Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Peter Frost]

Hi Peter

Just wanted to say that the figures re the ACV and lorry park etc were confidently stated by Goodwill Solutions, a company who deals in warehousing and transport (and great Charity work). The lorry park was just one bit of the plan, with storage and start-up businesses. I also expect much of the funding / income would have come via grants, government and council funding etc. We did ask for business plans and further info etc but didn't get it due to GWS being scared off the project.

What I would respectful ask is if you and others on here, would for a minute read some of the posts aimed at myself and the Trust, through our eyes. We are insulted every single time we post anything - often trying to inform the fans of the situation - from our direct experience or knowledge, we get asked the same questions time and time again, we explain the answers time and time again and then we get peed off that we get accused of lies or having an agenda against the owners - we don't, we just want a medium term plan and a decent return on our investment as fans

Hammy has in just about every recent post, called me a liar, that every post of mine is lies, yet by you and the majority, nothing gets said. yet when i post, it is shouted down immediately.

Why I and a few others have resorted to "shouting" (which I acknowledge is not the right approach) is that we are desperately trying to protect our football club and trying not to lose valuable land for basically nothing.

Most fans are clinging to the hope - and thats all it is - hope - that KT will finish the East stand and because we are so fed up with it, we will gladly wave anything through on the hope it gets done.

As Carton says, 18 other acres to sell and make money from, the council and fans should say that is enough, you aint having the running track, we want to keep it for our future.



 

Derek - we all have to take responsibility for our own posts so all I can say personally even when I disagree  with other posters I try to remain respectful and in the main I believe I have always done that.

Re the GWS issue I’ll take your word there was a better fleshed out business plan than mentioned - but on the basis of what was revealed I was sceptical - it is history now so no point in going into details now.

I’ll be frank as to why I believe you get so so much negative reaction here - firstly the repetitive nature of the negative dialogue against the current owner that you use as a response to any question but more importantly not acknowledging the potential greater risk of a third party winning a bid for the land coupled with the total absence of detail if the Trust were to win the bid - commercial confidentiality does not preclude confirmation there are funds to complete the East stand and perhaps more importantly to bankroll the club if the current owners walk.

[Carton Lid]

Imagine a world where the club and ground is handed over to the trust in great condition with conference facilities and training pitches and 20 acres of land, debt free and with £750k.


Worked out well for RDFC.

Also worked out well at Exeter City, Wycombe and Portsmouth, all above us in the League. Add Newport County & AFC Wimbledon, running at break even in our division, all of them owned by Trusts in the last ten years
  It's not rocket science that if R&D couldn't be sustained with Max in charge, their Trust would struggle, is it?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

As I keep saying, let’s assume the proposal for the use of the ACV is financially successful. How does the Board of the Trust intend it to benefit the club and protect any investment and resulting increase in profit from owner dividends. Further to this how does it intend to demonstrate that it hasn’t reduced match day income from the owners account into theirs reducing owner control of revenue? How does it ensure any resulting increase in revenue the club may receive as a result of any investment is used appropriately? What thought has been given to how this may affect any value or attractiveness of the club to any potential buyer. And how any investment in infrastructure would be legally separated to retain control of the asset? This of course is assuming the plan isn’t to just handover the cash unconditionally. All taking place whilst the relationship between the Board of the Trust and owners is in its current state.

I keep asking the same questions and have done since last June and haven’t received an answer or strategy for any of it. My conclusion is that it’s actually unknown annd unworkable, which makes the project worthless as a benefit to the club under the current ownership or probably any investor owner. Given the importance of the credibility of this project, the activation of the ACV process and the work that has been done on the project to date it’s alarming that these issues haven’t been addressed. Again, how is any revenue going to be channeled into the club, protected as an investment, identified as additional revenue rather than redistributed revenue and conditions applied that ensure any profit generated is used appropriately?

For the umpteenth time, assuming the project for the ACV is successful and meets its financial objectives, how are these issues around channeling the revenue to the club to be addressed? Or perhaps any revenue generated is to be retained by the Trust until some unknown point in the future whilst the club may experience a reduction in match day revenue. And people wonder why the owners are fighting against the proposals, in their shoes who wouldn’t. If this project has been thought through as some claim than answer the questions because I’ll keep asking until you do.

[MCHammer]

As I keep saying, let’s assume the proposal for the use of the ACV is financially successful. How does the Board of the Trust intend it to benefit the club and protect any investment and resulting increase in profit from owner dividends. Further to this how does it intend to demonstrate that it hasn’t reduced match day income from the owners account into theirs reducing owner control of revenue? How does it ensure any resulting increase in revenue the club may receive as a result of any investment is used appropriately? What thought has been given to how this may affect any value or attractiveness of the club to any potential buyer. And how any investment in infrastructure would be legally separated to retain control of the asset? This of course is assuming the plan isn’t to just handover the cash unconditionally. All taking place whilst the relationship between the Board of the Trust and owners is in its current state.

I keep asking the same questions and have done since last June and haven’t received an answer or strategy for any of it. My conclusion is that it’s actually unknown annd unworkable, which makes the project worthless as a benefit to the club under the current ownership or probably any investor owner. Given the importance of the credibility of this project, the activation of the ACV process and the work that has been done on the project to date it’s alarming that these issues haven’t been addressed. Again, how is any revenue going to be channeled into the club, protected as an investment, identified as additional revenue rather than redistributed revenue and conditions applied that ensure any profit generated is used appropriately?

For the umpteenth time, assuming the project for the ACV is successful and meets its financial objectives, how are these issues around channeling the revenue to the club to be addressed? Or perhaps any revenue generated is to be retained by the Trust until some unknown point in the future whilst the club may experience a reduction in match day revenue. And people wonder why the owners are fighting against the proposals, in their shoes who wouldn’t. If this project has been thought through as some claim than answer the questions because I’ll keep asking until you do.

All fair questions that should probably be directed straight to the Trust Board rather than here constantly.  However if you are looking for answers you may have missed this earlier post.  Do you expect to see any detail from an organisation that didn't come up with the idea, provided no direct funding and agreed to partner on a project where they hadn't even seen a business plan or any detailed info/projections.  How confident do you feel they have anyone that even considered the points you raised, before you did, let alone have answers for you?

Just wanted to say that the figures re the ACV and lorry park etc were confidently stated by Goodwill Solutions, a company who deals in warehousing and transport (and great Charity work). The lorry park was just one bit of the plan, with storage and start-up businesses. I also expect much of the funding / income would have come via grants, government and council funding etc. We did ask for business plans and further info etc but didn't get it due to GWS being scared off the project.

[BackOfTheNet]

All fair questions that should probably be directed straight to the Trust Board rather than here constantly.  However if you are looking for answers you may have missed this earlier post.  Do you expect to see any detail from an organisation that didn't come up with the idea, provided no direct funding and agreed to partner on a project where they hadn't even seen a business plan or any detailed info/projections.  How confident do you feel they have anyone that even considered the points you raised, before you did, let alone have answers for you?
 

I must say, that line about asking to see a business plan but not being given one did make me burst out laughing.

[guest3548]

Portsmouth are owned by a very rich American 

[DavCobb]

Makes it sound as though GWS were told that they’d be sleeping with the fishes by Don Kelvin.
God help us.

[Peter Frost]

Makes it sound as though GWS were told that they’d be sleeping with the fishes by Don Kelvin.
God help us.

Or GWS management simply did a deeper dive into the business plan and decided it wasn’t viable

You start to learn the opposite sides of a very polarised argument tend to combine selective facts together with suggested facts to bolster their argument.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

All fair questions that should probably be directed straight to the Trust Board rather than here constantly.  However if you are looking for answers you may have missed this earlier post.  Do you expect to see any detail from an organisation that didn't come up with the idea, provided no direct funding and agreed to partner on a project where they hadn't even seen a business plan or any detailed info/projections.  How confident do you feel they have anyone that even considered the points you raised, before you did, let alone have answers for you?
 

Sent an email directly to the board raising these concerns last June. I received a reply on 16th June stating that I had raised some valid points and promising a response the following month (July). I then waited 3 or 4 months for the reply before tentatively raising it on here. Still not received anything other than the initial acknowledgment of receipt.

[guest3548]

Sent an email directly to the board raising these concerns last June. I received a reply on 16th June stating that I had raised some valid points and promising a response the following month (July). I then waited 3 or 4 months for the reply before tentatively raising it on here. Still not received anything other than the initial acknowledgment of receipt.

You're probably about to receive a threatening letter from someone advising the trust board 

[Manwork04]

You're probably about to receive a threatening letter from someone advising the trust board 

Like you did 

[guest3548]

Like you did 

In my career I’ve been threatened by some seriously bad people, people you’d leave town to avoid! You’ve clearly confused me with someone else 

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Hammy has in just about every recent post, called me a liar, that every post of mine is lies, yet by you and the majority, nothing gets said. yet when i post, it is shouted down immediately.


 

Once again. That is a lie.

I have called you out for lying where and when is necessary. In the past you have had to apologise. As you did to the club in the past. I have called you a liar on three occasions. Firstly when you stooped low enough to bring my father into things. Appropriately so, you have apologised for that. I also called you a liar, when you stated that I am paid for moderating this forum. You still haven’t apologised for that lie. I recently asked you if you was lying when you stated:

“I would like to take this opportunity to correct something I posted on this forum on 3 November 2022.
I stated that Northampton Town Supporters Trust had £3 million in its account in relation to our bid to buy land at Sixfields in Northampton from West Northamptonshire Council.
For clarity, the sum of money in question is presently held  independently in a solicitor's client account, to be used only for the land acquisition if the offer is accepted by the council.”

You have been asked repeatedly whether or not that the Trust has 3 million pound in the independent account, as you clearly stated. Or does that money belong to another party? 

Stop bleating and feeling sorry for yourself, and give me a straight answer.. But most of all, try to deliver for yourself, what you expect of others.

[random1]

Or GWS management simply did a deeper dive into the business plan and decided it wasn’t viable

You start to learn the opposite sides of a very polarised argument tend to combine selective facts together with suggested facts to bolster their argument.

so even you are joining in now Peter and call me a liar !!!!!

It was not that at all and you and KT and others at WNC know it too.

FFS even KT admitted he spoke to GWS and then proceeded to tell a blant lie / slur when he said he thought GWS didn't know about the 120 year leasehold until after a few meetings.

BTW we haven't written to KT or the FSA DEMANDING a correction nor apology, can't say the same about my post on the £3m.!!!

[random1]

Once again. That is a lie.

I have called you out for lying where and when is necessary. In the past you have had to apologise. As you did to the club in the past. I have called you a liar on three occasions. Firstly when you stooped low enough to bring my father into things. Appropriately so, you have apologised for that. I also called you a liar, when you stated that I am paid for moderating this forum. You still haven’t apologised for that lie. I recently asked you if you was lying when you stated:

“I would like to take this opportunity to correct something I posted on this forum on 3 November 2022.
I stated that Northampton Town Supporters Trust had £3 million in its account in relation to our bid to buy land at Sixfields in Northampton from West Northamptonshire Council.
For clarity, the sum of money in question is presently held  independently in a solicitor's client account, to be used only for the land acquisition if the offer is accepted by the council.”

You have been asked repeatedly whether or not that the Trust has 3 million pound in the independent account, as you clearly stated. Or does that money belong to another party? 

Stop bleating and feeling sorry for yourself, and give me a straight answer.. But most of all, try to deliver for yourself, what you expect of others.

wow still stooping so low as to mention your father and try and turn that into a lie - IT WAS NOT A LIE, IT WAS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY - HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT ??

I didn't state that you were paid, I suggested it - tongue in cheek

and finally for someone who has loads of dealing with business and the council (as you regularly pontificate about) I thought you would have enough intelligence to work that the money held in the solicitors account is from a 3rd party in connection with the land bid.

Everybody except you and KT (why is that I wonder?) seem to understand the situation.

So no it is not Trust money, and as I posted before, those behind the petition will not be getting a £3m bonus - is that clear enough for you.

so you will see I am not lying, I have never on purpose lied, I have tried to lay out the facts in general and my thoughts on what the past and current actions means for NTFC from our owners.

I was right about DC and I truly hope i am wrong about KT, I really really do.

Have you and others (especially those wanting to join the Trust board) thought about what it will mean if you are wrong, and KT does not finish the stand and takes our ACV land? 

Beings that. we have all been here long long before KT & DB rode into town waving their £11m and we will all be here long after, isn't it better to try and ensure that the owners do what they promised?

[guest3548]

Wow

[Worthless Recluse]

Wow

One's obsessed with the other.
The other is obsessed with something else.

[Peter Frost]

so even you are joining in now Peter and call me a liar !!!!!

It was not that at all and you and KT and others at WNC know it too.

FFS even KT admitted he spoke to GWS and then proceeded to tell a blant lie / slur when he said he thought GWS didn't know about the 120 year leasehold until after a few meetings.

BTW we haven't written to KT or the FSA DEMANDING a correction nor apology, can't say the same about my post on the £3m.!!!

What a ridiculous comment and interpretation of what I said suggested you were lying.

Offering an alternative view on a situation where all the facts are not known does not constitute calling the other protagonist a liar - but then you have form for that when you accused me of the same when I said I was "sceptical" of a certain aspect of the so called Chinese deal.

 Of course it suits your agenda that one phone call from Don Kelvin can scupper the deal -  but doesn't that suggest, even to you how fragile the deal was in the first place - or as I hypothesised, management of GWS might have decided (with or without external interference) the deal just wasn't viable.

You yourself admitted no detailed business plan was shared, so how can you, me or indeed anyone outside the GWS management team conclude all the reasons why they pulled out of the deal.

 I'm sorry to say whilst your passion and good intention is not disputed, but if your business naivety is representative of the current trust board I grow even more fearful in the unlikely event of that bid being successful.

Meanwhile the fundamental questions on that bid (that clearly don't breach any commercial confidentiality agreement) go unanswered  

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Have you and others (especially those wanting to join the Trust board) thought about what it will mean if you are wrong, and KT does not finish the stand and takes our ACV land? 

I’m not sure why you are roping me into this. You won’t find any evidence that I support a specific bid.

I stated that you had apologised about your remarks about my father. I asked you on three separate occasions to apologise about suggesting I accept money for moderating this forum. Up to now, you hadn’t apologised.

In respect of the last issue. Namely YOU stating it was the Trusts money in the independent account. You could have cleared that up immediately when I first asked you. Rather than doing that, you actually stated that you would not answer my perfectly reasonable question. So I’m not sure why you are crying now, after I had to ask it five times. It was you, and you only, that stated it was the Trust money. I only sought to gain the truth from you.

Until such time, that you can make a point, without doing so whilst feeling sorry for yourself and garnishing your point, you will always get the nature of response you do.

[singcobb]

I’m not sure why you are roping me into this. You won’t find any evidence that I support a specific bid.

I stated that you had apologised about your remarks about my father. I asked you on three separate occasions to apologise about suggesting I accept money for moderating this forum. Up to now, you hadn’t apologised.

In respect of the last issue. Namely YOU stating it was the Trusts money in the independent account. You could have cleared that up immediately when I first asked you. Rather than doing that, you actually stated that you would not answer my perfectly reasonable question. So I’m not sure why you are crying now, after I had to ask it five times. It was you, and you only, that stated it was the Trust money. I only sought to gain the truth from you.

Until such time, that you can make a point, without doing so whilst feeling sorry for yourself and garnishing your point, you will always get the nature of response you do.

You're wasting you time Tel. You wont get an apology and you wont get a straight answer.