The Hotel End
March 28, 2024, 11:23:01 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Downloads Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register Chat  

Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

Pages: 1 ... 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 [1388] 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 ... 2180   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?  (Read 1819433 times)
West Stand, TVOR and 26 Guests are viewing this topic.
singcobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3162



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 6 Avatar Linux User
« Reply #27740 on: January 28, 2021, 07:27:45 am »

By now they have probably given more to the three auditing companies than was lost to the Cardozas.
Report Spam   Logged
guest2995
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #27741 on: January 28, 2021, 09:45:20 am »

By now they have probably given more to the three auditing companies than was lost to the Cardozas.
Quite right , and then there is the police time which will be extortionate .
It is one sham after another and no one seems accountable for absolutely anything .
They are afraid of the disdain it will shower on the council and the spin offs it will have on the job for life brigade .
The police are afraid of losing and looking like numpties and so take far too long to reach a conclusion and actually act on anything whatsoever .
Meanwhile , on their yacht or in their country estate the shamed who cannot be named carry on quaffing and squirrelling ....
it is a farce
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5882


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #27742 on: January 28, 2021, 10:00:01 am »

Having now properly read the report now, here's some interesting snippets (spot the theme that keeps popping up):

Quote
This public interest report concerns NBC’s loan to Northampton Town Football Club (“NTFC”) and reports on significant failures of corporate governance and items of account that are, in KPMG’s view as the Appointed Auditor to NBC, contrary to law.

Quote
The agreement at the in principle stage included that the £5m proceeds of sale of the development would be used by the Council to offset the debt owed by NTFC. In our view that was inappropriate and there seems to have been no or insufficient benefit or any discernible rational reason to NBC to reduce NTFC’s debt in this way. Furthermore, although the sale did not in the event go ahead, if the £5m had been applied as outlined in the 17 July 2013 report it would have, in our view, run a high risk of constituting unlawful State Aid to NTFC;

Quote
. In our view the Council did not ensure that it followed the correct steps to ensure that the loans were lawful and did not represent State Aid;

Quote
The then Chief Executive authorised loans totalling £13.5m which was in excess of the “up to £12m” quoted in the Cabinet paper of 17 July 2013. The Council
advanced a further £1.5m for the stadium in April 2014 with inadequate due diligence undertaken as to why the extra money was needed nor what the previous £4.5m loaned until that point had actually been spent on. Officers had sought legal advice which determined that although the background in the Cabinet report referred to “up to 12m”, since the recorded decision did not
reference a specific figure, additional Cabinet approval was not required and entering into facility agreements for up to £13.5m was in line with the existing decision. In KPMG’s view this advice was incorrect and the delegation as to amount was subject to the overall limit quoted in the report and it is unreasonable to interpret this as being given authority to approve any size loan. We have concluded that in our view this decision went beyond the delegated authority and was therefore unlawful;

Quote
The Council was prepared to enter into a conditional agreement to sell land to a company (CDNL) that was proposed by NTFC without going through any competitive procurement process. NTFC and CDNL had directors on common, which is a further issue with regard to legality and financial and corporate governance which we would have expected the Council to have picked up onand considered the implications

Quote
Whilst one of the conditions required of the Chief Executive was satisfied and two conditions could be deemed as being partially satisfied, two were in our view definitely not satisfied: we have concluded (and subsequent independent reviews, reports and events have borne out), that the security provided by NTFC was neither sufficient nor tangible; and, there was no robust contractual arrangement in place between NTFC and a financially sufficient third party. In KPMG’s view, failure to meet these conditions rendered the decisions taken further to the delegated powers unlawful;

Quote
In KPMG’s view, the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning should have been able to foresee the risk of the Council being exposed to financial loss or liability and should have mitigated that risk accordingly. In KPMG’s view, failure to meet this condition rendered the decisions taken further to the delegated power unlawful.

