Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[DrillingCobbler]

If we have a good enough team aided by promising youth team players we won’t need millions? Just expand the two end stands which won’t be £30mill

My take on this is that expanding the stadium to say 12000 and sorting corporates out which has been talked about so much on here (cost, several million) will possibly make us a competitive league1 club pushing for promotion, but beyond that...not a lot of difference. So in other words, circa 10 million chucked into the pot will us competing in the top half of league1. Any 'extra revenue generated' would simply be spent on having a better team, net result...zero return from 'investor'.

To compete in the championship year on year, we'd need a budget of about 5 times what the current one is and thats not sustainable for us. Or 10/15 times to be a decent team at that level. A 12000 capacity ground with the best suits in the country wont enable us to do that.

30/40/50 million quid. At least. Bottomless pit owner/s required. Our realistic hope (don't laugh) is that we find someone a bit rich, with money on the hip, who can chuck the first bit at us, make us 'into a Rotherham' and then hope that some rich Arab/similar would take a fancy of us and do the rest. Only Bournemouth have managed it in recent times from our level!

[BedsCobb]

We know he's had interest because he's been 'open and honest' about meetings with people. What of course we do not know is whether the asking price is the issue. I suspect it is but thats putting two and two together!

I think we all have to accept that the ground is unlikely to get touched much, if at all, by the current owners without outside investors coming in or indeed it being sold completely. Its been pretty obvious that the East Stand is not a priority since the Chinese debacle, and for the cynical ones amongst us a long time before that.

Im sure he's still talking with people who may come in, but quite frankly with the club up for sale you'd kind of expect that to be the case. All we can do is wait and see.

We are a long way off 'direct action', which I've seen the very odd mention of. He's paying the bills, the club is losing a lot of money each month because of the huge wage bill which they are clearly covering. I hope, like most of us, that he finds someone to take it on and said person/group finally 'delivers'. That said person has local interests and isn't just here for a direct return on investment. That latter is the key point; lets face it, and this is where I disagree with Beds on...NTFC isn't an investable entity in my books. It needs millions upon millions thrown at it to make that step from lower tier club to a higher tier one. 30 million. 40 million? Pluck a figure. A gradual investment strategy by Trust/similar owners will in my mind just mean that less money is spent on the team, then income goes down etc. Cant win.

Its all VERY frustrating.

6

Ive never advocated throwing millions at anything, while it would be great to be taken over by a group that can afford to pump in some hard cash, and there are plenty out there, I personally would like to go down the route of owners working very close to our supporters and catchment area, who are willing to invest a sensible amount on getting a team playing in league 1 and grow our infrastructure in a manner that guarantees steady returns on initial investment over a period of say 10 years.
The trust are looking into a fan owned inititive that would be interesting especially if it could work in partnership with several large and medium  companies or wealthy individuals  that would be happy to invest in future redevelopment and growth plans that the fans can be right behind to ensure growth so returns are made.
So steady amounts of sensible investment is what I would like to see in order to give the club a ground that people really want to visit and encourage more corperate clients who are proud to entertain clients at Sixfields and not embarrased by it as now.
Steady growth over the next 10 years to see the club double every aspect of the club, capacity, gates, corporate facilities, corporate clients, players budget, improved transfer fees paid and recieved.
We tried to go again in league 1 with an unattractive tiny 1990s stadium that hasn't any modern facilities expected at a professional stadium, so vast revenues lost in every department which caused the panic buying of players in a vain attempt to buck the trend of falling back down to L2.

We dont need anything like the scaremongering  £30 or £40m to take the next step, £1.5m would get the East stand sorted and the same to extend behind the South stand seats by 3000 to be league 1 ready.
Accrington Exeter and stevenage have all recently found
the  finances to improve what they have so we should be able to do a whole lot more than all those.

