The Hotel End
January 28, 2022, 16:28:10 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

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

Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

Pages: 1 ... 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 [1484] 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 ... 1544   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?  (Read 1202260 times)
claretparrot
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


View Profile
« Reply #29660 on: October 13, 2021, 13:24:19 pm »


    I'll spell it out for you for the last time, the £10K was loaned to NTFC after a request from James Whiting, to prevent losing key staff members. We could have said, "Sorry James, we'll have to put this out to the members, it will take 2 to 3 weeks" or even "OK James we are going to employ a lawyer to draw up this agreement, this will probably take a week". So James, you better let those key members of the staff go, you can always go down the jobcentre in a couple of weeks to fill the vacancies, if we still have a club. Can you imagine the stick we would have got if we went down either of these avenues ? If NTFC didn't have a full staff there could have been grave consequences with the Football League putting the future of NTFC in doubt.

Isn't it more likely that JW would have told the staff that the money was coming and asked them to 'please, please hold on for a week more' and they more than likely would have begrudgingly accepted?

Sorry I know it sounds pedantic, but feels to me like dressing low-level recklessness up as heroism.
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #29661 on: October 13, 2021, 13:28:52 pm »

Isn't it more likely that JW would have told the staff that the money was coming and asked them to 'please, please hold on for a week more' and they more than likely would have begrudgingly accepted?

Sorry I know it sounds pedantic, but feels to me like dressing low-level recklessness up as heroism.
I know this is conjecture but I dare say DC had also been using that line for sometime.
Report Spam   Logged
guest3359
Guest
« Reply #29662 on: October 13, 2021, 13:45:28 pm »

The Trust absolutely did the right thing by lending / giving the club the money.
If as Carton says above that KT has accepted its his liability, and the Trust agreed for it to be spent on the Supporter Facilities then it needs to be agreed what to spend it on (put it behind the bar at the last home game  Wink). So the question of repaying £10k in cash is irrelevant.
If KT hasnt acknowledged this, and the agreement with JW was prior to the take over and didn't form part of the take over then it would appear that the anger of some is directed in the wrong direction (although personally think JW has done a great job over the years and in very difficult circumstance) and the Trust need to mark it off as a great thing they did and draw a line under it an move on. All IMVHO of course.
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #29663 on: October 13, 2021, 13:48:44 pm »

The Trust absolutely did the right thing by lending / giving the club the money.
If as Carton says above that KT has accepted its his liability, and the Trust agreed for it to be spent on the Supporter Facilities then it needs to be agreed what to spend it on (put it behind the bar at the last home game  Wink). So the question of repaying £10k in cash is irrelevant.
If KT hasnt acknowledged this, and the agreement with JW was prior to the take over and didn't form part of the take over then it would appear that the anger of some is directed in the wrong direction (although personally think JW has done a great job over the years and in very difficult circumstance) and the Trust need to mark it off as a great thing they did and draw a line under it an move on. All IMVHO of course.
I think I've read that they have (marked it off). Some time ago in fact.
Report Spam   Logged
guest3359
Guest
« Reply #29664 on: October 13, 2021, 13:51:29 pm »

I think I've read that they have (marked it off). Some time ago in fact.

If they have can we all agree to do the same  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29665 on: October 13, 2021, 13:56:55 pm »

I'm struggling to follow a bit mate but think I get the gist of your response.

My point about keeping things factual still stands. I expressed an opinion in my post and made it clear that's what it was. I did that because I don't have any way of proving, or indeed knowing for sure, what I suspect happened. You've gone beyond opinion into conjecture, and presented something as fact which time and time again you've failed to back up.

Show me something that will convince me you're right and my best guess is wrong. I know I'm banging the same old drum mate but it really is the only way to take anyone half-sensible with you.




Thanks, yeah sorry was typing that on the go so wasn't very clear.

Which bit of the Chinese money do you not believe?

The presentation slide spelt it out, if it didn't happen, pretty sure it would be libel. KT has not mentioned one word about it, what more proof do you need?  We do have documentation but it's not for me on this forum to publish it.
Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29666 on: October 13, 2021, 14:02:38 pm »

Carton Lid, to be fair to Shoemaker, Random, on his own admission, in the post above yours brings up the subject of the £10,000, it seems his version of events differs to yours. My understanding is he is a Board member ? Also he constantly keeps bringing up the subject of the "Chinese Money" what he hopes to achieve by this I don't know, maybe as he is a board member you should be directing your questions at him, not Shoemaker.

