Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

There are quite a few things I would argue with you about your post Dale, but the main one is the last line above. Can you point out when and how the Trust have been obstructive with the owners in their six years of not completing the East Stand ?

So you think the Trust board have given the council the impression that they agree with KT & DB's proposals?

Or would you say that they have fought it tooth and nail all along the way?

What do ya reckon Rog..  🤔🤔🤔

[guest3494]

I rarely read posts that long. But as posts go, Melbourne's does it for me. Of course some of it is biased by his own thoughts. But, all of our posts are like that. It’s a very fair summary.

👍👍

[Melbourne Cobbler]

There are quite a few things I would argue with you about your post Dale, but the main one is the last line above. Can you point out when and how the Trust have been obstructive with the owners in their six years of not completing the East Stand ?

Come on Rog, read the news page on the Trust website, there are countless objections with pressure brought to bare on anyone who will listen, including the council. Forget how justified they are, lets assume for the purposes of this debate they are completely justified. From this point forward what is the objective, how likely is it to succeed and how effective is the current strategy? I would argue to finish the stand to an acceptable standard, highly unlikely, and futile.

[Carton Lid]

So you think the Trust board have given the council the impression that they agree with KT & DB's proposals?

Or would you say that they have fought it tooth and nail all along the way?

What do ya reckon Rog..  🤔🤔🤔

Well Andy Roberts, Trust Chairman, stood up at the Guildhall and backed the CDNL deal so I would say that, probably, gave WNC the impression of support.  Of course that was when we were still going to get the Stand finished 

[Carton Lid]

Could you put in writing what was discussed, what was agreed, the actions and the results so far please.

No, it was a private conversation between the club Chairman, the supporters rep and a supporter of over 60 years. You can ask Tom if you want and I've no problem with what he says.

[Manwork04]

All seems straight forward to me. The completion clause is not in there because the owners probably need at best the flexibility to re-evaluate the condition, or at worst are no longer prepared to guarantee or even honour it.

On the interview I heard and recently posted, it sounded to me like the owners total budget regarding the plan for NTFC was circa £4 million. I also don't think they intended to stick around anywhere near as long as this either. The problem is most of the commentary on here is heavy with emotional bias, for the people that matter this is mainly a financial decision. That's never a great position to negotiate from and invariably leads to poor and misguided decision making.

When the club was taken over Chris Wilder was at the helm. The owners probably hoped to invest a couple of million in the squad, progress up the league, tart up the East Stand a bit, make a killing on the land and move the club on at a tidy profit. As with some investments things clearly didn't go according to plan, Chris moved on, we came straight back down following promotion and there were considerable delays over the land. Now the owners have been here far longer than intended, according to the tax returns have pumped in double the capital they indicated initially at double the timescale. In essence they have blown the budget and then some. On top of that they have been forced to pay more for the land and the ACV situation has added more time and as a consequence money onto the ever growing pile of losses. All whist languishing in Division 2 under a succession of poorly recruited managers (current incumbent excluded obviously). Despite this to the owners credit they have continued to bankroll the efforts on the pitch and I think this is truly commendable given how this has played out and the type of owners they are. Most importantly of all they have not sought outside financial support, which despite the constant insinuations pretty much protects the club from uncontrollable decision making from an external source. This is clearly the main focus for any budget and I suspect any plans for the stand are fairly low down the to do list and may indeed be no longer even on it?

However, the problem with the non benefactor type of owner is that the priority is ultimately always the eventual financial return. As a result, the reality is that because of this some are hell bent on having a fight with them that they can never win. Even if they did, there is absolutely nothing to stop a clone of the current owners or worse turning up next. The sensible thing to do would be to unify the various supporters trusts nationally and engage with the real culprits who allow this type of ownership in the first place i.e the EFL. Whilst this may be fairly futile and time consuming, it's not as much so as picking a fight with the owners over 4 or 5 years and ostracising yourself from this whole process. The smart thing to do would have been to take some of this on the chin and work with the owners to get the best possible outcome, especially when you are relatively powerless. You almost certainly won't get anywhere near what you would like but at least may win a few concessions and retain as much influence as possible. But no, it has turned into a stand up unwinnable fight where all that has been achieved is to add further delays and costs, reducing any remaining budget for the stand still further. Perhaps this is ultimately to zero and destroying any working relationship with both the club and the council in the process, perhaps indefinitely

This is genuinely not a criticism but like it or not the board of the Trust and its members are pretty much an irrelevance in this matter at the moment, and they somehow have to try and get a chip back into the game. That definitely means an overhaul in approach and and probably personnel to some degree. Once the current owners move on, the next ones through the door will undoubtably look at all this and decide whether they want to work with a Trust Board who has alienated both the council and the owners and been as obstructive as possible, no matter if justified morally.

