guest2090
|
Who is going to want Taylor and Facey ?
based on the fact they play for us when they are fit, unlike me the professionals in football see something in them, someone will on the assumption we don't want money for them.
|
|
|
|
meccanostand
|
Asset of Community Value status granted on Sixfields stadium but not the athletic track. Interesting line here from the Trust... The Trust understand that building work on the (East) stand will only take place pending agreement on the development of other land around the stadium and with Northampton Borough Council set to be scrapped in 2020 in favour of a new unitary authority our concern is that wider planning considerations will now be shelved and that the re-development of the stand will not take place for at least another couple of years. Full statement here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2261576353866394&id=129995820357802
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
I’m glad this is done finally. So well done for persistence with the applications. With regards to the paragraph highlighted it is not easy to fully understand what this all means for the football club vs the CDNL element.
In the DC times the land had gotten to the point of full plans for housing and much of the needed surveys being submitted to NBC planning as they were/are visible on the planning pages. Curious to know what agreement other than planning permission would be needed?
The merged council will be a bumpy ride but functional departments such as planning should carry on business as usual.
|
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
|
|
|
meccanostand
|
I’m glad this is done finally. So well done for persistence with the applications. With regards to the paragraph highlighted it is not easy to fully understand what this all means for the football club vs the CDNL element.
In the DC times the land had gotten to the point of full plans for housing and much of the needed surveys being submitted to NBC planning as they were/are visible on the planning pages. Curious to know what agreement other than planning permission would be needed?
The merged council will be a bumpy ride but functional departments such as planning should carry on business as usual.
Not sure planning would pass for housing again on contaminated land or a developer would front the remediation costs. Also the small matter of the Council wanting to recoup its £10.35 million ++ and getting a good deal for itself and the taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
Don’t disagree about them wanting to recoup as much as they can. I want them to do that as a local taxpayer.
It won’t be housing it’ll be commercial development I’d think. I wouldn’t think that a council could withhold planning permission on the basis of the loan as it wrote this off and CDNL agreed deals with creditors. Planning can only be agreed or not on planning issues but without anything submitted then it hasn’t been tested since all he change.
Who knows?
|
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
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
I am not criticising the Trust, in fact I think it deserves praise and our thanks for the effort it has made to achieve ACV status for the stadium. I can't imagine that DB/KT are best pleased.
However, the granting of ACV limited status something of a Pyrrhic victory in that for unexplained reasons building work can only take place "pending agreement on the development of other land around the stadium". I am not clear what "other land" means. The CDNL land? If that is so we may be facing the prospect of the CDNL land/company being sold off by DB/KT with our present owners pocketing the money and then the club (whether under current of different ownership) dealing with CDNL and the Council with the CDNL controlled by powerful developers whose only aim will be profit not what was community land.
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
am not criticising the Trust, in fact I think it deserves praise and our thanks for the effort it has made to achieve ACV status for the stadium. I can't imagine that DB/KT are best pleased.
However, the granting of ACV limited status is something of a Pyrrhic victory in that for unexplained reasons building work can only take place "pending agreement on the development of other land around the stadium". I am not clear what "other land" means. The CDNL land? If that is so we may be facing the prospect of the CDNL land/company being sold off by DB/KT with our present owners pocketing the money and then the club (whether under current of different ownership) dealing with CDNL and the Council with the CDNL controlled by powerful developers whose only aim will be profit from what was community land.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
am not criticising the Trust, in fact I think it deserves praise and our thanks for the effort it has made to achieve ACV status for the stadium. I can't imagine that DB/KT are best pleased.
However, the granting of ACV limited status is something of a Pyrrhic victory in that for unexplained reasons building work can only take place "pending agreement on the development of other land around the stadium". I am not clear what "other land" means. The CDNL land? If that is so we may be facing the prospect of the CDNL land/company being sold off by DB/KT with our present owners pocketing the money and then the club (whether under current of different ownership) dealing with CDNL and the Council with the CDNL controlled by powerful developers whose only aim will be profit from what was community land.
what we will get will be dependent on the amount of value the developers rake in and then willing to pay out, ie, 7 millions could see a token gesture of 400k for a few boxes and bit of cladding, less for the developers will see cladding and not much else but you can be sure the cost will be grotesquely over exagerated in sums of millions😂😂 The trust must be involved in any negotiations between all parties in regards of what is available and how it's best spent to avoid the above.