It doesn't matter to me, both the £10k and the chinese money tell me all I need to know about KT & his intentions.

Just to clarify, I have only in the last 2 months or so become a board member, so was not a board member when posting about the 10k before

Roger was a board member at the TIME the loan was given and is NOT a board member now.

Pretty clear and pretty straight forward.

Tcobb, just to refocus - what position are we in the league, what league are we in? what is the value of our squad do you think? how much has been spent on stadium improvements in the last 6 years

Perhaps most importantly, in 3 years time what do you think the answers to those questions above would be?   

We can't change the past but we can certainly have an effect on the future
Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #29667 on: October 13, 2021, 14:23:54 pm »

Isn't it more likely that JW would have told the staff that the money was coming and asked them to 'please, please hold on for a week more' and they more than likely would have begrudgingly accepted? It is not more likely that JW would have told them what you say, I was there so I know what happened and they had made their position 100% clear

Sorry I know it sounds pedantic, but feels to me like dressing low-level recklessness up as heroism. So you think we were wrong to loan the money to keep the staff in place and the club as a functioning unit ? Just as an afterthought, what would you have done ?
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #29668 on: October 13, 2021, 14:27:05 pm »

The presentation slide spelt it out, if it didn't happen, pretty sure it would be libel. KT has not mentioned one word about it, what more proof do you need?  We do have documentation but it's not for me on this forum to publish it.

That's not true.  He has addressed the issue several times in the press and we know from the "leaked" letter that he addressed it directly with the Trust Board, something which by the way the Trust failed and still fails to share with it's members despite many requests.  Hardly someone that has in your own words "not mentioned one word about it".  He also disputed the figures.

What documentation do you have and where was it obtained from?  That's surely an important factor because else you are just making a statement with no supporting evidence and telling me to just trust you.
Report Spam   Logged
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29669 on: October 13, 2021, 15:32:37 pm »

Steve, time to put away the fishing gear. 
As has been pointed out hundreds of times, when the Trust put something out it goes on their web page, when people like GPC and Random post on here they are posting as individuals, unless, as GPC always puts "Trust hat on here". I post my thoughts as an individual as I am not on the Trust board. I do try and help when people, like yourself, post incorrect "facts".
    I'll spell it out for you for the last time, the £10K was loaned to NTFC after a request from James Whiting, to prevent losing key staff members. We could have said, "Sorry James, we'll have to put this out to the members, it will take 2 to 3 weeks" or even "OK James we are going to employ a lawyer to draw up this agreement, this will probably take a week". So James, you better let those key members of the staff go, you can always go down the jobcentre in a couple of weeks to fill the vacancies, if we still have a club. Can you imagine the stick we would have got if we went down either of these avenues ? If NTFC didn't have a full staff there could have been grave consequences with the Football League putting the future of NTFC in doubt.
         The Trust board took the decision, that in the best interests of NTFC in the future, to loan the money. JW acknowledged this by signing an agreement on behalf of NTFC, the loan was due to be repaid when the takeover was completed. I have explained why this didn't happen.
      So there you go, I've answered your question again, if I was you Steve, I'd stick to horse racing, your sh*t at fishing  Wink
Thatís fair enough roger.

I still maintain though that if thereís legal documentation regards the 10k loan then it shouldnít have been an issue in the first place.
It could have been reclaimed in six days not six years.

See you next august  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
CJ
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1876


View Profile
« Reply #29670 on: October 13, 2021, 15:49:57 pm »

If they have can we all agree to do the same  Roll Eyes
Sorry, I was bring sarcastic. Your point was also my point but you expressed it better than I with the inclusion of a raised eyebrow or two.
Report Spam   Logged
SadOldGit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446


View Profile
« Reply #29671 on: October 13, 2021, 17:36:00 pm »

Wind your neck in.

Itís the trust who keep bringing up the £10,000 fiasco
Iím just responding to the fact that the trust keep mentioning it.
You can go back through threads to confirm that the trust keep bringing the situation up if you wish.

Weíre you on the trust board at the time?
If not how would you have any idea of timescales??

As for not having time to do thingsÖ
This is a usual response from the trust at every twist and turn.

It would take five minutes flat to draw up a legal document stating whether money is gifted or lent.
That isnít legal eagle stuff!!
Was no one on the board at the time intelligent enough to realise that this clarity was needed??
They should have been given what the club had just been through.