A decision needs to be made whether it's more important to believe you retain the moral high ground at all costs or be effective and have influence? Whenever you enter a dispute there are only 3 questions you need to ask yourself, what is the objective, is it reasonably attainable and what is the correct strategy? Looking at all this with hindsight this has been mishandled from all sides on countless occasions and that really is a fact. You might not like it, but in my eyes that's exactly how it is currently, and it apparently ain't changing anytime soon.

“ Most importantly they have not sought outside support “ 😂😂😂😂😂😂
你在澳大利亚和我朋友差不多

[Melbourne Cobbler]

No financial risk, doesn’t count. On a separate note you sound fluent mate?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

你在澳大利亚和我朋友差不多

How dare you. That’s not true at all. I’ve never been near Beckets Park toilets.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

How dare you. That’s not true at all. I’ve never been near Beckets Park toilets.

He thinks my names Tom and I’m Australian, cheek.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/stand-and-land-correspondence-with-west-northamptonshire-council

Latest correspondence between Trust legal rep and the Leader of the Council


So what the Trust were able to take away from that was that any bid for the ACV land would have to be in the region of £2m as if the Council were to accept a bid on the ACV then the original CDNL offer would fall and they (Council) would lose out financially.

The removal of the clause to complete the stand was made by CDNL as part of their revised and higher offer.

The requirement for the completion of the stand was placed upon the club, as distinct from CDNL, therefore in the event of the current ownership selling up it would still be a requirement of the new owners to complete to avoid the clawback on the NTFC land.

That the legal terms for any deal have yet to be drawn up anyway.

That there remains an open dialogue between the Trust and The Council and the relationship is ok at this moment in time.

[BackOfTheNet]

Well Andy Roberts, Trust Chairman, stood up at the Guildhall and backed the CDNL deal so I would say that, probably, gave WNC the impression of support.  Of course that was when we were still going to get the Stand finished 

Yeah, and then two other board members stood up and put the boot in!

[guest3529]

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/stand-and-land-correspondence-with-west-northamptonshire-council

The requirement for the completion of the stand was placed upon the club, as distinct from CDNL, therefore in the event of the current ownership selling up it would still be a requirement of the new owners to complete to avoid the clawback on the NTFC

This bit seems like bad news?

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

https://www.ntfctrust.co.uk/news/article/stand-and-land-correspondence-with-west-northamptonshire-council

Latest correspondence between Trust legal rep and the Leader of the Council


So what the Trust were able to take away from that was that any bid for the ACV land would have to be in the region of £2m as if the Council were to accept a bid on the ACV then the original CDNL offer would fall and they (Council) would lose out financially.

The removal of the clause to complete the stand was made by CDNL as part of their revised and higher offer.

The requirement for the completion of the stand was placed upon the club, as distinct from CDNL, therefore in the event of the current ownership selling up it would still be a requirement of the new owners to complete to avoid the clawback on the NTFC land.

That the legal terms for any deal have yet to be drawn up anyway.

That there remains an open dialogue between the Trust and The Council and the relationship is ok at this moment in time.

Thanks Grange. The letter from JM seems ok. They just don’t give him the credibility he needs. You don’t really have the bargaining chips, so I’m sure they’re happy to knock out the odd response to settle the dust again.

In terms of the leek. I’m very very confident it did not come from the council.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Thanks Grange. The letter from JM seems ok. They just don’t give him the credibility he needs. You don’t really have the bargaining chips, so I’m sure they’re happy to knock out the odd response to settle the dust again.

In terms of the leek. I’m very very confident it did not come from the council.

I had some leek a couple of weeks ago, first time in years, quite liked the taste of the stuff!! 

In all seriousness though, and a question to you, and probably Dale in respect of his reasoned post, what do you think anyone should be doing now?

You seem to think the Council are just paying lip service to everything, and your dislike for them is quite clear. The Trust are trying to ask the questions, trying to come up with alternatives (for the ACV land), but has it now got to the stage where everyone just steps back and says "what will be will be"?
We just cross our fingers and hope that CDNL gets over the judicial review hurdle, gets the land, makes some money out of it, that money perhaps pays down the debts to the owner and chairman, the stand might or might not get built to some specification based on what they are able to do with it......between them the Council and KT seem to have almost all the bases covered.

[guest3494]

Thanks Grange. The letter from JM seems ok. They just don’t give him the credibility he needs. You don’t really have the bargaining chips, so I’m sure they’re happy to knock out the odd response to settle the dust again.

In terms of the leek. I’m very very confident it did not come from the council.

I would echo this.
The tone seems to have been dropped a peg and the response seems reasonable.
👏

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I had some leek a couple of weeks ago, first time in years, quite liked the taste of the stuff!! 

In all seriousness though, and a question to you, and probably Dale in respect of his reasoned post, what do you think anyone should be doing now?
 
You seem to think the Council are just paying lip service to everything, and your dislike for them is quite clear. The Trust are trying to ask the questions, trying to come up with alternatives (for the ACV land), but has it now got to the stage where everyone just steps back and says "what will be will be"?
We just cross our fingers and hope that CDNL gets over the judicial review hurdle, gets the land, makes some money out of it, that money perhaps pays down the debts to the owner and chairman, the stand might or might not get built to some specification based on what they are able to do with it......between them the Council and KT seem to have almost all the bases covered.

Leek    

I have say, with no personal agenda whatsoever, that certain people strike me as being very annoying and antagonistic. Not you. Putting that aside, all is not lost in my opinion. I keep referring to an open meeting, involving the Trust, the club, and the council. It is the only option left in my opinion. It would offer all parties the opportunity to field questions, as well as accepting questions from those in attendance. I would be very cautious about who you choose to represent you. Andy would be a given, but I would certainly avoid certain advisors and Trust board members. You would be a advocate for the Trust in such circumstances.

Send out an open invite to them. State it’s in the interests of collaboration and clarity. Suggest a venue, and offer flexibility around dates. You will need to agree on someone impartial to oversee it.

[Manwork04]

Leek    

I have say, with no personal agenda whatsoever, that certain people strike me as being very annoying and antagonistic. Not you. Putting that aside, all is not lost in my opinion. I keep referring to an open meeting, involving the Trust, the club, and the council. It is the only option left in my opinion. It would offer all parties the opportunity to field questions, as well as accepting questions from those in attendance. I would be very cautious about who you choose to represent you. Andy would be a given, but I would certainly avoid certain advisors and Trust board members. You would be a advocate for the Trust in such circumstances.

Send out an open invite to them. State it’s in the interests of collaboration and clarity. Suggest a venue, and offer flexibility around dates. You will need to agree on someone impartial to oversee it.

Excellent suggestion Tel, FWIW I find leeks a bit tasteless and watery.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

I had some leek a couple of weeks ago, first time in years, quite liked the taste of the stuff!! 

In all seriousness though, and a question to you, and probably Dale in respect of his reasoned post, what do you think anyone should be doing now?

You seem to think the Council are just paying lip service to everything, and your dislike for them is quite clear. The Trust are trying to ask the questions, trying to come up with alternatives (for the ACV land), but has it now got to the stage where everyone just steps back and says "what will be will be"?
We just cross our fingers and hope that CDNL gets over the judicial review hurdle, gets the land, makes some money out of it, that money perhaps pays down the debts to the owner and chairman, the stand might or might not get built to some specification based on what they are able to do with it......between them the Council and KT seem to have almost all the bases covered.

My thoughts as well, the sooner that this is sorted the better.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Excellent suggestion Tel, FWIW I find leeks a bit tasteless and watery.

You should try LEAKS. I know someone who has some. 😀😀

[Manwork04]

You should try LEAKS. I know someone who has some. 😀😀

Apparently they are even more watery.