[guest3114]

Beds, now we are both agreed that we want the same thing and there is to be no bickering may I respectfully point out a couple of things. It is not possible to guarantee an ROI by developing the ground in a certain way or at a certain rate. There will remain a risk, the amount of which IMO would be significant. Your estimation of a 10 year ROI would immediately put off every potential investor I would know of. The main problem with extended ROIs (other than peoples impatience to get their money back)is that it allows too much time for a change of circumstances. As the investment would be inexorably linked to the performances on the pitch the risk is likely to be too great for most if not all. To repeat, the most likely scenario for the development we would all like is a life long fan with cash on the hip. I know you have reservations about this type of investment, but the alternatives are fraught with so much risk I don’t believe there will be any interest, not to the extent required anyway. Again you are talking about what we would like, I am talking about what we are likely to get. The reason KT is not spending the money and going back on his word is because he and his associates believe they are almost certainly never going to get it back. That has been the case from day one, so it begs the question why make the commitment in the first place?

[BedsCobb]

Beds, now we are both agreed that we want the same thing and there is to be no bickering may I respectfully point out a couple of things. It is not possible to guarantee an ROI by developing the ground in a certain way or at a certain rate. There will remain a risk, the amount of which IMO would be significant. Your estimation of a 10 year ROI would immediately put off every potential investor I would know of. The main problem with extended ROIs (other than peoples impatience to get their money back)is that it allows too much time for a change of circumstances. As the investment would be inexorably linked to the performances on the pitch the risk is likely to be too great for most if not all. To repeat, the most likely scenario for the development we would all like is a life long fan with cash on the hip. I know you have reservations about this type of investment, but the alternatives are fraught with so much risk I don’t believe there will be any interest, not to the extent required anyway. Again you are talking about what we would like, I am talking about what we are likely to get. The reason KT is not spending the money and going back on his word is because he and his associates believe they are almost certainly never going to get it back. That has been the case from day one, so it begs the question why make the commitment in the first place?

You missed the point Im making, those who I'd love to see invest into a new era for our football club would be multiple local buisneses, individuals and a smaller group but more numerous, the clubs fans, all who have a desire and passion to see our football club finally shake off the shackles and grow its product and regain the respect of the Town after decades of decline.
By being associated with the football club you would hope investors would be successful in promoting their businesses on  local and national platforms.
You need to realise these will be nothing like Cardoza and Thomas who after picking up the club for shirt buttons, had only interest in securing the stadiums land and leases from the council to benefit themselves.
 The 3 types of investors we require will be helping the club to grow and will not be investing vast sums they can't afford or be worrying about immediate ROI, but see it as a long buisness association that benefits all parties.
 Many of them also being the new box holders.

This is no revolutionary plan but the exact thing that happens at dozens of clubs up and down the country, it's just us having owners these past 15 years who tightly guard their land deals etc, doesn't allow for any good will from our business community.

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Beds, now we are both agreed that we want the same thing and there is to be no bickering may I respectfully point out a couple of things. It is not possible to guarantee an ROI by developing the ground in a certain way or at a certain rate. There will remain a risk, the amount of which IMO would be significant. Your estimation of a 10 year ROI would immediately put off every potential investor I would know of. The main problem with extended ROIs (other than peoples impatience to get their money back)is that it allows too much time for a change of circumstances. As the investment would be inexorably linked to the performances on the pitch the risk is likely to be too great for most if not all. To repeat, the most likely scenario for the development we would all like is a life long fan with cash on the hip. I know you have reservations about this type of investment, but the alternatives are fraught with so much risk I don’t believe there will be any interest, not to the extent required anyway. Again you are talking about what we would like, I am talking about what we are likely to get. The reason KT is not spending the money and going back on his word is because he and his associates believe they are almost certainly never going to get it back. That has been the case from day one, so it begs the question why make the commitment in the first place?

Pretty much spot on.....our chance was lost with the 10 million going missing. A couple of million, maybe 4 million is not going to do much at all.
KT and co are businessmen, they are not here for the love of the football club, they want to make a bit of money and move on to the next project. I think the splurge of money last season was an attempt to keep us in League 1 and bring in the extra 3 or 400k tv money and sponsorship money, with potentially higher crowds than this season and possibly even a hike in ticket prices both season and matchday. That g*mble failed and now we are in a less saleable position.
What do we expect to see for the 4mill? Lots more empty seats, 16 executive boxes that we might not sell. There is just no return!! Do the maths...16 boxes at 10k a year brings in £160k if all sold, and how much of that is profit?? Half perhaps at a push?? So for a one million outlay it takes 12 years just to make the money back...that’s without pumping anything else into the playing side of the club.
The hotel was supposed to be an earner....but even that’s gone quiet? And I thought that was planned for the west side, nothing to do with the lease difficulty on the East.
The numbers don’t stack up, and KT always said he didn’t see himself in it for the long term.
So nothing happens, we are back in the basement playing in a worse ground than we were in 1994.....twenty five years of progress eh? We were going to have a more permanent tented village for hospitality, even that didn’t come off.

Our best chance is either climbing the leagues with investment on the pitch, or some of the crop coming out of the youth set up earning the club a bit of money, again though that wouldn’t be an immediate return thanks to the EPPP system.....

Other than that, a euromillions winning fan, or someone in the background with a soft spot for the Cobblers and a wad of money to burn.

I was a big poster on this thread in the Cardoza reign, but now, sadly I do think it should be retitled ‘Redevelopment Further Away Than Ever’

[meccanostand]

Thomas and Bower have had a good few years now to either:

Finish the East Stand using the £4million investment that was mentioned on their takeover. (the Council need to be pressed on the full details of what was agreed)

or

Tart the club up to be sold.

Neither appears to have come to fruition. The club is publicly up for sale and no paternalistic arab football men have appeared to take us to the next level as yet.

I agree then you have to fall back on a combination of Drilling and Beds analysis, infrastructure improvements and consolidation as a community club. As has been mentioned on numerous occasions you do not need rich "businessmen" to build stands etc as Stevenage, Exeter etc have shown.

Any offfer for the club does that does not include cast iron plans for infrastructure improvements should be met with scepticism. The club needs to be sustainable very quickly with an uncertain future for TV rights in the next 10 years.


 

[guest3086]

Melbourne fella, you say 'The reason KT is not spending the money and going back on his word is because he and his associates believe they are almost certainly never going to get it back. That has been the case from day one, so it begs the question why make the commitment in the first place?'. Yes but they did make the commitment because they thought they would get the return from the land grab so I don't understand your point. As for 'ROI' (oh dear).

[guest3086]

They promised (by word) they would 'finish' the East Stand and they had the money ready and 'put aside'. A significant reason why the council wrote off the Cardoza swagger. Where is this 'finished' stand?

[BedsCobb]

They promised (by word) they would 'finish' the East Stand and they had the money ready and 'put aside'. A significant reason why the council wrote off the Cardoza swagger. Where is this 'finished' stand?

Just a thought, if they only got control of the club and the oppertunity to secure land deals, directly from the council writing off debts after wrongly being promising money was in position and ready  to finish off the East stand, then surely a revisit to original agreement should be made by the council and demand money from Thomas and co and put it into the local coffers or the oppertunity to run the club given to an other party?
This is obviously only applicable should it be the case they made the same false promises made to the fans, to the council in order to take control of the club.
Desperate times require desperate measures🤣

[JollyCobbler]

Just a thought, if they only got control of the club and the oppertunity to secure land deals, directly from the council writing off debts after wrongly being promising money was in position and ready  to finish off the East stand, then surely a revisit to original agreement should be made by the council and demand money from Thomas and co and put it into the local coffers or the oppertunity to run the club given to an other party?
This is obviously only applicable should it be the case they made the same false promises made to the fans, to the council in order to take control of the club.
Desperate times require desperate measures🤣

They did make a promise to complete the stand, but it was only part of what was agreed in the MOU. The MOU was the basis used to finalize the deal, due to the winding up proceedings hanging over the club. There just wasn't the time for the council to firm up anything more substantial. And so, in an attempt to help save NTFC, NBC took a **** and wrote off the 10 million debt on the agreement that KT would clear the outstanding debts and complete the East Stand. 

ETA: G-A-M-B-L-E

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Trouble is...how do you define complete? Were/are there any plans for the final product?

KT put the seats back in, actually a few more seats than were there before. But there is no disabled balcony, no lifts or suchlike. It’s a usuable facility at the moment, just like it was in 1994 but better than it was when KT came along.

How can anyone hold KT responsible for completing the stand when nobody knows what complete looks like?

[guest2677]

Trouble is...how do you define complete? Were/are there any plans for the final product?

KT put the seats back in, actually a few more seats than were there before. But there is no disabled balcony, no lifts or suchlike. It’s a usuable facility at the moment, just like it was in 1994 but better than it was when KT came along.

How can anyone hold KT responsible for completing the stand when nobody knows what complete looks like?

Complete doesn't look like the present state of the East though!

[meccanostand]

Police update on the missing millions.

30 suspects

550 people spoken to.

CPS to make final charging decisions.

https://twitter.com/mattcprecey/status/1067828632414957568

[Charlatan]

Police update on the missing millions.

30 suspects

550 people spoken to.

CPS to make final charging decisions.

https://twitter.com/mattcprecey/status/1067828632414957568

Good spot Meccanno. Would love to see those guilty brought to account

[guest3230]

JUST FINISH THE f***ING STAND.

[JollyCobbler]

Police update on the missing millions.

30 suspects

550 people spoken to.

CPS to make final charging decisions.

https://twitter.com/mattcprecey/status/1067828632414957568

And they still won't nail Keyser Söze.

[JollyCobbler]

Trouble is...how do you define complete? Were/are there any plans for the final product?

KT put the seats back in, actually a few more seats than were there before. But there is no disabled balcony, no lifts or suchlike. It’s a usuable facility at the moment, just like it was in 1994 but better than it was when KT came along.

How can anyone hold KT responsible for completing the stand when nobody knows what complete looks like?

NBC cabinet meeting, 24th November 2015:

3.2.12 The Consortium have also indicated they will complete the improvements to the East Stand.

3.2.13 As the share purchase agreement could not be resolved in time for binding legal agreements to be completed discussions are ongoing in relation to the discharge of the loan. Professional Officer legal advice is that the Council should not agree to discharge the loan until acceptable and binding legal agreements are in place. Failure to do this would place an unacceptable risk on the Council.

Risks
4.2.18 There are numerous and significant risks for the Council in this proposal. These include:
 Insufficient monies arising from the development land at Sixfields to cover the costs of the loan and other related costs for the Council.
 The development of land at Sixfields is not delivered due to financial viability (e.g. costs of decontamination to high or demand from potential developers is not there).
 Disputes between parties over boundary of land between stadium and development land.
 The Council cannot trace or recover, in total or in part, monies that were lent to NTFC and passed onto 3rd parties.
 NBC being unable to secure the leases from the Liquidator of CDNL in a timely manner to deliver the required development of land around Sixfields.
 A third party buys CDNL from the Liquidator.
 NTFC goes into Administration / Liquidation in the future after a deal is completed now.

Memorandum of Understanding: e. The Football Club will establish arrangements with the Supporters Trust for their involvement in the Football Club as soon as possible and at the latest by 31st March 2016.

It's all a bit vague, although I'd argue that [3.2.12] improvements to the East Stand have not been completed. The risks section shows that NBC realized they could get **** over (again), although they probably weren't expecting it from this close to home.
The wording [3.2.13] makes me wonder if the Council were once again sweet talked, because they appear to have discharged the debt without nailing down certain aspects of the MOU. Such as section e. of the MOU, and [3.2.13] items from the cabinet meeting.

[guest1269]

3.2.12 The Consortium have also indicated they will complete the improvements to the East Stand.

......this just about sums up the incompetence of the council and how easy they have been to turn over - once definitely, and possibly now a second time.

"Indicate" - no binding or contractual obligation
"complete the improvements" - seemingly not documented or defined

[Deepcut Cobbler]

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/files-on-up-to-30-suspects-in-sixfields-missing-millions-investigation-could-be-sent-to-prosecutors-1-8721671

Club chairman Kelvin Thomas told the Chronicle and Echo this week: "As the chief executive of Northampton Borough Council confirmed on BBC Radio Northampton on Wednesday morning, we are currently in constructive and positive dialogue with the borough council and other stakeholders about finishing the East Stand and the wider development of the site."

[threeinabed]

constructive and positive dialogue with the borough council and other stakeholders about finishing the East Stand and the wider development of the site."

'can we finish the stand?'
'yes'

not sure how concrete some positive dialogue can be?!