In the same way the trust point out that the club havenít delivered on their £4m redevelopment promise (was that ever in writing?) and constantly bring up the perceived failings of the clubs owners and keep banging on about unanswered questions , all I am doing is highlighting that the trust are acting in the same way.
Six years on no one has explained what actually went on with the 10k and what protocols were followed.

The trust seem very good at scrutinising others but are unable to answer extremely simple questions when faced with them themselves.

Are you suggesting from a position from within the trust that the 10k was given to the club on no more than a verbal agreement as that is what you seem to be insinuating with your pushed for time theory.

If not and you were not on the trust board at the time and therefore wouldnít actually know any more than other posters would someone from the trust please step up and answer the question once and for all (preferably someone who was making the decisions at the time however uncomfortable that may be).

Once that has been put to bed the trust will be in a better position to scrutinise the redevelopment or the Chinese investment or fan ownership or whatever scheme they think of next.

Tidy up your own desk and explain what actually occurred regards the 10k , who were the trust board members who decided to pass the money on and what protocols were in place.



Thankyou.


If you are so interested and agitated and won't accept anyones answers other than those of the Trust why the hell don't you email/write/phone/text/message/fax or, god forbid, speak to the bloody Trust and ask them? Any dick on here can say they are on the board of the Trust.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2021, 17:43:27 pm by SadOldGit » Report Spam   Logged
KeithB
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


View Profile
« Reply #29672 on: October 13, 2021, 18:04:42 pm »


If you are so interested and agitated and won't accept anyones answers other than those of the Trust why the hell don't you email/write/phone/text/message/fax or, god forbid, speak to the bloody Trust and ask them? Any dick on here can say they are on the board of the Trust.

I'm a dick on here who's definitely on the board of the Trust.  I can't remember the last time the £10k was mentioned at a board meeting.  I think the context when it was mentioned was when we had received another "telling off" email from the club about something or other, the comments were to the effect that the Trust's members were there when nobody else was and some senior people in the club had selective and/or memories.  Just mentioned amongst the board, no action agreed about it, and then it wasn't mentioned again as far as I recall.

It happened before I joined around 3 years ago so I can't give details.  I would probably be able give more had it been discussed to any degree during our meetings.

Reflecting on how things were at the time, if it were to happen now I would want unpaid staff to get paid as quickly as possible so I wouldn't be getting too fussed about drafting a legal agreement.  You'd also be in a situation where new owners could say they didn't agree to the loan (the entity owning the club would be a different company in all probability anyway) and refuse to recognise it.  So I'd also be prepared for it not to be returned in the event of the takeover not going ahead and the club ending up in even worse circumstances.

That's all I can say about it.  It's genuinely not on my radar currently.
Report Spam   Logged
random
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1172


View Profile
« Reply #29673 on: October 13, 2021, 18:50:49 pm »

That's not true.  He has addressed the issue several times in the press and we know from the "leaked" letter that he addressed it directly with the Trust Board, something which by the way the Trust failed and still fails to share with it's members despite many requests.  Hardly someone that has in your own words "not mentioned one word about it".  He also disputed the figures.

What documentation do you have and where was it obtained from?  That's surely an important factor because else you are just making a statement with no supporting evidence and telling me to just trust you.

I meant since the presentation went to WNC

By your logic we should ask to see all the invoices when KT says he spent £500k more than income

The documents have been seen by solicitors, they are real and true

Itís obviously something you donít want to believe. Fine thatís up to you
 

Report Spam   Logged
SadOldGit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446


View Profile
« Reply #29674 on: October 13, 2021, 18:51:29 pm »

I'm a dick on here who's definitely on the board of the Trust.  I can't remember the last time the £10k was mentioned at a board meeting.  I think the context when it was mentioned was when we had received another "telling off" email from the club about something or other, the comments were to the effect that the Trust's members were there when nobody else was and some senior people in the club had selective and/or memories.  Just mentioned amongst the board, no action agreed about it, and then it wasn't mentioned again as far as I recall.

It happened before I joined around 3 years ago so I can't give details.  I would probably be able give more had it been discussed to any degree during our meetings.

Reflecting on how things were at the time, if it were to happen now I would want unpaid staff to get paid as quickly as possible so I wouldn't be getting too fussed about drafting a legal agreement.  You'd also be in a situation where new owners could say they didn't agree to the loan (the entity owning the club would be a different company in all probability anyway) and refuse to recognise it.  So I'd also be prepared for it not to be returned in the event of the takeover not going ahead and the club ending up in even worse circumstances.

That's all I can say about it.  It's genuinely not on my radar currently.

Oh no! What is the shoe manufacturer going to rant about now? 😕
Report Spam   Logged
Shoemaker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6164


View Profile
« Reply #29675 on: October 13, 2021, 18:57:11 pm »

Oh no! What is the shoe manufacturer going to rant about now? 😕
Your very poor level of sarcasm perhaps  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #29676 on: October 13, 2021, 20:28:48 pm »

I meant since the presentation went to WNC

By your logic we should ask to see all the invoices when KT says he spent £500k more than income

The documents have been seen by solicitors, they are real and true

Itís obviously something you donít want to believe. Fine thatís up to you

Contrary to what you might think I happy to believe things but I like to see evidence/proof and hear the whole story from both sides rather than just taking the word of an inidvidual or an single organisation. 

In fairness the Trust Board and it's foot soldiers have history in delivering partial truths or presenting facts in a way that omits key information to paint a picture.  I think it's a fair question to ask what exactly the evidence is, how it was obtained and why only certain individuals have the priviledge of seeing or knowing about this information.  I mean it's almost like you are acting in the same secretive way as the very owners you detest.

In my view the Trust should be the shining example of openess and transparency because if they do they set the standard that can be expected from all others.  Members/supporters should be able ask and have answered anything.  They should be able to view any correspondence, read minutes from any meeting and so on.  Complete transparency should surely be the goal and that then enables all supporters to have all the information they need to form an opinion.  Imagine how freeing it would be for everyone involved.  Actually trusting the membership/supporters to form their own opinion and galvanise support.

As the Trust have been at pains to point out on many occasions regarding our club ownership the moment someone won't answer a question or provide evidence/information you start to wonder why that is and if there is something to hide.

So going back to my original question what is the evidence, what does it show, how was it obtained and why are only certain individuals allowed to see it?
Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #29677 on: October 13, 2021, 20:38:58 pm »

 He has addressed the issue several times in the press and we know from the "leaked" letter that he addressed it directly with the Trust Board, He also disputed the figures.

What documentation do you have and where was it obtained from? ]That's surely an important factor because else you are just making a statement with no supporting evidence and telling me to just trust you.[/color]
Surely the words in red also apply to KT ? Has he posted any prove or evidence ? I think the really big thing is that he hasn't denied it has he ? and with a partner who owns a string of law firms, I would have thought any incorrect statement would have been jumped on ASAP
     
Report Spam   Logged
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 513


View Profile
« Reply #29678 on: October 13, 2021, 21:11:04 pm »

Surely the words in red also apply to KT ? Has he posted any prove or evidence ? I think the really big thing is that he hasn't denied it has he ? and with a partner who owns a string of law firms, I would have thought any incorrect statement would have been jumped on ASAP

I agree and you are actually making my exact point for me.  If we want to apply that level of expectation to provide evidence/proof to the owners I think it's perfectly fair to have that expectation of the Trust.  That way everyone operates under the same rules.  Genuinely, imagine if the Trust operated under these rules it would absolutely show a clear distinction in expected and actual behaviour between the supporters and owners.  Thanks for supporting my view.

RE the other point about not getting sued being proof what you said is true.  I get the point you and others have made when saying this but it's not really the way the world works is it.  I mean think about this logically.  If I called you a w****r and you didn't sue me does that mean you are w****r?

Another example using that logic.  Nobody from the Trust has taken legal action against me for what I said yesterday...does that mean I'm right?  What if you state something that's true but without the full context or detail.  Like people did when they said the Trust gave up it's seat on the board.  It's a fact.  They technically did but you and I know that only tells a fraction of the whole story of why that happened.
Report Spam   Logged
Carton Lid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #29679 on: October 13, 2021, 22:03:35 pm »



Another example using that logic.  Nobody from the Trust has taken legal action against me for what I said yesterday...does that mean I'm right?  What if you state something that's true but without the full context or detail.  Like people did when they said the Trust gave up it's seat on the board.  It's a fact.  They technically did but you and I know that only tells a fraction of the whole story of why that happened.
Just one little differential, the Trust don't own a string of law firms  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 [1484] 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 ... 1544   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! | Upgrade This Forum
SMFServer.com - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy