Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[random1]

That land belongs to whoever buys it. A concept that appears to have bypassed you and those on the former Trust board. If the person/s who buys it, including KT and DB, choose to put some of the money back into the club. Then that's just a decent gesture. There shouldn't be anymore expectation to do so. 

I would sort of agree (accept the ACV, how any fan can support putting a warehouse over half OUR land is beyond me - certainly not without an absolute clear and cast iron agreement that the income from that land DIRECTLY benefits NTFC)

But very convenient to forget that 1. our owners used owning the football club to get the info / position to buy it in the first place despite the understanding that NBC were going to buy it from the administrator)

and 2. Our owners put the land into NTFC and are supposedly the Worlds worst land grabbers therefore we should be demanding that the club clearly benefits

Otherwise please sign over 1/4 of your land to me as land and future possibilities are of no concern to you. Thanks 

For those who think KT/DB will finish the East stand, let alone build the warehouses themselves, let alone then put that income into the club, please consider this.....

In the height of the Trust battle KT held an open forum (attending by a max of 25 fans) and produced a PDF presentation attacking the Trust and it's board.

Needing fan support and to show that we are moving forward he announced they had signed HOT agreement with Moulton College for a 15 year old lease on a 3000 sq ft building.

Much fanfare was made of this - best ever training facilities, coaches offices, meeting space for tactics etc etc. Indeed on a Trust zoom meeting with some fans, one proudly announced how KT does have our best interests and to look at the BIG investments he is making in our training facilities. 1-0 to KT.

Now it almost SEVEN months since then and following up with Tom Cliffe on progress, in a recent video Tom said that is was held up in contractual stage !!!! FFS 8 months on to lease a building with an owner u have an ongoing 6 year + relationship with.

In the same Forum also announced the soon to arrive new big screen - planning permission was granted in Oct, yet again NOTHING - Tom Cliffe kindly informed us that there was delays as they had to run an electric cable to another sign out the front of the West stand - who knew?

And many on here wonder why I don't trust KT to finish the East stand, just as he promised when he managed to take control of the club over genuine Northampton people.



PLEASE NOTE THIS POST IS OF MY VIEWS ONLY AS I POST AS AN INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN AS A TRUST BOARD MEMBER - OTHER TRUST BOARD MEMBERS OR THE TRUST AS WHOLE, MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENT OF MY POST

[guest3571]

I was at the open forum and although didnt count would say around 30-40 in attendance.

I don't know if your description of the ACV land is a personal misunderstanding or an attempt to confuse the fan base.
The ACV does not mean the land is OURS or anyone elses. It simply gives ANY community groups (The Trust, Scouts, Muddy Feet Outdoor Learning) additional time to collect the funds to make a bid for the land. Without getting into the details of how the Trust planned to finance their bid, had it not gone sour, the council were still under no obligation to sell the land to the Trust.

The ACV does nothing with regards to ownership of the land, either formally or perceived.

Regarding the lease, have you ever tried to lease a building, one that in most liklihood will also need a change of usage agreed?
Personally from attending the meeting I was under the impression that the scoreboard and training facility would be ready for pre season / next season. That was just my opinion on what was presented.

[WadeyCobbler]

Stick a tier on the South Stand and all our troubles will disappear

I know this often part of Beds' solution as well. This has been said many times before but when Sixfields was built it was with mind that the North and South stands could easily be built back. So add another say 1,100 seats to the South to give away up to 2,000 from the current 900. Many teams in League One would fill that easily, some in League Two even. But, and this will always be the sticking point, what will the ROI be? An extra 1100 on the gate at £22/head is only £24,000 say 10 times a season = £240,000. That would be supplementary income on food/drink if there a half decent concourse as well. If the cost was £2million (purely guessing) that's about 9 years payback.

[DrillingCobbler]

7 months Derek (or doesn't sound that long mate? It took about 5 months for my business recently to extend our lease on our work premises.  Its only a little office! Just solicitor stuff. More timewasting antics than anything some of our opponents this season could muster up.

I doubt either party is in a mad rush to get it sorted, given they are 'already on site' etc.

I do get the massive frustration that everything does seem to go at a snails pace. Indeed Constantine used to move quicker. I only interjected here because certainly post covid, everything legal does seem to take twice as long as it did previously. Or indeed, anything. fullstop. I await someone to blame brexit!  

[guest3574]

Blah, blah, blah, same sh!t different decade!

[DrillingCobbler]

I know this often part of Beds' solution as well. This has been said many times before but when Sixfields was built it was with mind that the North and South stands could easily be built back. So add another say 1,100 seats to the South to give away up to 2,000 from the current 900. Many teams in League One would fill that easily, some in League Two even. But, and this will always be the sticking point, what will the ROI be? An extra 1100 on the gate at £22/head is only £24,000 say 10 times a season = £240,000. That would be supplementary income on food/drink if there a half decent concourse as well. If the cost was £2million (purely guessing) that's about 9 years payback.

There in lies the problem mate....you've then got to take another 20% off those figures (VAT), as well as factoring in that half of the tickets sold roughly will be concessions!

Of course, if we'd done it 20 years ago we'd be seeing profit now in this specific area. But in no time in the last 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, unless they were provided as a 'loan' by the owners at the time. Owners who have almost constantly been in battle with the council.

This battle has spun off into other areas, the Trust have been involved, another party got involved etc etc. Which is why a long time ago that I came to the conclusion that we'd be better off with no land. Then rightly or wrongly we'd have owners only interested in running a football club. The very nature of this land being in the mix attracts a thought process of 'how can I make it pay'. Hence the Trust coming up with ideas. The whole subject is just toxic.

Indeed. It reminds of when someone dies and all their family start arguing about who gets what. They all have totally valid reasons for believing they should get x amount. They all think all of their other family members are greedy and they are the only ones that are not. In the end, they all fall out with each other...all over money. Swap money for land...

Ill bow out of this thread again now, rarely post anything in it anyway. But for anyone interested, that's my take on it. I simply cannot be assed with the politics of it all!

[guest3574]

Good post Drilling

[Manwork04]

There in lies the problem mate....you've then got to take another 20% off those figures (VAT), as well as factoring in that half of the tickets sold roughly will be concessions!

Of course, if we'd done it 20 years ago we'd be seeing profit now in this specific area. But in no time in the last 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, unless they were provided as a 'loan' by the owners at the time. Owners who have almost constantly been in battle with the council.

This battle has spun off into other areas, the Trust have been involved, another party got involved etc etc. Which is why a long time ago that I came to the conclusion that we'd be better off with no land. Then rightly or wrongly we'd have owners only interested in running a football club. The very nature of this land being in the mix attracts a thought process of 'how can I make it pay'. Hence the Trust coming up with ideas. The whole subject is just toxic.

Indeed. It reminds of when someone dies and all their family start arguing about who gets what. They all have totally valid reasons for believing they should get x amount. They all think all of their other family members are greedy and they are the only ones that are not. In the end, they all fall out with each other...all over money. Swap money for land...

Ill bow out of this thread again now, rarely post anything in it anyway. But for anyone interested, that's my take on it. I simply cannot be assed with the politics of it all!

Good post Drilling and not far away in terms of numbers, I think there would be more sources of revenue if the club were serious and more opportunities for capex into the stand, e.g. bonds for fans, sports funding etc.
The south stand top tier would be a priority and with the current L1 incumbents would sell out about a dozen times. You could also borrow the money from the PWLB but I think we’ve burnt that bridge somewhat.

[Worthless Recluse]

There in lies the problem mate....you've then got to take another 20% off those figures (VAT), as well as factoring in that half of the tickets sold roughly will be concessions!

Of course, if we'd done it 20 years ago we'd be seeing profit now in this specific area. But in no time in the last 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, unless they were provided as a 'loan' by the owners at the time. Owners who have almost constantly been in battle with the council.

This battle has spun off into other areas, the Trust have been involved, another party got involved etc etc. Which is why a long time ago that I came to the conclusion that we'd be better off with no land. Then rightly or wrongly we'd have owners only interested in running a football club. The very nature of this land being in the mix attracts a thought process of 'how can I make it pay'. Hence the Trust coming up with ideas. The whole subject is just toxic.

Indeed. It reminds of when someone dies and all their family start arguing about who gets what. They all have totally valid reasons for believing they should get x amount. They all think all of their other family members are greedy and they are the only ones that are not. In the end, they all fall out with each other...all over money. Swap money for land...

Ill bow out of this thread again now, rarely post anything in it anyway. But for anyone interested, that's my take on it. I simply cannot be assed with the politics of it all!

When you say at no time in the past 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, what are the fees received for the likes of Goode classed as?
The monies from those sales cannot be forecast so cannot be included in any future budgets.

[West Stand]

When you say at no time in the past 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, what are the fees received for the likes of Goode classed as?
The monies from those sales cannot be forecast so cannot be included in any future budgets.

Just because transfer fees are not forecast it does not mean they are surplus funds. A quick look at the accounts will tell you the Goode money just reduced the losses for the year.

A quick browse through the accounts at Co House will tell you the club have not produced surplus funds to finance a new stand.

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Who 'owns' the old athletic track?
I thought that it was still the council until someone buys it?
If someone other than CDNL/NTFC does, where does that leave the East Stand/car park?

[Worthless Recluse]

Just because transfer fees are not forecast it does not mean they are surplus funds. A quick look at the accounts will tell you the Goode money just reduced the losses for the year.

A quick browse through the accounts at Co House will tell you the club have not produced surplus funds to finance a new stand.

I was trying to get an understanding of what constitutes surplus funds, not how those funds are spent.
If funds from player sales are not then what are surplus funds?
Purely from a business perspective, I struggle to get my head around why anyone would take the gamble of buying a league club knowing that to keep your head above water relies not only on forecastable returns like gate receipts but also making a profit in the transfer market which is by no means guaranteed, yet doubling the South in order to get a guaranteed return after a given period of time is such a no, no.
Maybe it's because the owners were only ever here for the land and have no interest in the club as a progressive business?

[BedsCobb]

Good post Drilling

No it wasn't! He asks in a vague roundabout way, are Northampton Town worth investing in to achieve a brighter future and even more vaguely claims our 125 year old club shouldn't wait just several years to get a ROI in building up its infrastructure....despite cdnl being at our club 3 x that long doing nothing but land grabbing!
This is why we will always be a 5hitty little division 4 outfit..

We need to get Thomas and co out and get some forward thinking people on board or we will find ourselves nonleague very soon.

[BedsCobb]

Just because transfer fees are not forecast it does not mean they are surplus funds. A quick look at the accounts will tell you the Goode money just reduced the losses for the year.

A quick browse through the accounts at Co House will tell you the club have not produced surplus funds to finance a new stand.

The lack of decent facilities are the main reason there are loses every year.. cdnl are a disaster zone..

[Melbourne Cobbler]

I was trying to get an understanding of what constitutes surplus funds, not how those funds are spent.
If funds from player sales are not then what are surplus funds?
Purely from a business perspective, I struggle to get my head around why anyone would take the gamble of buying a league club knowing that to keep your head above water relies not only on forecastable returns like gate receipts but also making a profit in the transfer market which is by no means guaranteed, yet doubling the South in order to get a guaranteed return after a given period of time is such a no, no.
Maybe it's because the owners were only ever here for the land and have no interest in the club as a progressive business?

I know this is not really the question, but I think it’s perception around what constitutes a business proposition. From a purely business perspective a football club is in competition with the other business opportunities that present themselves. Typical ROI can be viewed as 3-5 years to be relatively achievable depending on the type of opportunity. So for example if you spent 2 million on the South stand and doubled the capacity it would take roughly 4 years to get your money back if you sold out for every single league and cup game not including operating costs/tax considerations. Is that realistic though, if not what is and would you get that money back if you sold the club?

If you spent 2 million on commercial offices you’d buy good quality at 20,000sq ft which you would rent out at £20-£25 per sq ft all day long at £400 to half a million a year income less operating costs/tax. Remember you would still own the building which you can sell at anytime and typically it also goes up in value over time.
So purely from a business consideration you have 2 million to invest and risk, what would you do?

So any investment in a football club isn’t the true definition of investment because there are better opportunities for considerably less risk elsewhere. However my view from a football club perspective is that you need to sell that developed double capacity away end out at virtually every game to make it realistically worthwhile. How is that a guaranteed return, because that won’t happen in League 2 or probably L1 either. Therein lies the issue with football, returns are intrinsically linked to success on the pitch and that is never guaranteed and certainly never that forecastable. Particularly when compared against the former more typical example? Either way IMO the biggest single driver dictates that when funds are limited money spent on the playing squad is the priority. Development comes if and when additional finance becomes available. We keep going around in circles on this thread because to date no one promoting development on the stadium as a priority never puts up some figures and timescales for scrutiny. There’s a reason for that, it doesn’t work. The only realistic way you will achieve what some people want is the arrival of a benefactor prepared to finance both and the means to do it.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

There in lies the problem mate....you've then got to take another 20% off those figures (VAT), as well as factoring in that half of the tickets sold roughly will be concessions!

Of course, if we'd done it 20 years ago we'd be seeing profit now in this specific area. But in no time in the last 20 years have we had surplus funds in the bank to cover this kind of project, unless they were provided as a 'loan' by the owners at the time. Owners who have almost constantly been in battle with the council.

This battle has spun off into other areas, the Trust have been involved, another party got involved etc etc. Which is why a long time ago that I came to the conclusion that we'd be better off with no land. Then rightly or wrongly we'd have owners only interested in running a football club. The very nature of this land being in the mix attracts a thought process of 'how can I make it pay'. Hence the Trust coming up with ideas. The whole subject is just toxic.

Indeed. It reminds of when someone dies and all their family start arguing about who gets what. They all have totally valid reasons for believing they should get x amount. They all think all of their other family members are greedy and they are the only ones that are not. In the end, they all fall out with each other...all over money. Swap money for land...

Ill bow out of this thread again now, rarely post anything in it anyway. But for anyone interested, that's my take on it. I simply cannot be assed with the politics of it all!

Don’t want to be pedantic but if that additional income is profit, which to get a return it is, in the UK an additional 19% in corporation tax is payable. That equates to getting on for 40% gone before you start. Then when you pay yourself the money you get clumped again on your personal tax bill and if you’ve got that kind of money that’s at the top rate of 45% which means the HMRC ultimately get circa £1.25 million, you get £750,000 on the 2 million transaction. I’m not complaining, I just think some people occasionally underestimate the contribution SME owners make to the economy.

[BedsCobb]

I know this is not really the question, but I think it’s perception around what constitutes a business proposition. From a purely business perspective a football club is in competition with the other business opportunities that present themselves. Typical ROI can be viewed as 3-5 years to be relatively achievable depending on the type of opportunity. So for example if you spent 2 million on the South stand and doubled the capacity it would take roughly 4 years to get your money back if you sold out for every single league and cup game not including operating costs/tax considerations. Is that realistic though, if not what is and would you get that money back if you sold the club?

If you spent 2 million on commercial offices you’d buy good quality at 20,000sq ft which you would rent out at £20-£25 per sq ft all day long at £400 to half a million a year income less operating costs/tax. Remember you would still own the building which you can sell at anytime and typically it also goes up in value over time.
So purely from a business consideration you have 2 million to invest and risk, what would you do?

So any investment in a football club isn’t the true definition of investment because there are better opportunities for considerably less risk elsewhere. However my view from a football club perspective is that you need to sell that developed double capacity away end out at virtually every game to make it realistically worthwhile. How is that a guaranteed return, because that won’t happen in League 2 or probably L1 either. Therein lies the issue with football, returns are intrinsically linked to success on the pitch and that is never guaranteed and certainly never that forecastable. Particularly when compared against the former more typical example? Either way IMO the biggest single driver dictates that when funds are limited money spent on the playing squad is the priority. Development comes if and when additional finance becomes available. We keep going around in circles on this thread because to date no one promoting development on the stadium as a priority never puts up some figures and timescales for scrutiny. There’s a reason for that, it doesn’t work. The only realistic way you will achieve what some people want is the arrival of a benefactor prepared to finance both and the means to do it.

Just a few observations,  the arse has completely fallen out of the office development market as there's so much surplus and unwanted space due to folk now working from home.

Most towns and cities football clubs are well over 100 years old and will still be around in a 100 years time, so waiting 5 years for a roi isn't even a issue.
Most forward thinking clubs are funded by league associations,  TV rights and get other incomes from 1000s of season ticket holders, plenty of matchday ticket sales, matchday corporate boxes, sales of food and beverages, Sponsorship and investment from local businesses..
At no point should a large towns community football club allow itself to be taken over by speculators that have no interests in investing in its future but solely there for vast profits from the land it stands on.
Our football club could easily trade at 50% more by being run by those who only want our club to have a bright future and succeed to being the best it can.
 My ideal solution would to be to bannish thomas and those close to him from our club, getting in help from those who can easily double every aspect of our trading.

Stop the land sales until NTFC can identify its rightful boundaries and protect them at all costs for our clubs future.

 Embrace our immediate catchment area, all 300.000 of them, let them know NTFC have awoken from the 20 year cdnl nightmare  with new  plans and is open for business as an open honest welcoming  club,


Melbourne and few others seem to be unable to get their head around the fact that community football clubs are different from all other businesses, mainly because they stay trading forever,  they always remain popular despite the ups and downs and its real share holders are its 10s of 1000s of small investors,  its supporters who do not seek other brands after a bad result or two.

[Manwork04]

I was trying to get an understanding of what constitutes surplus funds, not how those funds are spent.
If funds from player sales are not then what are surplus funds?
Purely from a business perspective, I struggle to get my head around why anyone would take the gamble of buying a league club knowing that to keep your head above water relies not only on forecastable returns like gate receipts but also making a profit in the transfer market which is by no means guaranteed, yet doubling the South in order to get a guaranteed return after a given period of time is such a no, no.
Maybe it's because the owners were only ever here for the land and have no interest in the club as a progressive business?

Absolutely spot on, they don’t even hide the fact any more.

[guest3566]

Be quicker to build a new ground

[Peter Frost]

Absolutely spot on, they don’t even hide the fact any more.

I still don't entirely agree as I've always maintained if you have capital behind you (Which DB certainly appears to have) there are easier and quicker ways to make a profit than that that might be returned from the Sixfields land deal - I personally do believe the land £££s are the bigger motivator but owning a football club has a certain appeal to business people.

Whatever the naysayers about the club's progress under current ownership, most observers without polarised views see NTFC as a well run club, certainly ahead of many basket case examples.