Vintage Cobbler
|
It is far too early to rush to judgment one way or the other about yesterday's news.
Why some are crowing that here have been right all along rather defeats me. As usual, little or no hard information has been disclosed by KT. For instance are both leases now controlled by NTFC or has there been some carve out of the the land? On what terms did DB & KT “sell” their shares in CDNL to NTFC and is there the possibility of more debt being placed on NTFC for the payment of a share of future profit from any development being payable to DB/KT as part of the share sale agreement?
I will only add that the issue of a serious conflict of interest, potentially or actually, between the interests of NTFC and those of CDNL was one of many matters raised by the Trust with the Council. Maybe the Council took that on board with the result we heard about yesterday.
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
If they ramp up the debt owed to them by the club (5mill and counting) then they can pay themselves from any land profit so it need not make any difference. It is significant however that this 'symbolic' transfer has happened after a meeting with NBC. I think the one thing lacking around all parties is trust.
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
It is far too early to rush to judgment one way or the other about yesterday's news.
Why some are crowing that here have been right all along rather defeats me. As usual, little or no hard information has been disclosed by KT. For instance are both leases now controlled by NTFC or has there been some carve out of the the land? On what terms did DB & KT “sell” their shares in CDNL to NTFC and is there the possibility of more debt being placed on NTFC for the payment of a share of future profit from any development being payable to DB/KT as part of the share sale agreement?
I will only add that the issue of a serious conflict of interest, potentially or actually, between the interests of NTFC and those of CDNL was one of many matters raised by the Trust with the Council. Maybe the Council took that on board with the result we heard about yesterday.
There is nothing wrong with keeping your own counsel until such a time that you have a full appraisal of the facts. Your post clearly illustrates my reason for raising that as a point. Far from you accepting what you definitely don't, or in fact can't know, you embark on another exercise in casting doubt over the reason for the change. There is no defending of DB or KT here. Just an earnest attempt at getting people to shut up until they actually have something to say. I couldn't care who comes out of this on top. But I am happy to look into this further and see if it sits right for myself, before commenting anywhere. At this time I have to take it on its initial merits, because unlike some, I am not prepared to speculate about any potentially amoral intent, until I have something to substantiate my point. Whilst I totally appreciate the nature of these things, especially on the social media platform, I would personally rather keep my powder dry. But one thing that I'm pretty sure that won't be wasted on the folk on here and elsewhere. Is the barefaced hypocrisy of accusing someone of crowing, whilst bragging that that you and the rest of the crew were instrumental in bringing the whole thing about...
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
Er, I am sure there is a straightforward answer to this? If the ownership of the land has transferred to the football club and KT & DB have the controlling interest over NTFC and by definition the majority decision regarding what happens to its assets, what’s the difference? For example, what would prevent them from selling the land, generating a large profit for the club and then pay themselves a dividend from the profit? If this remains a possibility I don’t really see how this offers anything more than faith that the owners will use the money to benefit the club, pretty much like when the land was owned by CDNL? Like I said, I am sure this will all be clarified at some point and there will be something I have missed?
Indeed! Not saying its right or wrong at this stage, but I don't think what has happened changes a hell of a lot. The Council were still saying no development on the land until the stand was completed.....so they are unlikely to grant planning permission aren't they? Unless the goalposts have been moved as part of the productive meeting. My other thought is...does this make the "package" a bit tidier if a sale in is the offing? ie whoever buys the club will also now control the leases.....and that wouldn't have been the case had CDNL been a separate entity outside of the football clubs control.
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
claretparrot
|
Indeed!
Not saying its right or wrong at this stage, but I don't think what has happened changes a hell of a lot.
The Council were still saying no development on the land until the stand was completed.....so they are unlikely to grant planning permission aren't they? Unless the goalposts have been moved as part of the productive meeting.
My other thought is...does this make the "package" a bit tidier if a sale in is the offing? ie whoever buys the club will also now control the leases.....and that wouldn't have been the case had CDNL been a separate entity outside of the football clubs control.
The goalposts were moved years ago. There's still some portable seats in there though.
|
|
|
|
Larry
|
At this time I have to take it on its initial merits, because unlike some, I am not prepared to speculate about any potentially amoral intent, until I have something to substantiate my point.
Don’t you mean immoral?
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
Don’t you mean immoral?
No.. Why?! Definition of amoral. 1a : having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong amoral politicians an amoral, selfish person. b : being neither moral nor immoral specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply Science as such is completely amoral. —
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
No.. Why?!
Definition of amoral. 1a : having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong amoral politicians an amoral, selfish person. b : being neither moral nor immoral specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply Science as such is completely amoral. —
You must mean immoral surely? If intent is involved then amoral would rule itself out as it infers no moral judgement at all.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
You must mean immoral surely? If intent is involved then amoral would rule itself out as it infers no moral judgement at all.
Understandable to confuse the meanings of two similar sounding words. Worrying to not understand the difference having read and regurgitated the dictionary definition though. I wouldn't have expected that from someone so replete with eloquent prose as our Tel.
|
|
|
|
1971cobbler
|
The goalposts were moved years ago. There's still some portable seats in there though.
Can we start calling the East Stand the Meccano Stand as a nod to our former heritage?
|
|
|
|
EB Claret
|
Can we start calling the East Stand the Meccano Stand as a nod to our former heritage? Does that also mean we can re-name the West Stand...The Duck Boards?
|
|
|
|
Why?
|
A Chinese consortium with big money is about to make an offer that will be brilliant for the club. It all depends on geo-surveys.
|
|
|
|
EB Claret
|
A Chinese consortium with big money is about to make an offer that will be brilliant for the club. It all depends on geo-surveys.
Easy fella, I think you're having flashbacks
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
Can we start calling the East Stand the Meccano Stand as a nod to our former heritage? In this day and age the Lego stand!
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
Understandable to confuse the meanings of two similar sounding words. Worrying to not understand the difference having read and regurgitated the dictionary definition though. I wouldn't have expected that from someone so replete with eloquent prose as our Tel.
Right or wrong and knowing the difference.. Nobody’s perfect..
|
|
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 22:24:15 pm by Terryfenwickatemyhamster »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
Why?
|
Easy fella, I think you're having flashbacks Flashbacks? Respect, but, not sure what you mean. ? My post was a hint at what you may see in the "area" over the next few months.
|
|
|
|
Melbourne Cobbler
|
Understandable to confuse the meanings of two similar sounding words. Worrying to not understand the difference having read and regurgitated the dictionary definition though. I wouldn't have expected that from someone so replete with eloquent prose as our Tel.
Ah, that would be because it’s a homophone rather than a homonym, heteronym or homograph. Hope that’s cleared that up?
|
Not a real supporter but unelected chair of the Northampton Town Honorary Supporters Club. (Please note: any opinions given may not necessarily be shared by proper supporters. In incidents of conflict the views of real supporters shall take precedence).
|
|
|
guest3338
|
Ah, that would be because it’s a homophone rather than a homonym, heteronym or homograph. Hope that’s cleared that up?
I think you must have been discussing the subject with Coolcat. He's the only person on this board I can think of who might have known that.
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
Right or wrong and knowing the difference.. Nobody’s perfect.. Isnt that the thing. I respect your partiality and you remain one of my three favourite mods.
|
|
|
|
Melbourne Cobbler
|
I think you must have been discussing the subject with Coolcat. He's the only person on this board I can think of who might have known that.
Nope, spent 4 hours researching the dictionary and thesaurus R and still everyone is totally underwhelmed.
|
Not a real supporter but unelected chair of the Northampton Town Honorary Supporters Club. (Please note: any opinions given may not necessarily be shared by proper supporters. In incidents of conflict the views of real supporters shall take precedence).
|
|
|
|