Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Substitute]

My initial impression has to be one of complete astonishment. I mean….. Who on earth uses that many paragraphs to convey a message. 😱😱

Oi geez, a question mark is required at the end of a sentence when asking a question.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Such a robust partnership that a call from KT has blew the whole thing out the water, before it began...

Who on earth was advising and inputting into this. 🙄🙄

Then to embark on a diatribe about someone protecting their own interests in business. Who’d have thought that would happen.

[Peter Frost]

surely the chairman has to resign now.

Personally I think Andy is one of the good guys who was always prepared to listen to another point of view - my brief exposure to a Trust Board meeting was there was a definite hawks and doves composition - unfortunately for me some of the hawks had closed minds, convinced they were right and failed to understand sometimes in life you have to concede certain points to achieve something - it may actually be a compromise but still benefits all parties.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Oi geez, a question mark is required at the end of a sentence when asking a question.

It was rhetorical…

[Manwork04]

I have 2 immediate points that jump to mind, is this the sort of council that you really want representing the good people of Northampton?
Secondly is this the sort of owners you want for our club?

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Some "expected" responses to the subject from certain posters.

It was most certainly not "just a call from KT" that influenced the change of heart from the JV partner. Goodwill works in partnership with WNC and the UON to name just two interested parties.

For those who are not aware and have not researched just what this company does, take a look here.... https://goodwillsolutions.co.uk/

I do agree with Peter on a number of points though. I'm not going to pretend that this would have all gone through smoothly even if the partnership between Goodwill and the Trust came to fruition. There were still many obstacles to overcome, I have alluded to those in the past, just as Peter does in his post.

The annoying thing for me was to have not even got to that point, having gone from a good plan, through meetings with the Chairman of Goodwill (who I must add has been more than cordial and accommodating during these conversations) to a point where the plug was pulled in such a short period of time due to those outside pressures mentioned.

[Peter Frost]

So my understanding (if someone knows better please correct me)

Given the Trust are very unlikely to come up with another workable plan by September, the 6 month moratorium they held on the ACV is lost and the ACV status is therefore lost forever - I seem to recall this can be reapplied for but there is a waiting time and subject to the council agreeing this option which is somewhat unlikely.

Therefore the lease holders can pretty much do whatever they want with the land (Subject to WNC planning permission etc).

So once the judicial review on the remaining land is completed (nailed on certainty it will be found in favour of WNC) the owners will have control of the entire area.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

So my understanding (if someone knows better please correct me)

Given the Trust are very unlikely to come up with another workable plan by September, the 6 month moratorium they held on the ACV is lost and the ACV status is therefore lost forever - I seem to recall this can be reapplied for but there is a waiting time and subject to the council agreeing this option which is somewhat unlikely.

Therefore the lease holders can pretty much do whatever they want with the land (Subject to WNC planning permission etc).

So once the judicial review on the remaining land is completed (nailed on certainty it will be found in favour of WNC) the owners will have control of the entire area.

Pretty much it! Yes I mentioned yesterday that despite the judicial review this did not stop the clock ticking on the ACV process and that 6 month date holds from the date the Council notified the Trust of their intention to sell.
I'm not sure that the other interested party really believe that the JR is a nailed on certainty....they will be spending money on the legal process and you'd think they believe they would have a chance of overturning the decision...and important to remember that is all it does, potentially just overturns the decision, calls it unlawful and then the whole process starts again, with no guarantees for Cilldara that the next result would be any different.

[Peter Frost]

Some "expected" responses to the subject from certain posters.

It was most certainly not "just a call from KT" that influenced the change of heart from the JV partner. Goodwill works in partnership with WNC and the UON to name just two interested parties.

For those who are not aware and have not researched just what this company does, take a look here.... https://goodwillsolutions.co.uk/

I do agree with Peter on a number of points though. I'm not going to pretend that this would have all gone through smoothly even if the partnership between Goodwill and the Trust came to fruition. There were still many obstacles to overcome, I have alluded to those in the past, just as Peter does in his post.

The annoying thing for me was to have not even got to that point, having gone from a good plan, through meetings with the Chairman of Goodwill (who I must add has been more than cordial and accommodating during these conversations) to a point where the plug was pulled in such a short period of time due to those outside pressures mentioned.

Yes I did know a little bit about goodwill solutions but thank you for placing the link - it is unfortunate because I agree although the logistics aspect is a bit dry it does seem a company with a community concience and one that might have been a great partner going forward.  

I'm still a bit puzzled how UON or WNC could have strongly influenced the short notice pull out but I guess these are aspects we will never really know.

[Peter Frost]

Pretty much it! Yes I mentioned yesterday that despite the judicial review this did not stop the clock ticking on the ACV process and that 6 month date holds from the date the Council notified the Trust of their intention to sell.
I'm not sure that the other interested party really believe that the JR is a nailed on certainty....they will be spending money on the legal process and you'd think they believe they would have a chance of overturning the decision...and important to remember that is all it does, potentially just overturns the decision, calls it unlawful and then the whole process starts again, with no guarantees for Cilldara that the next result would be any different.

Good point the "nailed on certainty" perhaps was not accurate but even if the JR finds against WNC as you say the process simply starts again and I would suggest CDNL are now in an even stronger position to outbid Cilldara as they have now essentially overcome a small problem and acquired revenue generating options on another piece of land next to the stadium.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Some "expected" responses to the subject from certain posters.

It was most certainly not "just a call from KT" that influenced the change of heart from the JV partner. Goodwill works in partnership with WNC and the UON to name just two interested parties.

For those who are not aware and have not researched just what this company does, take a look here.... https://goodwillsolutions.co.uk/

I do agree with Peter on a number of points though. I'm not going to pretend that this would have all gone through smoothly even if the partnership between Goodwill and the Trust came to fruition. There were still many obstacles to overcome, I have alluded to those in the past, just as Peter does in his post.

The annoying thing for me was to have not even got to that point, having gone from a good plan, through meetings with the Chairman of Goodwill (who I must add has been more than cordial and accommodating during these conversations) to a point where the plug was pulled in such a short period of time due to those outside pressures mentioned.

I can completely understand your frustration. But unless you expand on the other reasons why it didn’t come about, you are open to the type of inevitable criticism that will undoubtedly follow. Like anyone, I applaud any effort to raise money through the channels identified by you. But the pivotal point was always going to be the obvious discord between the owners and the Trust. I’m not condoning what KT did. What I’m questioning is how it appears on the surface. It looks like it was bound to failure, because it was derailed by what most of us would have expected to happen. You will know the complexities, we don’t. Once again, it is the supporters who are in the dark, left only to draw on their own conclusions. The next action should be a full and frank explanation as to why it failed. That is the least the people the Trust board represent deserve. I would expect a similar explanation from the club as well. They need to tell us why they intervened and what they intend to replace what seemed a good idea with.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Good point the "nailed on certainty" perhaps was not accurate but even if the JR finds against WNC as you say the process simply starts again and I would suggest CDNL are now in an even stronger position to outbid Cilldara as they have now essentially overcome a small problem and acquired revenue generating options on another piece of land next to the stadium.

You say that but worth remembering that their lesser figure included that land already whereas Cilldaras greater figure/offer did not. I might expect (if it ever came to pass) that Cilldara might offer more money and include that land in their bid in future because the obstacle of the ACV will have been removed. That in turn would mean that CDNL might have to offer more.

Also, nothing to stop the "re-tendering" becoming an open tender.... which might invite other parties in, thereby pushing the price up and/or giving more competition to the two established bidders.

Not advocating any of the above...just highlighting the possibilities as I see them!

[Deepcut Cobbler]

You say that but worth remembering that their lesser figure included that land already whereas Cilldaras greater figure/offer did not. I might expect (if it ever came to pass) that Cilldara might offer more money and include that land in their bid in future because the obstacle of the ACV will have been removed. That in turn would mean that CDNL might have to offer more.

Also, nothing to stop the "re-tendering" becoming an open tender.... which might invite other parties in, thereby pushing the price up and/or giving more competition to the two established bidders.

Not advocating any of the above...just highlighting the possibilities as I see them!

Why do I get the feeling that this could escalate into being the beginning of the end of the club?

[Manwork04]

I can’t completely understand your frustration. But unless you expand on the other reasons why it didn’t come about, you are open to the type of inevitable criticism that will undoubtedly follow. Like anyone, I applaud any effort to raise money through the channels identified by you. But the pivotal point was always going to be the obvious discord between the owners and the Trust. I’m not condoning what KT did. What I’m questioning is how it appears on the surface. It looks like it was bound to failure, because it was derailed by what most of us would have expected to happen. You will know the complexities, we don’t. Once again, it is the supporters who are in the dark, left only to draw on their own conclusions. The next action should be a full and frank explanation as to why it failed. That is the least the people the Trust board represent deserve. I would expect a similar explanation from the club as well. They need to tell us why they intervened and what they intend to replace what seemed a good idea with.

Can’t disagree with any of that Tel.

[Manwork04]

Why do I get the feeling that this could escalate into being the beginning of the end of the club?

That is solely the responsibility of the owners.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

That is solely the responsibility of the owners.

Are you sure?

[Substitute]

Personally I think Andy is one of the good guys who was always prepared to listen to another point of view - my brief exposure to a Trust Board meeting was there was a definite hawks and doves composition - unfortunately for me some of the hawks had closed minds, convinced they were right and failed to understand sometimes in life you have to concede certain points to achieve something - it may actually be a compromise but still benefits all parties.

i meant the club chairman, he seems like a duff geezer.

[Manwork04]

Are you sure?

Positive, there may be extraneous factors but at the end of the day it will be there decision, just like it was Cardozys to write the £7m of debt off to enable the sale to Thomas and Bower.

[everbrite]

Why do I get the feeling that this could escalate into being the beginning of the end of the club?

That is a troubling comment; can you please consider clarifying the reasons so that we can appreciate your concern.

[Peter Frost]

That is a troubling comment; can you please consider clarifying the reasons so that we can appreciate your concern.

Evers I think it’s simply if the whole land deal goes belly up (& based on the assumption the owners are 100% only for the land) they could theoretically cut their loses and wind up the business- personally I think there a lot of ifs,  buts and assumptions that I personally don’t believe but the scenario is not impossible.