Quote
Thus, NTFC’s average attendance in each of the previous five years was around 4,500 and the capacity of the stadium was 7,500. Yet the Council never questioned whether there was really a need for a stadium that per the loan application seated 10,000 people, i.e. NTFC were asking for an additional 2,500 seats. Similarly, at that stage there was, in KPMG’s view, inadequate critical review or challenge about whether there was demand for conference facilities or a hotel and/or the impact that additional provision might have on existing facilities elsewhere, with no clear partner agreements such as an agreed hotel developer for the site.
I do think KPMG are rather missing the point on this one - look down the road to MK for an example. Granted, a look at the league table shows it doesn't guarantee success, but their growth in support since relocating is still pretty impressive and if anything, their relative lack of footballing success in the same time frame points to the scale the facilities having an impact. Either way, this isn't a helpful statement when it comes to progressing the current situation...

Quote
However, the Council continued to advance money to NTFC even when it was obvious that something was seriously wrong. Quite apart from the lack of progress on site, NTFC submitted a revised planning application on 1 August 2014 which significantly reduced the scale of the stadium expansion.

Quote
The project was championed by the former Leader and, other than the points raised by three non-Cabinet Members attending Cabinet meeting and noted at paragraph 38 above, it appears to have been agreed without having been subject to any robust challenge by his fellow Cabinet Members. None of the other Cabinet Members were even aware that the Paper they approved contained a provision where it was intended that £5m of Council Taxpayers’ money loaned to NTFC was not going to be paid back. We were told by some of the officers and Members we interviewed as part of our review that there had been pressure to complete the deal (mainly from the Leader).
Tut tut, Fat Mack...

Quote
[one of the conditions was] That there were robust contractual arrangements between NTFC and a financially sufficient third party (i.e. a hotel chain). There was no such arrangement

Quote
The process which councils must follow when they sell land assets are set out in the Local Government Act 1972 section 123. Under case law interpreting this provision, a council/local authority will only have complied with its duties to its residents and protecting the public purse if it has (i) taken proper advice; (ii) followed that advice for reasons that can be justified; and (iii) not followed advice that was so plainly erroneous that in accepting it the local authority must have known, or at least ought to have known, that it was acting unreasonably. Principal among the requirements is that the Council must achieve best consideration (which can include non-monetary factors). The obvious way of doing this is to go through some kind of competitive process to identify the developer. In this case, the development company was proposed by the officers of NTFC and it would appear that at the time the Council’s
officers, using their delegated authority, accepted the recommendation without question. In the Cabinet Report of 17 July 2013, reference to ‘a developer’ was made, however CDNL or its relationship to the owners of NTFC was not. We consider this was inadequate, and the Council’s view that this does not matter because the sale did not go through is irrelevant because the Council did enter into a conditional agreement to sell and all the conditions could have been met without resolving this fundamental problem.
So basically, the council should have ensured NTFC went to tender to find a development partner but instead it was just given to CDNL. Owned by....?

Quote
The Council continued to advance money to NTFC even when it became clear that something was already fundamentally wrong with this project. Notwithstanding the lack of progress on site, NTFC submitted a revised planning application on 1 August 2014 which significantly reduced the scale of the stadium expansion. By this stage the Council had alreadyadvanced £7.5m for the stadium development and it subsequently advanced a further £1.5m on 19 August 2014 despite knowing that the proposed development had changed fundamentally. NTFC’s original planning application, submitted in November 2013, was to increase capacity by 2,347 seats and add a conference facility, but their revised application reduced that to just an additional 422
seats and no conference facility.

Quote
The Leader led the Council’s side of discussions with NTFC and many of these discussions were not minuted and not attended by any other Council representative. This resulted in a series of phone calls, texts and emails (on some occasions from a personal email account) from the former Leader instructing officers to take actions as he negotiated the Council’s position. For instance, the project was still being changed significantly by NTFC in the run-up to the Cabinet meeting on 17 July 2013. A draft version of the 17 July 2013 Cabinet report, which was dated 7 July 2013 states that the loan was to be for £10m to NTFC (and £2.5m to the Rugby Club), but this was then changed to up to £12m to NTFC following a meeting between the then Leader of the Council and NTFC (also the loan to the Rugby Club had doubled to £5m by the time the report was finalised). Following our various interviews of Council Members, officers,
and review of reports, we have seen no clear evidence to explain why the amount increased or that the Council considered the impact of the increase on, for example, the viability of the project or the security required.

There's also an extended section on what may or may not constitute state aid, which might colour any future arrangements between the club and the council, as might this recommendation:

Quote
Any future land sales should, other than in exceptional circumstances and where the law allows, be undertaken via means of a competitive process, in order that prospective parties are able to tender for the purchase, by submitting their plans for development. Each bid should be appropriately appraised, and consideration should be given to any relationships either with Council Members or related parties as part of the awarding process. The ultimate decision on who to award the sale to, should in a matter of this significance be undertaken by Cabinet
following receipt of a formal tender evaluation process, which includes the results of the due diligence undertaken against each bid. When considering best value for the land, the Council may (in limited circumstances and subject to the particular facts) be able to take into account ethical considerations.


Still quite a lot to read there, but hopefully a bit more concise than the 35 pages of repetition and waffle I've just slogged through!  Wink
« Last Edit: January 28, 2021, 10:03:30 am by BackOfTheNet » Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
Deepcut Cobbler
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14651



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Windows User
« Reply #27743 on: January 28, 2021, 11:01:54 am »

I do think KPMG are rather missing the point on this one - look down the road to MK for an example. Granted, a look at the league table shows it doesn't guarantee success, but their growth in support since relocating is still pretty impressive and if anything, their relative lack of footballing success in the same time frame points to the scale the facilities having an impact. Either way, this isn't a helpful statement when it comes to progressing the current situation...


Thank you picking out the points of concern that you have BOTN, saves a few of us taking the time to if that is the basis of the whole:
One point though: I don't think that KPMG are missing the point, they are just asking why the club were not challenged or asked to justify their request for additional seats and facilities?  If the club were challenged at the time and came up with a legitimate justification it would have been OK, the fact that they hadn't been challenged is the issue?
Report Spam   Logged

“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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5882


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #27744 on: January 28, 2021, 11:05:06 am »

Thank you picking out the points of concern that you have BOTN, saves a few of us taking the time to if that is the basis of the whole:
One point though: I don't think that KPMG are missing the point, they are just asking why the club were not challenged or asked to justify their request for additional seats and facilities?  If the club were challenged at the time and came up with a legitimate justification it would have been OK, the fact that they hadn't been challenged is the issue?


Fair point.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #27745 on: January 28, 2021, 11:08:59 am »

This has all been going on for far too long, the CPS need to come to a decision, unfortunately judging by the time taken they are not confident of convictions, a lengthy trial would cost millions more tax payers money.
Meanwhile the guilty are laughing at us.
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Deepcut Cobbler
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14651



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Windows User
« Reply #27746 on: January 28, 2021, 11:18:45 am »

This has all been going on for far too long, the CPS need to come to a decision, unfortunately judging by the time taken they are not confident of convictions, a lengthy trial would cost millions more tax payers money.
Meanwhile the guilty are laughing at us.

The investigation has to be concluded with a recommendation before the CPS get involved.
There's probably quite a few on a good earner that would prefer for the investigation to continue. Or is that too cynical?  Grin
Report Spam   Logged

“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
Larry
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Fourth year Anniversary Mobile User
« Reply #27747 on: January 28, 2021, 11:45:06 am »

Thank you picking out the points of concern that you have BOTN, saves a few of us taking the time to if that is the basis of the whole:
One point though: I don't think that KPMG are missing the point, they are just asking why the club were not challenged or asked to justify their request for additional seats and facilities?  If the club were challenged at the time and came up with a legitimate justification it would have been OK, the fact that they hadn't been challenged is the issue?


Are KPMG suggesting there may never have been the intention to build the stand as initially described? They just wanted the money.
Report Spam   Logged
Deepcut Cobbler
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14651



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Windows User
« Reply #27748 on: January 28, 2021, 11:51:05 am »

Are KPMG suggesting there may never have been the intention to build the stand as initially described? They just wanted the money.

