Zen Master
|
I’m being dense. So if the CDNL element has enough room for 255 house and 3800m2 of commercial development what additional part of land was surrendered back to NBC control as part of the deal?
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
No idea. That's the problem, nobody is sure of either the truth or anyone's intentions which allows the vacuum that is created on here to be filled with misleading, unhelpful and confusing speculation. Filling that vacuum with details would provide the fans and the people of Northampton with an opportunity to show their support either way based on facts, not divisive speculation.
What I have posted on here are FACTS they have been taken from the company's house website (2017/18) and Northampton planing St James Ward 2017. NONE OF THIS IS SPECULATION.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 07:12:09 am by Manwork04 »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
What I have posted on here are FACTS they have been taken from the company's house website (2017/18) and Northampton planing St James Ward 2017. NONE OF THIS IS SPECULATION.
Which bit? There is also a lot of speculation and hearsay, as exampled by what cobblersgaz59 has quoted above. Is KT intending to surrender the land to the football club or not?
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
Why would he do that? He's basically paid for the CVA which was £170k for land next to Sixfields and the car park. He's needs to split the leases where they overlap and then develop the residential and commercial. What he does with the money is anybody's guess, mine would be basic fit out of the east stand she'll and exit, but that is only mine personal view, in the absence of any plans only KT and DB know and of course our wonderful council. Now for some reason they are dragging their heels over the normalisation of the leases?
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
I’m being dense. So if the CDNL element has enough room for 255 house and 3800m2 of commercial development what additional part of land was surrendered back to NBC control as part of the deal?
Your really not being dense mate, it's very complicated, I need to read a bit more into the liquidation of CDNL but I think the leases were still with them and the numbers quoted in the planning add up to what Cardoza was going to build.
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
Why would he do that? He's basically paid for the CVA which was £170k for land next to Sixfields and the car park. He's needs to split the leases where they overlap and then develop the residential and commercial. What he does with the money is anybody's guess, mine would be basic fit out of the east stand she'll and exit, but that is only mine personal view, in the absence of any plans only KT and DB know and of course our wonderful council. Now for some reason they are dragging their heels over the normalisation of the leases?
We are in the same camp, I don't know either...
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
guest49
|
In a nutshell I would GUESS that the council don't want KT and partners to make any profit from the surrounding land and doing anything in their power (i.e. apparent inaction) to prevent this. In the meantime KT won't touch the East stand until he knows the costs will be fully covered elsewhere. The rest is PROBABLY smoke and mirrors. Who knows?
|
|
|
|
EssTeeFree
|
If all of the above pieced together from the facts and a bit of guesswork is true then what land was surrendered back to the council to allow them to write of the £10m against the club? I thought that was the residential and commercial space mentioned above.
Every time I think it is getting clearer I get more confused!
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
Which bit? There is also a lot of speculation and hearsay, as exampled by what cobblersgaz59 has quoted above. Is KT intending to surrender the land to the football club or not?
As I posted previously, the only area of land - at least to the east of the stadium - where there has been any overlap (on the leases), is the former site of the athletics stadium. I would imagine it is this parcel KT is looking to surrender back to NTFC. There are a number of reasons NBC may look to block this move, ranging from legitimate concerns over funding local services, to petty incompetence. Unfortunately, until either side chooses to lay their cards on the table, it is irrational to declare full support for either's stance. ETA: Interesting, I just found this: "As part of the deal, Northampton Borough Council will move forward with the development of land around the Sixfields. The club will also pay off its debt to HMRC, as well as finish works on the East Stand and develop conference facilities at the ground. Mary Markham, leader of Northampton Borough Council, said the agreement was the only "deliverable" plan to safeguard the future of the football club. "It is clear that if the club is to survive and have some stability, we have to find a way of repaying the debt. This deal puts us in the strongest position to ensure that the public purse is protected. "The council will now be in control and all the proceeds will come back to us to repay the debt."https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/midlands/cobblers-reach-deal-to-slash-debtsThe above reads to me as though NBC expected to gain back full control of the land they'd previously issued leases on. Perhaps they are aggrieved Bower and KT managed to wrestle those leases from the wreck of CDNL. There again, perhaps NBC's legal team should have been a bit more savvy.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:39:18 am by JollyCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
Knockingonabit
|
According to their statement the Council's reason for dragging their heels is that the famous "minor amendment" proposed inclusion of further land.
At least that is what was clearly implied and immediately challenged by KT.
Perhaps I am being overly pedantic but "The chairman subsequently proposed inclusion of further land which was not part of the original draft documentation" is not exactly the same as a simple "the amendment proposed inclusion of further land".
I suspect a bit of bureaucratic chicanery and also note they have not responded to the last statement from KT.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
Update: Read This Post.
Okay, apologies for the banner but I think I have some answers.
According to someone who was present (and has just shown me the paperwork), there was a Council meeting in late November 2015, wherein it was agreed to accept the MoU with KT's consortium - it is important to note a MoU is not a legally binding agreement, insomuch as a gentlemen's agreement.