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
I do hope they won't use asbestos between the boxes. It will only cause complications in future refurbishment projects.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Yes , but the KT consortium wouldn’t have been interested in us if it wasn’t for the land association . No one realistically is going to be interested in a low level football club unless a knight in shining armour turns up from the West Stand that wins the Euro millions . It’s a worrying situation really because I think KT has lost a bit of interest all round .
Thomas is only interested in making a killing from the ground our club stands on, its not a secret nothing will happen until he gets the freedom of the old weedon rd tip. The council in my opinion would do well to resist his agressive requests and speak with oir the new objectionable trust in order to to give our club a fair chance of a fair share at the onset, it could be the difference between 50/50 share out or £9 for us and £1 for you as I suspect if leaving it to outsiders to decide. My reasoning for quoting your post is to highlight our supporters 'its all or nothing' stance even now the old belief of its Thomas/cardoza or the Racecourse nonsence has been dispelled, we are still unable to see an alternative workable method of small sustainable growth programme that is driven by civic pride and the will of all the football club of Northampton's catchment, fans, well wishers, local businesses and sponsors, all of which collectively would put 10 x times more investment into the clubs infrastructure than any time wasting land speculators would Yes it may take a year to fit out the East stand and another year or so to take the capacity upto 10,000, but it would still happen a damned sight quicker than if left with Cardoza and now Thomas.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
Thomas is only interested in making a killing from the ground our club stands on, its not a secret nothing will happen until he gets the freedom of the old weedon rd tip. The council in my opinion would do well to resist his agressive requests and speak with oir the new objectionable trust in order to to give our club a fair chance of a fair share at the onset, it could be the difference between 50/50 share out or £9 for us and £1 for you as I suspect if leaving it to outsiders to decide. My reasoning for quoting your post is to highlight our supporters 'its all or nothing' stance even now the old belief of its Thomas/cardoza or the Racecourse nonsence has been dispelled, we are still unable to see an alternative workable method of small sustainable growth programme that is driven by civic pride and the will of all the football club of Northampton's catchment, fans, well wishers, local businesses and sponsors, all of which collectively would put 10 x times more investment into the clubs infrastructure than any time wasting land speculators would Yes it may take a year to fit out the East stand and another year or so to take the capacity upto 10,000, but it would still happen a damned sight quicker than if left with Cardoza and now Thomas.
You started early tonight? Was it happy hour? Your world must be a wonderful place to reside.
|
“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
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
A decent response from the club on what, to me at least, was a fairly unhelpful statement from the Trust. https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/cobblers-supporters-frustrated-with-east-stand-delays-again-as-sixfields-is-given-protective-status-by-the-council-1-8740932The ACV is clearly a good thing and the Trust should be applauded for achieving it, but then they do themselves no favours by couching the announcement in quite aggressive language and undermining the credibility of their point by including at least one fairly major factual inaccuracy. Also, the fact they were trying to gain a degree of control over the surrounding land by trying to include the athletics track in the ACV could be seen as an attempt to actually block (or interfere with) the owner's plans. And people wonder why KT and Bower want to keep the Trust at arm's length...
|
|
« Last Edit: December 15, 2018, 06:57:22 am by BackOfTheNet »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
guest48
|
The ACV is clearly a good thing and the Trust should be applauded for achieving it, but then they do themselves no favours by couching the announcement in quite aggressive language and undermining the credibility of their point by including at least one fairly major factual inaccuracy. Also, the fact they were trying to gain a degree of control over the surrounding land by trying to include the athletics track in the ACV could be seen as an attempt to actually block (or interfere with) the owner's plans. And people wonder why KT and Bower want to keep the Trust at arm's length...
ALL the maps for the ACV were drawn up by the council NOT the Trust, the working plans have been in place for around 18 months and included with running track, which if you recall was part of the community owned Sixfields footprint. The Trust were told , around 9 months ago, that the ACV had all been approved but when we received the confirmation, the running track had been removed from the plan. There was no "attempt to actually block or interfere with the owners plans" as the Trust had no say and didn't attempt to have a say on the area of the ACV. The running track has been removed, make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
I think that as the running track was relocated to Moulton College as part of the original DC/CDNL deal and was delivered I understand, the derelict track would then not be seen as a Community Asset possibly.
Given the wrangles about leases and trying to understand where one piece of controlled land starts and finishes is of a potential commercial interest rather than Community Asset.
Do a £3 land registry search to see if this shows any more clarity?
My preference would be that club control would be as you mention back to the original boundary as this gives a range of possibilities that would be directly linked to the club.
The rest of the CDNL controlled land has no direct benefit to the club unless the common factor of the same ownership of KT/DB choose to from any proceeds of sale or realised value from development.
|
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
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
I think that as the running track was relocated to Moulton College as part of the original DC/CDNL deal and was delivered I understand, the derelict track would then not be seen as a Community Asset possibly.
Given the wrangles about leases and trying to understand where one piece of controlled land starts and finishes is of a potential commercial interest rather than Community Asset.
Do a £3 land registry search to see if this shows any more clarity?
My preference would be that the club control be back to the original boundary, as you mention, as this gives a range of possibilities that would be directly linked to the club.
The rest of the CDNL controlled land has no direct benefit to the club unless the common factor of the same ownership of KT/DB choose to do so from any proceeds of sale or realised value from development.
|
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
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
I think that as the running track was relocated to Moulton College as part of the original DC/CDNL deal and was delivered I understand, the derelict track would then not be seen as a Community Asset possibly.
Given the wrangles about leases and trying to understand where one piece of controlled land starts and finishes is of a potential commercial interest rather than Community Asset.
Do a £3 land registry search to see if this shows any more clarity?
My preference would be that club control would be as you mention back to the original boundary as this gives a range of possibilities that would be directly linked to the club.
The rest of the CDNL controlled land has no direct benefit to the club unless the common factor of the same ownership of KT/DB choose to from any proceeds of sale or realised value from development.
I'm unable to see anything conected to Thomas/Bower as being really part of our club. Yes they may front the organisation but they are not in it for NTFC imo. I just hope the council have the same reservations and protect the clubs intrests and the trust dont get charm offensived into bed this time. These clowns have had it too easy for to long, protestations are long over due 🤣 Hill top protest anyone? The thought would have them shaking. A definitive outline of whats planned, timescale , costs etc, would be declared immediately in one of those embarrasing attempts to pacify the natives in a social media thingymegigs that usually is a load of 5hite. Recently Thomas claimed he was spending more time stateside for family reasons but since then he's been popping up more regular than 50p Lill!
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
A decent response from the club on what, to me at least, was a fairly unhelpful statement from the Trust. https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/cobblers-supporters-frustrated-with-east-stand-delays-again-as-sixfields-is-given-protective-status-by-the-council-1-8740932The ACV is clearly a good thing and the Trust should be applauded for achieving it, but then they do themselves no favours by couching the announcement in quite aggressive language and undermining the credibility of their point by including at least one fairly major factual inaccuracy. Also, the fact they were trying to gain a degree of control over the surrounding land by trying to include the athletics track in the ACV could be seen as an attempt to actually block (or interfere with) the owner's plans. And people wonder why KT and Bower want to keep the Trust at arm's length... Im struggling to see how its unhelpful. Its about time the ownership had some pressure put on them. Thats not to say Im anti KC. But as things stand, other than carrying the very large wage bill he's bringing not a lot to the party. Whether thats his fault, the councils or another reason is quite irrelevant. Its clear as day that he will not spend a penny of his or his backers own money on sorting the ground out. We are very much where we were under DC. Its all about land. And until we have an owner/s that doesn't see NTFC as an opportunity to make a few bob, this saga will carry on and carry on. Nice enough bloke, but for me he's served his time. And had done so a fair while back. I hope he sells us and sells us quick, we need fresh energy, new ideas and most importantly a few quid to chuck down the drain to help us out both off the pitch and on the pitch!!
|
|
|
|
Vintage Cobbler
|
I find the naivety of some of the posters on this topic staggering, the more so given the Cardoza legacy. I have to question when these supporters will learn anything.
Let me remind you that so far as the football club is concerned, David Bower owns 90% of Ventures, the holding company of NTFC through the BVI incorporated, Belle De Jour Ltd, one of those Caribbean offshore tax havens where no accounts are filed and no ownership details can be found out. It could be that the ownership of Belle De Jour Ltd is not only with DB but that seems unlikely. KT’s holding in Ventures has gone down this year from 22.5% to 10%. So, when talking and writing about the football club let us understand that KT is a relatively small shareholder and acts as front man for DB. Our owner is a solicitor (probably retired from day-to-day practice) resident in Dubai and very rarely seen at Sixfields. I think he has attended one match this season and I cannot recollect any previous occasions he has been seen at home matches.
In contrast the ownership of the CDNL with its only asset being its leasehold land (100+years term) is 50/50 DB/KT. Ask yourselves whether or not this is the real interest of our owners, the reason they are here behind the front of owning NTFC. Someone on this thread recently posted an article from the Chronicle written in 2016 which reported offers from major developers and investment funds for the land behind the East Stand amounting to over £20 million. Those same funds would have known or have a good idea about the condition of the land. So perhaps the contamination issue is something of a red herring.
The CDNL land was obtained by DB/KT master-minding a deal with the Liquidator from under the noses of the Council whose intention was to foreclose the lease and sell on the land or make a development deal from which it could recover some or a large part of the “missing millions”. CDNL has been ‘in liquidation” for most of the period since the Cardoza/Grossman scandal broke but as recently as last month the liquidation process was stopped and CDNL is now completely under the ownership and control of our owners. So, the wily DB/KT have secured the CDNL land and for a very small sum of money relative to the sale/redevelopment value of that land. All for the benefit of NTFC and its supporters? I suggest not.
The only obstacle for DB/KT has been the Council which is, of course, the planning authority. Clearly, KT has been mending broken fences with the Council in recent months i.e. the “good conversations” after the public spat between KT and the leader of NBC, Jonathan Nunn over which party was responsible for the on-going delay in the East Stand building works. It is 6 months since peace broke out and we the supporters still have no idea where NTFC’s eastern boundaries lie and no plans or drawings for the East Stand have been revealed. Some including myself have questioned if they exist in any real detail. In my opinion we are being treated with contempt.
Now we have the announcement of further delays and it being reported that the East Stand will remain in its present condition until an agreement is made over undefined land (I assume it is the CDNL land). Further, out of the blue the Council has excluded from the ACV the running track without it seems any prior notice or consultation with the applicants, the Trust. That is a disgrace. In other words, the likelihood is that some deal has been struck with Nunn for planning consent on the CDNL land (including the running track)which will be pushed through the process with a Tory majority on the Council. James Whiting has suddenly stepped up to be spokesman for KT/DB and is falling back on the old hoary chestnut of “confidentiality” which I recall was last relied on when Cardoza ducked the questions about the redevelopment he had invited in the first place.
What is staring us in the face is the prospect of KT/DB walking off with a very significant profit from the CDNL land, none of which will be for the benefit of the football club or its supporters, and we will be left at best with a shoddy East Stand and a club restricted by an inadequate land and poor infrastructure destined to remain lower league for our lifetimes.
I nearly forgot, KT is his generosity has negotiated a larger footprint for the football club land behind the East Stand, omitting to say that this was the club’s land in the first place.
Think about what the late Brian Lomax said.
|
|
|
|
Clint
|
Brilliant post from Vintage.
|
|
|
|
guest2677
|
Difficult to see past Vintages post. Makes complete sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|