No, just that it's another example where the process, procedure, checks, balances and challenges, that they would normally expect for this type of financial transaction/activity, wasn't carried out.
Report Spam   Logged

“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
guest3419
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #27749 on: January 28, 2021, 12:12:39 pm »

The investigation has to be concluded with a recommendation before the CPS get involved.
There's probably quite a few on a good earner that would prefer for the investigation to continue. Or is that too cynical?  Grin
I thought that one of the news bulletins early last year said that 'papers had been passed to the CPS'.
Report Spam   Logged
Manwork04
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #27750 on: January 28, 2021, 12:30:30 pm »

The investigation has to be concluded with a recommendation before the CPS get involved.
There's probably quite a few on a good earner that would prefer for the investigation to continue. Or is that too cynical?  Grin
The CPS have the evidence and no it’s not too cynical. 😂🤐
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Deepcut Cobbler
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14651



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Windows User
« Reply #27751 on: January 28, 2021, 12:42:33 pm »

The CPS have the evidence and no it’s not too cynical.

  Cool
Report Spam   Logged

“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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9299



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Windows User Mobile User Spammer 25 Posts in one day
« Reply #27752 on: January 28, 2021, 12:50:00 pm »

  Cool
👍
Report Spam   Logged

Rule Britannia
Melbourne Cobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4631



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Spammer 25 Posts in one day Avatar Search
« Reply #27753 on: January 28, 2021, 14:41:19 pm »

Whilst I am no expert, my understanding is that investigations into cases of this nature are notoriously difficult, complex and lengthy? There is something about burden of proof as to the intent in an individual’s state of mind at the time of the offence? 4 years plus in a case such as this would be neither unusual or excessive? As I said I am no expert but from what I have read the length of time that this is taking has not come as a surprise? In the event an offence was committed it would have been a considerable challenge to have succeeded without some sort of compliance within the council? The question and difficulty for any investigator would be, is that a result of negligence or wilful act for personal gain? The consequences for each carry significantly differing outcomes. However suspicion irrespective of how significant is not enough, there would have to be conclusive proof beyond reasonable doubt at the time of the offence? This is where criminal and civil prosecution differ. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof, with the court having to be convinced that there is no doubt that something is true.  In civil proceedings, however, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that his or her case is true. Given the complexities involved, the number of individuals and the necessity for conclusive proof as to the extent of involvement across a significant number of individuals and organisations, the timescales whilst disappointing should not be a surprise.
Report Spam   Logged

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).
Deepcut Cobbler
Administrator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14651



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Windows User
« Reply #27754 on: January 28, 2021, 14:54:04 pm »

Whilst I am no expert, my understanding is that investigations into cases of this nature are notoriously difficult, complex and lengthy? There is something about burden of proof as to the intent in an individual’s state of mind at the time of the offence? 4 years plus in a case such as this would be neither unusual or excessive? As I said I am no expert but from what I have read the length of time that this is taking has not come as a surprise? In the event an offence was committed it would have been a considerable challenge to have succeeded without some sort of compliance within the council? The question and difficulty for any investigator would be, is that a result of negligence or wilful act for personal gain? The consequences for each carry significantly differing outcomes. However suspicion irrespective of how significant is not enough, there would have to be conclusive proof beyond reasonable doubt at the time of the offence? This is where criminal and civil prosecution differ. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof, with the court having to be convinced that there is no doubt that something is true.  In civil proceedings, however, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that his or her case is true. Given the complexities involved, the number of individuals and the necessity for conclusive proof as to the extent of involvement across a significant number of individuals and organisations, the timescales whilst disappointing should not be a surprise.

Exactly, well explained, I deal with both aspects on a daily basis.  Grin
Report Spam   Logged

“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
singcobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3162



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 6 Avatar Linux User
« Reply #27755 on: January 28, 2021, 17:24:50 pm »

Without the benefit of being a lawyer(at least 50% of people don't hate me) what I can see from this latest report is that all of the auditors are telling us nothing we didn't know already. However it is not their remit to identify legal wrong doing and publish it in an open report, thus giving any future defendant a loophole of pre-trial prejudice when it comes before a jury. I assume that any legal issues they have found have been reported to the investigating team who will include forensic auditors etc. who will eventually get to the bottom of things(however smart the Cardozas and the Bushy Boys think they are if there has been criminal activities they will be found out). I know it is frustrating for us all to see things drag on so long, but the longer it goes on the more confidence I have that those involved will have to face the music.
County Cobbler mentions papers being passed to the CPS last year, However as I remember this was on a sidebar which was aimed at money laundering and an attempt to prevent the disposal of assets that could later be used to recover some of the principal, plus costs arising from the case.
I can see this dragging on for quite a while longer. I know we are all probably annoyed by the amount of money being spent on bringing a case against those involved, but should a crime be ignored purely because it is too expensive to pursue the culprits?
Report Spam   Logged
EB Claret
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1247


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 5 Fourth year Anniversary 1000 Posts
« Reply #27756 on: January 28, 2021, 18:32:36 pm »

Without the benefit of being a lawyer(at least 50% of people don't hate me) what I can see from this latest report is that all of the auditors are telling us nothing we didn't know already. However it is not their remit to identify legal wrong doing and publish it in an open report, thus giving any future defendant a loophole of pre-trial prejudice when it comes before a jury. I assume that any legal issues they have found have been reported to the investigating team who will include forensic auditors etc. who will eventually get to the bottom of things(however smart the Cardozas and the Bushy Boys think they are if there has been criminal activities they will be found out). I know it is frustrating for us all to see things drag on so long, but the longer it goes on the more confidence I have that those involved will have to face the music.
County Cobbler mentions papers being passed to the CPS last year, However as I remember this was on a sidebar which was aimed at money laundering and an attempt to prevent the disposal of assets that could later be used to recover some of the principal, plus costs arising from the case.
I can see this dragging on for quite a while longer. I know we are all probably annoyed by the amount of money being spent on bringing a case against those involved, but should a crime be ignored purely because it is too expensive to pursue the culprits?

I that was the case very few investigations would ever end up in court.
Report Spam   Logged
southofthecounty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2193


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Combination Topic Starter
« Reply #27757 on: January 28, 2021, 18:41:02 pm »

Wouldn't it be lovely, and in the fullness of time, if one of us were chosen for the jury.
Report Spam   Logged
guest3086
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #27758 on: January 28, 2021, 19:02:14 pm »

Wouldn't it be lovely, and in the fullness of time, if one of us were chosen for the jury.

11 would be better...
Report Spam   Logged
singcobb
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3162



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Level 6 Avatar Linux User
« Reply #27759 on: January 28, 2021, 19:54:45 pm »

11 would be better...

No it would not. Juries are there to base their judgements on facts not sentiments, anything else would lead to a mistrial and the denfendants walking away scott free. Are we to hark back to the age of if your face doesn't fit you are guilty? Look to the Septics and their kangaroo courts up into the eighties, black or a shít kicker who doesn't go to church on sunday then you are guilty. A sham trial will only end up in a sham verdict that will get overurned on appeal.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 [1388] 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 ... 2180   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Parental guidance is urged as this messageboard may not be suitable for all persons especially those under the age of 16 as the forums may contain words, phrases and expressions not considered appropriate for a younger audience so please express caution. If any posts in the forums offend you, please let us know and we will look at them and if we agree with your complaint, we will remove them. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and may be sued should your posting contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. We check the forums at various times of the day and remove offending posts. Other supporters are welcome but abusive or silly posts will be removed and the offenders potentially barred from future access to the site. We advise that you never reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: telephone number, home address or email address), and please do not include postal addresses of any kind. This messageboard is not endorsed or in any way affiliated with Northampton Town FC. All postings on this board become copyright of The Hotel End & may not be reproduced without the permission of the board administrator. By signing up to this message board you agree to this. The Hotel End cannot be held liable for the actions or postings of its members. The Hotel End reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. The Hotel End may disclose user information to government authorities at their discretion or when required by law. The Hotel End may also disclose user information when The Hotel End has reason to believe that someone is causing injury to or interference with its rights or property, other The Hotel End users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. By registering for The Hotel End, you agree to indemnify The Hotel End its representatives, and agents, and hold them harmless from any and all claims (including claims for legal fees) which may arise from your participation on the The Hotel End. You also agree that The Hotel End is not responsible for the materials posted by users of The Hotel End. In addition, you grant The Hotel End and its affiliates, worldwide, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message or content posted on The Hotel End and/or e-mail sent by you to The Hotel End (in whole or in part). The Hotel End reserves the right to make the rules up as it goes along. Thank you - The Hotel End I love Quidco
Bookmark this site!
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy