing its value. There are of course any number of possibilities, but in the first instance the value of the club was driven by what the owner was prepared to accept.

Here we go again. You obviously fail to understand the difference between value and price. I don 't think anybody said anything about an owner having no intention to sell and certainly in our case the 2 amigos have every intention to sell. The owner can set a price but the item in question is only worth what someone is willing to pay. In regard to the 50+1 model, it can only happen through legislation so a value will have to be set much as it is for compulsory purchase. The most respected method of setting a value for a football club was devised by Tom Markham and is:
(Revenue + Net Assets) x ((Net Profit + Revenue) divided by Revenue) x (Stadium Capacity %) divided by (Wage Ratio %). This formula is tweeked from time to time to take into account the huge wads of cash that are often thrown at the behemoths but is basically accepted as the best way of establishing a value. As you are clearly challenged when it comes to grasping language let me make it clear to you. Value is the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

This is why I have no confidence in the trust whatsoever. If they were the true voice of the fans then they should also be the ears and diseminate all information recieved on a public platform, rather than holding cards to their chests and trying to be smug and shouting they know something you don't from the other side of the playground.

The Trust do not need to provide evidence because there is no evidence.

A lot of information is in the public domain!

Tie up the events with the timeline presented in the filings of Northampton Town Ventures in Companies House records.

I'll try and keep it simple for all of you.

Two director appointments made on 23rd June 2017, Zheng and Yeung (5U Sports), at the time the initial 60% sale was made.

One director resignation made on 21st September 2017, David Bower, at the time the second 40% sale was completed.

Company legal office changed from Oxford to Northampton to coincide with new ownership on 22nd September 2017

Legal charge made against the shares in Ventures on 9th January 2018. This was made to guarantee a loan made by David Bower and Belle-De-Jour to the club to the tune of £1.1m as no further monies had been forthcoming from 5USports at that time. This money was needed to keep the club afloat. The security for the loan was the 2.3m shares in the football club that Ventures (and therefore 5USports) owned at this time.

At least one of the Directors of Ventures (either Zheng or Yeung) signed this document.

The repayment date for the £1.1m loan as set down in the 40 page document was 31st January 2018.

The loan was not repaid, therefore Ventures (5USports) defaulted and the shares were legally re-acquired by David Bower and Kelvin Thomas through the Belle-De-Jour vehicle.

Yeung and Zhengs directorships were terminated on 28th March 2018, the same day as Bower was reappointed a director and B-D-J named as a person of significant interest in Ventures.

31st March the Chinese issue a press release claiming to still be 100% owners of Ventures.....which of course they weren't by this time as 5U had defaulted and the shares transferred back.

You could say that it cost DB/BDJ £1.1m to reacquire the shares (plus the legal costs involved in applying for the legal charge over the shares), and the legal process was followed......and that is why there is no evidence of any further monies paid to 5USports....because there was no legal requirement to pay them a penny more.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09858599/filing-history?page=1

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Here we go again. You obviously fail to understand the difference between value and price. I don 't think anybody said anything about an owner having no intention to sell and certainly in our case the 2 amigos have every intention to sell. The owner can set a price but the item in question is only worth what someone is willing to pay. In regard to the 50+1 model, it can only happen through legislation so a value will have to be set much as it is for compulsory purchase. The most respected method of setting a value for a football club was devised by Tom Markham and is:
(Revenue + Net Assets) x ((Net Profit + Revenue) divided by Revenue) x (Stadium Capacity %) divided by (Wage Ratio %). This formula is tweeked from time to time to take into account the huge wads of cash that are often thrown at the behemoths but is basically accepted as the best way of establishing a value. As you are clearly challenged when it comes to grasping language let me make it clear to you. Value is the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term.

Value is denoted by either what someone is prepared to offer or what someone is prepared to accept. Sorry if you’re confused.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

The Trust do not need to provide evidence because there is no evidence.

A lot of information is in the public domain!

Tie up the events with the timeline presented in the filings of Northampton Town Ventures in Companies House records.

I'll try and keep it simple for all of you.

Two director appointments made on 23rd June 2017, Zheng and Yeung (5U Sports), at the time the initial 60% sale was made.

One director resignation made on 21st September 2017, David Bower, at the time the second 40% sale was completed.

Company legal office changed from Oxford to Northampton to coincide with new ownership on 22nd September 2017

Legal charge made against the shares in Ventures on 9th January 2018. This was made to guarantee a loan made by David Bower and Belle-De-Jour to the club to the tune of £1.1m as no further monies had been forthcoming from 5USports at that time. This money was needed to keep the club afloat. The security for the loan was the 2.3m shares in the football club that Ventures (and therefore 5USports) owned at this time.

At least one of the Directors of Ventures (either Zheng or Yeung) signed this document.

The repayment date for the £1.1m loan as set down in the 40 page document was 31st January 2018.

The loan was not repaid, therefore Ventures (5USports) defaulted and the shares were legally re-acquired by David Bower and Kelvin Thomas through the Belle-De-Jour vehicle.

Yeung and Zhengs directorships were terminated on 28th March 2018, the same day as Bower was reappointed a director and B-D-J named as a person of significant interest in Ventures.

31st March the Chinese issue a press release claiming to still be 100% owners of Ventures.....which of course they weren't by this time as 5U had defaulted and the shares transferred back.

You could say that it cost DB/BDJ £1.1m to reacquire the shares (plus the legal costs involved in applying for the legal charge over the shares), and the legal process was followed......and that is why there is no evidence of any further monies paid to 5USports....because there was no legal requirement to pay them a penny more.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09858599/filing-history?page=1

GPC, thanks for that.
I have read that but I still don't see any mention of the £6m that keeps being mentioned by The Idiot on here?

[Carton Lid]

GPC, thanks for that.
I have read that but I still don't see any mention of the £6m that keeps being mentioned by The Idiot on here?

This would be the money paid in two instalments for the shares in Northampton Town Ventures, 60% on 23rd June 2017 and 40% on 21st September 2017, when David Bower resigned as a director.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Indeed.....and that is a separate matter. I thought people were asking for evidence to suggest that it cost nothing for the current directors to get the club back from the Chinese.

I have outlined, using publicly available information, how that was possible.

The £6m figure is the amount paid by 5USports to gain control of Northampton Town Ventures in the first place.....paid in two payments, the first to Ventures outright, and the second which saw over a million go to Bower and Thomas personally along with the remaining portion to Ventures.

£4m initially for the first 60% and then 1.1m each to KT and DB plus c400k to Ventures to complete the 100% sale.  That's how the £6.68m figure is arrived at.

So there you go.....if anyone wants to ask Tom Cliffe to ask the questions on behalf of any interested fans..... is it correct that £6.68m came into the club from 5USports for a 100% shareholding in the parent company, and is it correct that they (5U) defaulted on the charge so that the 100% shareholding came back the other way for just over £1.1m?

[guest3338]

Bravo, the past made simple.
At least we all now understand.

[CobblerForever]

FWIW, I thought we'd all understood this from previous detail published here !

[EB Claret]

FWIW, I thought we'd all understood this from previous detail published here !

Not ALL of us!
To me and many others, either:-

The sale to the Chinese was agreed in principle but never happened in practice, the money didn't materialise and the ownership reverted to DB/KT. Ok?
Or, The Chinese paid for the club in full but then walked away leaving their money behind! Now I'm not up on financial matters at all, but that sounds unlikely.

So to me and many others that's as clear as mud!
When's the next game?

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Indeed.....and that is a separate matter. I thought people were asking for evidence to suggest that it cost nothing for the current directors to get the club back from the Chinese.

I have outlined, using publicly available information, how that was possible.

The £6m figure is the amount paid by 5USports to gain control of Northampton Town Ventures in the first place.....paid in two payments, the first to Ventures outright, and the second which saw over a million go to Bower and Thomas personally along with the remaining portion to Ventures.

£4m initially for the first 60% and then 1.1m each to KT and DB plus c400k to Ventures to complete the 100% sale.  That's how the £6.68m figure is arrived at.

So there you go.....if anyone wants to ask Tom Cliffe to ask the questions on behalf of any interested fans..... is it correct that £6.68m came into the club from 5USports for a 100% shareholding in the parent company, and is it correct that they (5U) defaulted on the charge so that the 100% shareholding came back the other way for just over £1.1m?

Thanks again GPC.
So there is evidence of the c£6m coming but not a record of what happened to it?
Where does The Idiot get his facts (not assumption) from then? Aside from being told by his 'experienced' solicitor friend?

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Not ALL of us!
To me and many others, either:-

The sale to the Chinese was agreed in principle but never happened in practice, the money didn't materialise and the ownership reverted to DB/KT. Ok?
Or, The Chinese paid for the club in full but then walked away leaving their money behind! Now I'm not up on financial matters at all, but that sounds unlikely.

So to me and many others that's as clear as mud!
When's the next game?

For me, what also sounds unlikely is that the shares were transferred, the appointments of directors made, the resignation of the previous majority owner, and the legal charge using the shares to guarantee a loan actually took place without the Chinese paying up in full......... are you suggesting the club was sold "on a promise".....??