Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[random1]

As the council have already stated, they’re well within their right to value offers beyond just the initial upfront offer. The council have said that they put extra value on the club completing the stand, as it should strengthen the town and our counties offering.

They’ve obviously put a value on that which exceeds the Cilldara bid.

sorry mate but you are wrong

The council are not allowed under their / government rules to take outside factors into account once the value exceeds £2m

The Trust agreed with the club and the council that completing the stand is of benefit and extra value, hence why it supported the deal, which included at the time, the famous, NO STAND NO LAND

For some unknown reason that has been removed plus it then also included the ACV in the land sale - hence why the Trust felt it was not in the best interests of the club, especially given KT's reluctance to complete the East stand

[Deepcut Cobbler]

so the club is not £6m (approx) in debt and we have increased our assets ? 

So come on explain it rather than just make flippant accusations, explain how we are better of than when he paid £1 for our football club, versus £6m (approx) of debt

I don't have to, I haven't been making unsubstantiated allegations and/or accusations like an immature toddler.

[BedsCobb]

A lot of people just want to turn up, have a beer or 3, watch a game and see friends without all this stuff getting in the way.

No, just 1.89% do. The rest want something more professional both on and off the pitch.

[BedsCobb]

Why don’t the trust put that 2m offer from the land, and use it as a grounding for building the funds to offer to buy out the club.
The trust clearly believe that they know how the club should be run, and that the current owners are doing a terrible job. So surely we would benefit from all of the business experts on the board of the trust taking ownership and control over the club?

I’d say that if the trust have the level of support amongst the members that is being alluded to, surely a whip round will drum up enough cash to put a tempting offer on the table?

The clubs worth the £1 they paid for it.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

As if the Trust have ever received any calm, considered or pragmatic approach from many on here. The last few posts sum it up

Far easier to blame me and the Trust, no matter what we say or how we say it.

It is nothing to do with egos.

No we have not achieved much with our approach I grant you, because as I said earlier most fans want to just watch the football and don't care. Those on this thread seem intent of destroying the Trust and blame it totally on myself and others.

How many meeting have you had with KT? how many times have you made suggestions to him? (if so how many of those has been taken up?)

I expect the answer to you and the others who say we should be nice is that don't you think we have tried?

We have had lots of meetings with KT, and even DB on a couple of occassions. KT is not interested in anything other than what he wants, when and how he wants it.

Speak with people who have have dealings with KT, speak with the Chinese, with the at least 4 parties who have walked away following discussions to buy the club with him,

Speak with David Jackson

Speak with Ian Atkins

Speak with those involved with the New Hotelend

Speak with Roger - Trust Chairman for many years

Speak with Cildara - when they spent months trying to buy the club

Ask me - I have had a few face to face meetings.

I desperately want this club to achieve more, I am trying to protect the club in it's long term interests.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and tell me how you think this will play out.

I am waiting

This is nothing personal, just an observation regarding activities in this capacity, but rarely if ever have I engaged with someone so poorly equipped to perform a role.

[random1]

I don't have to, I haven't been making unsubstantiated allegations and/or accusations like an immature toddler.

so why not explain as a mature, intelligent Cobblers fan then?

RE my post, the WNC decisions are made by the board and board alone - there are 9 of them

And even of those 9 they do what those running the project want and say - in this case Nunn and Patel in the main.

The deputy Leader - Adam is also the Leader of Sports and Leisure - has stated he is not involved in the land deal at all - personally I find this strange - dont you?

[random1]

This is nothing personal, just an observation regarding activities in this capacity, but rarely if ever have I engaged with someone so poorly equipped to perform a role.

so you have spoken with KT 

[random1]

This is nothing personal, just an observation regarding activities in this capacity, but rarely if ever have I engaged with someone so poorly equipped to perform a role.

if you are referring to me - not sure what role you think i have

[Melbourne Cobbler]

so you have spoken with KT 

FYI I am merely a relatively anonymous poster on a forum. My opinion on the club, it’s activities and actions are pointless and irrelevant. As a life member, the only opinion I have that is relevant and may have an effect is that regarding the Trust, it’s strategies and conduct. So to answer your question no I haven’t because it would be a waste of time. If you have achieved nothing to date, then I suspect any activities on my part of that nature would be pointless as well. What I would like you to do as my representative is conduct yourself in a mature and responsible manner conducive to maximising the best possible outcome for the supporters. This would be preferable to desperately seeking the approval and endorsement of individuals who may question your conduct.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

As a side note, Andy, Simon, really? Is this going to continually be the level indefinitely?

[MCHammer]

I've been trying to get my head round a statement being made continually by John Morgan, Keith B, Grange, Carton, Random and Manwork amongst others that the clubs owners are going to sell the development land immediately, pay back their debts and ride off into the sunset with the profits.  It's said so matter of factly that I feel I must be missing something.

Looking at the figures in a simple way:

£2m to buy the land
£6m owner debt to be repaid
£1m additional costs including taking ownership of CDNL and the leases plus all the contractual and legal work.
+ don't forget they pay the council 20% of any profit on the sale of the land if sold undeveloped.

The land was independently valued at £800k, CDNL offered £2m and Cilldara £3m.

And assuming they sell the land straight away unremediated i.e. no further money spent....

I make it that they would have to sell the land for roughly £11m just to break even and cover all of the above?

So in basic terms we are being told the owners are going to, within days/weeks of purchasing land for £2m, sell it on untouched for over £11m?

Is that right?

[random1]

FYI I am merely a relatively anonymous poster on a forum. My opinion on the club, it’s activities and actions are pointless and irrelevant. As a life member, the only opinion I have that is relevant and may have an effect is that regarding the Trust, it’s strategies and conduct. So to answer your question no I haven’t because it would be a waste of time. If you have achieved nothing to date, then I suspect any activities on my part of that nature would be pointless as well. What I would like you to do as my representative is conduct yourself in a mature and responsible manner conducive to maximising the best possible outcome for the supporters. This would be preferable to desperately seeking the approval and endorsement of individuals who may question your conduct.

So again, it is ok for you to abuse me whilst you complain that I am not representing you as I am pointing out what is happening with various things at our club

The won't be a good outcome for the supporters at this rate, i am sorry I don't sugar coat it for you and others - again we and I have tried that.

I am not sure what you want us to do - we have politely sat down with KT, the Council etc over many many years, we helped save the club in 2015

The reward - kicked out by the owners, treated appallingly by many, kept quiet about much of the goings on re the council and also the owners in his treatment of the Trust.

Andy won't post on here, Simon just posts the facts in general.

I have posted what i think will happen - you disagree?  you think we should meet with KT and be nice and ignore everything else?

The same KT who picked up the phone to Goodwill CEO to rubbish us (and I expect others) and kill a deal that would have put £250k into the club each year - what is your opinion on that?

Have you posted about that on here? have you questioned it?

You want the Trust to stay quiet, say and do nothing? Really ?

Someone has to stand up and point these things out, if you think that is immature then so be it.

You think that the club losing land next to ground for no benefit to the club or it's supporters is a good idea?  

You don't think supporters / individuals / The Trust should be angry and vocal about it?

You are a Trust member, how about you contact KT and ask him for something, why not join the Trust board and help Andy and Simon out?

[random1]

I've been trying to get my head round a statement being made continually by John Morgan, Keith B, Grange, Carton, Random and Manwork amongst others that the clubs owners are going to sell the development land immediately, pay back their debts and ride off into the sunset with the profits.  It's said so matter of factly that I feel I must be missing something.

Looking at the figures in a simple way:

£2m to buy the land
£6m owner debt to be repaid
£1m additional costs including taking ownership of CDNL and the leases plus all the contractual and legal work.
+ don't forget they pay the council 20% of any profit on the sale of the land if sold undeveloped.

The land was independently valued at £800k, CDNL offered £2m and Cilldara £3m.

And assuming they sell the land straight away unremediated i.e. no further money spent....

I make it that they would have to sell the land for roughly £11m just to break even and cover all of the above?

So in basic terms we are being told the owners are going to, within days/weeks of purchasing land for £2m, sell it on untouched for over £11m?

Is that right?

Hi MC

The profit seems to be all down to the remidation - which appears to be grossly overestimated by the Council, mainly due to an old report that based costs upon reading the site for residential units. This is not happening and basic warehouse sheds need far less work in the main.

The going rate for land for warehousing is currently around £1.2m per acre. so 17 acres * £1.2m = £20m approx

The approx remidation estimates is around £8m

20 - 8 = 12

so yes !

Plus we are still not sure if or how the Chinese £6.68m debacle plays into this, if at all, just a coincidence that the owners have keep the debt around that figure for a while now?

and all that with no incentive or need to finish the East stand.

[random1]

I've been trying to get my head round a statement being made continually by John Morgan, Keith B, Grange, Carton, Random and Manwork amongst others that the clubs owners are going to sell the development land immediately, pay back their debts and ride off into the sunset with the profits.  It's said so matter of factly that I feel I must be missing something.

Looking at the figures in a simple way:

£2m to buy the land
£6m owner debt to be repaid
£1m additional costs including taking ownership of CDNL and the leases plus all the contractual and legal work.
+ don't forget they pay the council 20% of any profit on the sale of the land if sold undeveloped.

The land was independently valued at £800k, CDNL offered £2m and Cilldara £3m.

And assuming they sell the land straight away unremediated i.e. no further money spent....

I make it that they would have to sell the land for roughly £11m just to break even and cover all of the above?

So in basic terms we are being told the owners are going to, within days/weeks of purchasing land for £2m, sell it on untouched for over £11m?

Is that right?

I believe that the land has already been sold or at least partnered to Buckingham Group. it was a deal with Buckingham Group that enable KT to buy the leasehold of the 17 acres from the Official Receiver in the first place, from the noses of NBC

KT stated he had had 3 meeting with Buckingham just before the Trust invoked the ACV, yet not one piece of information or detail about those meetings were made public.

You would at least have expected something like, we have been speaking about adding kitchens into the design, or an update on cost or finishing or dates or at least something but no nothing

Ask yourself why? Three meeting he said,

The continued refusal to guarantee finishing the East is a big red flag to us at the Trust, that it was requested by the owners to take it out of the land deal and the transferring of the obligation to complete moved from CDNL to NTFC is even more worrying.

KT has made almost no effort to complete the East stand or improve the stadium in 7 years and £40m flowing through their hands in the name of NTFC.

You really think he is looking to start now?  it was a 5 year project, I think we all know now it was a 5 year project to buy / sell the land not build a stand or develop a football club.

[MCHammer]

Hi MC

The profit seems to be all down to the remidation - which appears to be grossly overestimated by the Council, mainly due to an old report that based costs upon reading the site for residential units. This is not happening and basic warehouse sheds need far less work in the main.

The going rate for land for warehousing is currently around £1.2m per acre. so 17 acres * £1.2m = £20m approx

The approx remidation estimates is around £8m

20 - 8 = 12

so yes !

Plus we are still not sure if or how the Chinese £6.68m debacle plays into this, if at all, just a coincidence that the owners have keep the debt around that figure for a while now?

and all that with no incentive or need to finish the East stand.

Thanks for that. A few follow up questions...

Where are you getting the £1.2m acre and remediation figures from?

Are you suggesting the owners are going to remediate the land before selling or sell it for £12m and let someone else do that?

I'm struggling to see where there is profit for anyone involved if remediation is £8m and costs to be repaid are £11-£12m and the going rate for warehouses is £20m.   As you point out everything breaks even and that's in a best case scenario?  

[Melbourne Cobbler]

So again, it is ok for you to abuse me whilst you complain that I am not representing you as I am pointing out what is happening with various things at our club

The won't be a good outcome for the supporters at this rate, i am sorry I don't sugar coat it for you and others - again we and I have tried that.

I am not sure what you want us to do - we have politely sat down with KT, the Council etc over many many years, we helped save the club in 2015

The reward - kicked out by the owners, treated appallingly by many, kept quiet about much of the goings on re the council and also the owners in his treatment of the Trust.

Andy won't post on here, Simon just posts the facts in general.

I have posted what i think will happen - you disagree?  you think we should meet with KT and be nice and ignore everything else?

The same KT who picked up the phone to Goodwill CEO to rubbish us (and I expect others) and kill a deal that would have put £250k into the club each year - what is your opinion on that?

Have you posted about that on here? have you questioned it?

You want the Trust to stay quiet, say and do nothing? Really ?

Someone has to stand up and point these things out, if you think that is immature then so be it.

You think that the club losing land next to ground for no benefit to the club or it's supporters is a good idea?  

You don't think supporters / individuals / The Trust should be angry and vocal about it?

You are a Trust member, how about you contact KT and ask him for something, why not join the Trust board and help Andy and Simon out?

Reading the above post I continue to be baffled and alarmed in equal measure. You seem to be really struggling with this concept. Other than with matters regarding board policy my opinion is irrelevant, that’s why. I’m flattered you seem to think otherwise, but it really isn’t. I have already written to both the Board and posted on here what I think is the best strategy both now and moving forward. This is based on what I think is realistically achievable rather than necessarily what I want. What a can tell you is that by adopting your stance you will achieve nothing and walk away with nothing irrespective of anything I say. Your petulance offers nothing but more of the same stagnation and derision. I don’t actually blame you, you have been consistent and unwavering in your stance since long before you joined the Board. What I would do is question the decision making surrounding the appointment. If you believe otherwise then that’s a matter for you and those that support your position on the Board. However, I believe I have made my views on this perfectly clear.

[random1]

Thanks for that. A few follow up questions...

Where are you getting the £1.2m acre and remediation figures from?

Are you suggesting the owners are going to remediate the land before selling or sell it for £12m and let someone else do that?

I'm struggling to see where there is profit for anyone involved if remediation is £8m and costs to be repaid are £11-£12m and the going rate for warehouses is £20m.   As you point out everything breaks even and that's in a best case scenario?  

The figures come from experienced professionals in the relevant fields. The £1.2m is on the low side at the moment due to the demand in this area.

No the owners will sell it I expect straight to Buckingham who have the capabilities in-house to deal with most of the work. You only have to drive around Rugby and Coventry to see the many warehouses that have a Buckingham sign either on or next to them.

Also don't forget you are including the £6m club debt as if that is a cost. its not, its a profit really in a way. How many football club owners get their money back? especially when they have not increase the league standing and / or assets of the club that much.

I expect that the owners will profit just enough to get the bulk of any club debt back, will sell to someone and off they go.

Lets face it, they are hardly doing anything to suggest they are building for the future and are going to stay.

On the pitch we are doing ok, i know i am cynical but KT needs to keep fans on side, which the Hylton and Guthrie signings have done - its early days

[MCHammer]

The continued refusal to guarantee finishing the East is a big red flag to us at the Trust, that it was requested by the owners to take it out of the land deal and the transferring of the obligation to complete moved from CDNL to NTFC is even more worrying.

Focusssing on this point as the rest is just ramblings we've been over a million times before.

Surely you and others understand that the original clause that ensured the completion of the East Stand had to be changed as the security it was based upon no longer existed.

As you well know the original deal was a 5 year option to purchase the development land at an agreed price should the East Stand be satisfactorly completed.  In simple terms "No Stand, No Land".  Once Cilldara entered the bidding process CDNL had no choice but to change to a straight purchase of the development land else the deal would have been considered far less favourable than the Cilldara one.

So if we accept that the deal HAD to change and the development land could no longer be held in the background as "security" to ensure the completion of the stand the question is how can the deal be structured in a way that's commerically competitive but ensures the stand still gets completed.

Where I agree with the Trust is that I don't understand how the current "security" of having to hand back the running track land ensures this happens.  What I completely agree with the Trust doing is pressing the club and the council to include meaningful clauses in the legal contracts that ensure the stand gets completed.

I think that is best achieved through professional dialogue with both parties not publicly calling the council leaders and our owners corrupt.

Contrary to the way it's currently being presented the letter from Jonathan Nunn clearly states there will be clauses in the legal contracts and the club has publicly stated it is their intention to complete the stand.  So the challenge really is ensuring these clauses are meaningful and hold a suitable penalty if they are not met.  
      

[random1]

Reading the above post I continue to be baffled and alarmed in equal measure. You seem to be really struggling with this concept. Other than with matters regarding board policy my opinion is irrelevant, that’s why. I’m flattered you seem to think otherwise, but it really isn’t. I have already written to both the Board and posted on here what I think is the best strategy both now and moving forward. This is based on what I think is realistically achievable rather than necessarily what I want. What a can tell you is that by adopting your stance you will achieve nothing and walk away with nothing irrespective of anything I say. Your petulance offers nothing but more of the same stagnation and derision. I don’t actually blame you, you have been consistent and unwavering in your stance since long before you joined the Board. What I would do is question the decision making surrounding the appointment. If you believe otherwise then that’s a matter for you and those that support your position on the Board. However, I believe I have made my views on this perfectly clear.

sorry Dale I missed what your plan / ideas were

If it was met with KT, forget it. At the moment he thinks he has won, he thinks he is getting everything he wants.

Sorry if I am disappointment to you, but the Trust is made up of fans with different view points etc, that is the whole point.

We are all united by our concern of our football club under these owners and quite frankly I believe that all Trust board members are baffled as to why there are not more supporters raising the same concerns - or at least asking questions

[MCHammer]

On another side note Random and to enable you to talk positively about something for a change how are the ACV and Infrastructure Foundation plans coming along?

Have the Trust actually put in a bid for the land and what kind of projects are being planned?

How much do the Trust value that land at?