Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

There would be no warehouses to measure from if the running track had been left separate

Perhaps if the Board had answered the questions raised they would have made a more compelling case to keep it for use as an alternative. 😉

[Zen Master]

Why.. What’s happening then? 😀

When Dara scores against us that we could have prevented if we’d thrown half a million and thousands in wages at.

[Risdene]

When Dara scores against us that we could have prevented if we’d thrown half a million and thousands in wages at.

Spending other people's money again! Sad.

[Zen Master]

That was meant to be a joke.

[Observing]

That was meant to be a joke.

Much like what this thread has become.

Roger loves Cobblers, let’s not forget that.

Let’s also not forget that’s he’s wrong 

[Worthless Recluse]

Not to be argumentative, but what would be the difference between 75 feet and a 100 feet in the context of acceptability, or perhaps even 110 feet or more?

Just reenforcing the point that I’m not sure at what distance the back of the stand area avoids a vital opportunity missed and what that opportunity actually is?

None.
Ive actually not commemted on the distance, I'd rather not see Unit One there fullstop. I'm with Carton and others on this point.

[Carton Lid]

Much like what this thread has become.

Roger loves Cobblers, let’s not forget that.

Let’s also not forget that’s he’s wrong 

Yes I do love the Cobblers and that's why I would have liked 15% of the land to be left for use of the football club and is that really wrong? Still leaves 85% for warehouses.
  I think any real Cobblers fan as got to think that we are being short changed, there's plenty to go round but we don't seem to be getting our little share.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Yes I do love the Cobblers and that's why I would have liked 15% of the land to be left for use of the football club and is that really wrong? Still leaves 85% for warehouses.
  I think any real Cobblers fan as got to think that we are being short changed, there's plenty to go round but we don't seem to be getting our little share.

Maybe the original intention was to allow more than that but the delays and subsequent costs including the increased bid have spiralled out of control. Like I said, we are all flying blind at this point so it’s a job to know? Either way, if the 85% had been specified from the get go, rather than at the end when the club had been subjected to the aforementioned unforeseen events it wouldn’t be a point of debate, so the same failures remain valid.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

The athletics track land was always going to be the prime land in the whole package, it was remediated as part of the original Sixfields build so is pretty much ready to go from the off.

[Michael Walker]

The athletics track land was always going to be the prime land in the whole package, it was remediated as part of the original Sixfields build so is pretty much ready to go from the off.

Spot on. It's also the largest area, hence the largest warehouse, hence the most profitable unit to build first.

The proposed development is in line with the current 'material' draft structure plan proposals for the area so the development is going to get permission regardless of what anybody thinks.

The only reason that the proposed development would not go forward is if the owners were to identify a better, I.e. better financially, proposal for the land.

I know that the owners believe that having invested c£16m into the club by the end of June 25, that it's reasonable for them to go forward with this proposal to effectively re-pay part/most/all of that investment by going ahead with this development.

As the land lies within the ownership of NTFC and CDNL the profits from the land will be transparent.

I think most people misunderstood my post of a few days ago when I talked about retail rather than warehousing on the site. I was talking about an optimal solution not what is actually, almost certainly, going to happen.

My personal view - having worked at NBC in the 1980s, when discussions first took place about the concept of a stadium and community facilities, is that it's sad that the ideas were never implemented fully, but that ship sailed a very long time ago...

Looked at overall (excluding the concerns about the potential restriction of stadium expansion to the East) I think the proposals have to be supported.

This is due to the finances - at the moment NTFC owes over £15m (the debt holder is irrelevant). If the industrial land development pays off this debt then the club will be debt free or largely debt free.

This is a much better position for the club to be in. However, it doesn't address the fundamental fact that we have lost £2m a year in recent times and the financial pressures are getting worse.

I think the new East Stand hospitality and the (hopeful) growth in attendances will reduce this deficit.

But competing in L1 is very difficult financially on a sustainable basis. I'm pretty certain that even a sold out Sixfields won't give KN the budget he needs to make us a top 10 side.

And let's be honest: for the last few years the owners have been able to accept the losses because they knew the land development would eventually happen. We/they won't have another 22 acres to pay off our losses again, so we all need to start thinking about how to make the club more financially sustainable in the future.

[BackOfTheNet]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, Michael (although I'm sure Melly will pick you up on the point about who the debt is owed to being irrelevant   )

[Michael Walker]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, Michael (although I'm sure Melly will pick you up on the point about who the debt is owed to being irrelevant   )

I was being a bit accountancy there.. a debt is a debt to whoever it's owed. My point is that the club owes this much money to someone. Now clearly we are very fortunate that it's non interest bearing to our owners who have shown no indication that they will ask for it back any time soon.

My point, without going any further into the world of accountancy, is that all things being equal by going ahead with the development we will be debt free.

Would you rather own your house without a mortgage, or with a mortgage, albeit one to your family?

This is all I meant.

[Omega]

The athletics track land was always going to be the prime land in the whole package, it was remediated as part of the original Sixfields build so is pretty much ready to go from the off.

Good point that seemingly is not being taken into account in this rather pointless discussion- KT/DB are looking (finally) at some returns on 10 years of investment so clearly they are going to look at a segment of the land to be developed first.

…..it’s perfectly acceptable for any fan to express desires and dreams of what they would like for the club - it’s what fans do even if their financial contribution is just the price of a ticket - some do more (Roger), some less and don’t even buy a match ticket - but when those views just become a litany of criticism all voiced with an arrogant tone of knowing better than the people who actually finance the club and don't know all the details, they simply lose credibility.

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

I shall be taking my tape measure down to South Wales next April and if any of the buildings are nearer than the warehouse at Sixfields, I'll buy you a pint Nigel, but I'll expect a pint from yourself when I'm proved right 

😂😂 I’m looking forward to that pint. And more so your company mate.

[TVOR]

Are we now discussing how much money the club could make from the land that our owners 'grabbed' preventing the Trust from 'grabbing'?

[Zen Master]

Is there a line from a Depeche Mode song in there?

[Michael Walker]

Are we now discussing how much money the club could make from the land that our owners 'grabbed' preventing the Trust from 'grabbing'?

I sincerely hope not.

[TVOR]

Michael - slightly off topic but can you confirm who is in the 'Trusts First Coalition' please.

[Tabasco Kid]

Michael - slightly off topic but can you confirm who is in the 'Trusts First Coalition' please.

And then can you confirm, what is the First Coalition?

[Worthless Recluse]

I would assume the Trusts coalition (small c) is the 22 Trusts that signed up seeking primacy.