At this meeting it was agreed to seal a deal which would allow KT to complete his takeover, and also for NBC to recover some of the lost monies - largely via development of the land around Sixfields. Here's the kicker: NBC believed the leases held by CDNL would become void due to insolvency, and thus the land would revert to their control (for development), and would help to offset the NTFC debt. There were a number of risks identified with accepting this solution to aid the club, with two of them being:1; A border dispute between former lease holders (NTFC). 2; A third party moves quickly to acquire the leases from the liquidator, and thus wrests control from NBC. And this, unless I am missing something else, is the problem. NBC agreed a deal to help save NTFC - even though it was partly their ****-up which dropped us in the poop to start with. They identified risks associated with saving us, and boom! "A third party moves quickly to acquire the leases from from the liquidator" No wonder NBC are pissed.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 11:51:06 am by JollyCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
sxcobbler
|
Update: Read This Post.
Here's the kicker: NBC believed the leases held by CDNL would become void due to insolvency, and thus the land would revert to their control (for development), and would help to offset the NTFC debt. There were a number of risks identified with accepting this solution to aid the club, with two of them being:1; A border dispute between former lease holders (NTFC). 2; A third party moves quickly to acquire the leases from from the liquidator, and thus wrests control from NBC. And there, unless I am missing something, is the problem. NBC agreed a deal to help save NTFC - even though it was partly their ****-up which dropped us in the poop to start with. They identified risks associated with saving us, and boom! "A third party moves quickly to acquire the leases from from the liquidator" No wonder NBC are pissed.
Now that is believable.
|
Let's show some Ambition !
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
As I have said earlier....The Council believed that they could claw back the land leases themselves and use the proceeds to pay down the 10.75m loan. They issued statements and press releases to this end when they announced they'd saved the club by writing off the debt which the club had been saddled with.
They knew pretty early on that they had been scuppered in this by someone (KT/DB) salvaging certain assets from the liquidator by way of CVA, so then they went down the legal route of trying to recover the monies from the perpetrators of the deal.
They would have been quids in had they claimed back the leases AND got back the money legally..........but in fact it looks like they are going to end up with neither and still a 10 million quid black hole to fill.
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
If this proves to be correct it's a tough one to reconcile. KT/DB will have acted within the law but not like gentlemen. It's a bit like mugging the good Samaritan after they've helped you up off the floor. That said, if NBC had highlighted this as a risk you'd have thought they'd have moved quickly to grab what was left of CDNL themselves. My guess is it's incompetence and naivety on their part. It would have been a better use of funds than the direct pursuit of DC that was being done by the police anyway.
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
clarkeysntfc
|
Any competent organisation would have put a clause in the £10m loan agreement that stipulated that in the event of insolvency, the leases on the land would revert to them.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
As I have said earlier....The Council believed that they could claw back the land leases themselves and use the proceeds to pay down the 10.75m loan. They issued statements and press releases to this end when they announced they'd saved the club by writing off the debt which the club had been saddled with.
They knew pretty early on that they had been scuppered in this by someone (KT/DB) salvaging certain assets from the liquidator by way of CVA, so then they went down the legal route of trying to recover the monies from the perpetrators of the deal.
They would have been quids in had they claimed back the leases AND got back the money legally..........but in fact it looks like they are going to end up with neither and still a 10 million quid black hole to fill.
You're absolutely right, Grange, but it's worth bearing in mind that among the promises made in the MoU: NTFC will surrender an area of land to the east of the stadium to NBC, to facilitate NBC’s development of the site. In return, the Council will discharge its loans to NTFC, and NTFC will cooperate with NBC in certain respects regarding assignment of debts due to it by 1st Land and CDNL and thus any claims or rights it has connected to the loan monies. This provision will enable the Council to pursue recovery of its loan monies.Also, the Consortium will complete improvements to the East Stand (presumably via non-council assisted funds). It can be argued that the Council have once again slipped up on due-diligence. But, as a resident of Northampton, and given they were acting with haste to assist NTFC, this all leaves a pretty sour taste in my mouth. I don't mind the Consortium making money on a land deal, but only if NBC (the people of Northampton) get a good slice of that pie, and the club get an impressive new East Stand - and not a thrown together s***-pit.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
Clarkey and BotN, you are both right. But it doesn't alter the fact of it being decidedly underhand.
|
|
|
|
clarkeysntfc
|
Clarkey and BotN, you are both right. But it doesn't alter the fact of it being decidedly underhand.
Underhand or doing what's best for the football club? Had that land reverted to council control, who's to say they wouldn't have sat on it for decades to come, filibustering on any potential plans to move forwards just as they have done for decades past.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
Underhand or doing what's best for the football club?
Had that land reverted to council control, who's to say they wouldn't have sat on it for decades to come, filibustering on any potential plans to move forwards just as they have done for decades past.
And how exactly does (the current) CDNL scuppering their deal with NBC help the football club? Remember, it is CDNL who now hold the leases, not NTFC. I stand by my earlier assessment that it is the former athletics site which CDNL are looking to sign off to NTFC, and nothing more. But, even if this isn't the case, and by some highly unlikely act of charity KT wants to hand the whole pile over to NTFC; would this be the right and proper thing to do given their previously agreed MoU with the Council? Should the football club benefit financially over and above the coffers of Northampton?
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
Reading the latter part of this thread reminds me of the Freddie the Frog episode, Only Fools and Horses. So basically the 10.25million and the leases are all hidden in a coffin, all in KT's name but him and the NBC have absolutely zero chance of finding them!
|
|
|
|
|