Battery Man
|
It was a good question.....but it appears nobody knows the answer!
There is a deal on the table, drawn up by the Club and presented to the Council. That deal involves completion of the East Stand to an acceptable but "financially prudent" standard. It also appears to have some executive boxes and some facilities within the finished stand. Also shown on the CGI is a car park on the site of the old Athletics stadium. Thats it!
Did the club ask fans what they would like to see? Did the Club ask the Trust what they would like to see? No.....this is the plan drawn up by KT and DB, and KT & DB alone. Its not acceptable is it? Even you acknowledge that......and because its not acceptable the Trust has withdrawn its support for it. What else could it do?
That doesn't mean this plan is dead and buried...its still on the table! We'd all like to see a lot more but we (fans, Trust or whoever) hold none of the cards.
When you say "clocks ticking"....what exactly are you proposing anyone does? This plan as it is either goes through or it doesn't....its the only plan.....the club isn't listening to suggestions!
Case in point...the New Hotel End plans..... great idea on paper, but how much funding was going to come from the club? I think we can all guess at the answer. If it was crowdfunded however it would be a different matter! Shouldn't this type of thing be embraced by the Club and its owners?
Personally at this point in time I would be happy after all these years of going nowhere and all the backbiting and finger pointing that is going on from all sides I would just be happy to have them finish the East to an acceptable but prudent level, build some carparking at the back of the East and leave a bit of the land for the club, then they can make all the money they want from the land on the proviso that they write off their loans to the club leaving us in a healthy place for either KT & DB to grow the club or they can sell it on to someone who wants and can afford to take it to the next level. It has gone on too long and all the different factions are doing are arguing as to who is in the wrong, well as far as I can see there is wrong on all sides, that is The Trust, KT & DB and before them Cardoza and the Trust rep on the board. All the latest missive from the trust has done is make them look like they are spitting their dummy out because they can't get what they want.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
It was a good question.....but it appears nobody knows the answer!
There is a deal on the table, drawn up by the Club and presented to the Council. That deal involves completion of the East Stand to an acceptable but "financially prudent" standard. It also appears to have some executive boxes and some facilities within the finished stand. Also shown on the CGI is a car park on the site of the old Athletics stadium. Thats it!
Did the club ask fans what they would like to see? Did the Club ask the Trust what they would like to see? No.....this is the plan drawn up by KT and DB, and KT & DB alone. Its not acceptable is it? Even you acknowledge that......and because its not acceptable the Trust has withdrawn its support for it. What else could it do?
That doesn't mean this plan is dead and buried...its still on the table! We'd all like to see a lot more but we (fans, Trust or whoever) hold none of the cards.
When you say "clocks ticking"....what exactly are you proposing anyone does? This plan as it is either goes through or it doesn't....its the only plan.....the club isn't listening to suggestions!
Case in point...the New Hotel End plans..... great idea on paper, but how much funding was going to come from the club? I think we can all guess at the answer. If it was crowdfunded however it would be a different matter! Shouldn't this type of thing be embraced by the Club and its owners?
Why should the club have asked the Trust or the fans what they wanted to see? The CGI looks alright to me. Why isn't the CGI acceptable? Who has said that it's not acceptable? Those fans that attended the open day appeared to be satisfied? Or is this The Trust Board once again unilaterally making a decision on behalf of the fans without asking the fans what they wanted to see? "To be open, democratic and inclusive in considering the needs and ideas of supporters" The Trust Board once again losing even more credibility, it can't be too far now from being a spent case.
|
“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
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
Why should the club have asked the Trust or the fans what they wanted to see? The CGI looks alright to me. Why isn't the CGI acceptable? Who has said that it's not acceptable? Those fans that attended the open day appeared to be satisfied? Or is this The Trust Board once again unilaterally making a decision on behalf of the fans without asking the fans what they wanted to see?
"To be open, democratic and inclusive in considering the needs and ideas of supporters" The Trust Board once again losing even more credibility, it can't be too far now from being a spent case.
Is this you making a decision on behalf of the whole of the fanbase? How many of the many thousand fans did go to the open day? Yes, the CGI looks alright, thats usually what CGI's do. The Trust board feel that the overall plan is not acceptable. You missed the last part of the mission statement..... "We commit to supporting the aims and objectives of NTFC where, in the opinion of the board, these are not in direct conflict with the needs and best interests of supporters." The Board don't believe that what is being proposed meets that final criteria. It really is that simple. How can saddling the club with another £3m of debt on top of the 6-7m already accrued and the football club taking on all the development risk be in the best interests of supporters? Open invite to you Deepcut, join in the next board meeting, better still put yourself forward to be a board member...... then maybe you can effect the change that you so obviously want to see.
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
Personally at this point in time I would be happy after all these years of going nowhere and all the backbiting and finger pointing that is going on from all sides I would just be happy to have them finish the East to an acceptable but prudent level, build some carparking at the back of the East and leave a bit of the land for the club, then they can make all the money they want from the land on the proviso that they write off their loans to the club leaving us in a healthy place for either KT & DB to grow the club or they can sell it on to someone who wants and can afford to take it to the next level.
It has gone on too long and all the different factions are doing are arguing as to who is in the wrong, well as far as I can see there is wrong on all sides, that is The Trust, KT & DB and before them Cardoza and the Trust rep on the board. All the latest missive from the trust has done is make them look like they are spitting their dummy out because they can't get what they want.
That's the issue here isn't it?
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
singcobb
|
Yep, correct, DB & KT = NTFC.
That doesn't mean their cash belongs to NTFC though, so any they invest in running costs are director loans as with any other privately funded business.
Whether NTFC as an entity will ever be in a position to pay that back remains to be seen.
Anyway, re my previous message to you, does the Trust have proof of illegal activities or not?
If they have, who have they reported it to?
No. BDJ has a majority shareholding in NTFC, BDJ does not own NTFC outright. DB and KT own BDJ outright.
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
Did the club ask fans what they would like to see? Did the Club ask the Trust what they would like to see? No.....this is the plan drawn up by KT and DB, and KT & DB alone. Its not acceptable is it? Even you acknowledge that......and because its not acceptable the Trust has withdrawn its support for it. What else could it do?
Can you answer some questions to help clarify the situation for everyone with your Trust hat on? What changed specifically in the plans for the build from September 2020 to June this year? I ask because the Trust and Club released a joint statement backing the plans in September. Have they changed significantly from what you were told the plans were going to be? You repeatadly state the deal on the table to the council hasn't changed since many years ago so I assume the trust were aware this was the deal last September when they publicly backed the plans? Also the statement released by the trust backing the deal wasn't conditional or we (the fans/members) certainly weren't told it was at the time it was made. What does the Trust view as an acceptable completion of the East Stand if the current plans don't meet that? What are the specific expectations for an acceptable completion? Have you shared this vision with the club and what was their response? Regarding the 5U Sport saga. How long has the Trust known about the financial information it published in it's statement last weekend? What physical evidence do you have that the payments were made/money changed hands for the amounts quoted? Can that be shared to support the trusts statements? What is the purpose of the Trust releasing this information in a statement now? Is the Trust saying or implying that some wrong doing has taken place here? Either in company law, football league ownership rules or just morally? Has the Trust raised any of these concerns if they have any with companies house, the football league, the local council or any other official body that this would be of interest to? If yes when was this done and what were their responses? I understand that the Trust has had conversations in the past with KT regarding the 5U Sports deal and there is written correspondence regarding this matter. What was said during this correspondence and what explanantion given? And can the members see this correspondence for complete context? Finally while I understand the Trust Board deal with the day to day running of the Supporters Trust at what point do the matters become so fundamental to the future of the club that you would consult your membership and the wider fan base to ensure the important decisions you are making are what the majority wishes?
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
No. BDJ has a majority shareholding in NTFC, BDJ does not own NTFC outright. DB and KT own BDJ outright.
Incorrect.... Belle-De-Jour has no shareholding in Northampton Town Football Club. Northampton Town FC does/did owe £4,839,997 to Belle-De-Jour according to the latest set of accounts submitted for year end June 2020. Northampton Town Ventures does have a majority (84.58%) shareholding in the Football Club. The club owed Ventures £1,291,028 in the aforementioned set of accounts.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 15:33:50 pm by GrangeParkCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
Incorrect.... Belle-De-Jour has no shareholding in Northampton Town Football Club.
Northampton Town FC does/did owe £4,839,997 to Belle-De-Jour according to the latest set of accounts submitted for year end June 2020.
Northampton Town Ventures does have a majority (84.8%) shareholding in the Football Club. The club owed Ventures £1,291,028 in the aforementioned set of accounts.
Now why would you set up a shell company in BVI ? 😂
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
Can you answer some questions to help clarify the situation for everyone with your Trust hat on?
What changed specifically in the plans for the build from September 2020 to June this year? I ask because the Trust and Club released a joint statement backing the plans in September. Have they changed significantly from what you were told the plans were going to be? You repeatadly state the deal on the table to the council hasn't changed since many years ago so I assume the trust were aware this was the deal last September when they publicly backed the plans?
Also the statement released by the trust backing the deal wasn't conditional or we (the fans/members) certainly weren't told it was at the time it was made.
What does the Trust view as an acceptable completion of the East Stand if the current plans don't meet that? What are the specific expectations for an acceptable completion? Have you shared this vision with the club and what was their response?
Regarding the 5U Sport saga. How long has the Trust known about the financial information it published in it's statement last weekend?
What physical evidence do you have that the payments were made/money changed hands for the amounts quoted? Can that be shared to support the trusts statements?
What is the purpose of the Trust releasing this information in a statement now?
Is the Trust saying or implying that some wrong doing has taken place here? Either in company law, football league ownership rules or just morally?
Has the Trust raised any of these concerns if they have any with companies house, the football league, the local council or any other official body that this would be of interest to?
If yes when was this done and what were their responses?
I understand that the Trust has had conversations in the past with KT regarding the 5U Sports deal and there is written correspondence regarding this matter. What was said during this correspondence and what explanantion given? And can the members see this correspondence for complete context?
Finally while I understand the Trust Board deal with the day to day running of the Supporters Trust at what point do the matters become so fundamental to the future of the club that you would consult your membership and the wider fan base to ensure the important decisions you are making are what the majority wishes?
I find it astonishing that you have all these questions for the Trust and yet not one for the club?
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
guest49
|
How about a very simple poll? (which I won't be putting up ) Would you be happy if the East Stand is completed (to the published CGI) and the club is left totally debt free, regardless of who has the land and who benefits from any related profits from the land? It's a yes or no. I'd hazard a guess the majority have been worn down and would deliver a 'yes' verdict.
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
How about a very simple poll? (which I won't be putting up ) Would you be happy if the East Stand is completed (to the published CGI) and the club is left totally debt free, regardless of who has the land and who benefits from any related profits from the land? It's a yes or no. I'd hazard a guess the majority have been worn down and would deliver a 'yes' verdict. I would guess that your guess is correct. Unfortunately though you'd have to think a bit more long term than that (IMO).....the club built up debts under Cardoza which were cleared when KT and DB came along. Now the club is in debt again which could potentially be wiped clean if the land deal goes ahead. What happens in 5-10 years when those debts have built up again? How do we pay them off next time? Does having 18 boxes and a few rooms make the club "sustainable"......that's what I thought the Redev was meant to be about.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 15:48:33 pm by GrangeParkCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
I find it astonishing that you have all these questions for the Trust and yet not one for the club?
Every question I have ever asked the club over KT's reign got answered. In person or via email. I went to the presentation the other week and asked some more face to face. If I have any in the future I have no doubt it will be the same. Have you done that? Not all the answers I was given were what I wanted to hear as a supporter but they were fair and I believe honest appraisals of the situations at the time. I also have friends that are fellow supporters who also give me information that I trust. Do you think those questions to the Trust are irrelevant? Or shouldn't be asked? Surely that's how you form a balanced opinion? By questioning both sides and getting a complete not partial view. Well that's what I've been doing to form my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Shoemaker
|
I would guess that your guess is correct.
Unfortunately though you'd have to think a bit more long term than that (IMO).....the club built up debts under Cardoza which were cleared when KT and DB came along. Now the club is in debt again which could potentially be wiped clean if the land deal goes ahead.
What happens in 5-10 years when those debts have built up again? How do we pay them off next time? Does having 18 boxes and a few rooms make the club "sustainable"......that's what I thought the Redev was meant to be about.
Spot on Two successive chairman have racked up huge debts with the ground as it is Adding a couple of hundred seats and a few boxes is sooooo last decade The club need a ground that’ll hold 12-15,000 and proper facilities to generate the income to STOP wracking up huge debt and eventually going bust. If the product on the field consists of something more than free transfers and unproven loans then the fans bums would be on those 12,000 seats Ask Luton town who’ve whizzed from non league to championship while we wet ourselves over a grand redevelopment. They have a 10,000 capacity full each week and a couple of thousand who can’t get tickets. Maybe Kelvin can ask them how they managed it when a few years back they were getting six thousand at kenilworth road
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
It was a good question.....but it appears nobody knows the answer!
There is a deal on the table, drawn up by the Club and presented to the Council. That deal involves completion of the East Stand to an acceptable but "financially prudent" standard. It also appears to have some executive boxes and some facilities within the finished stand. Also shown on the CGI is a car park on the site of the old Athletics stadium. Thats it!
Did the club ask fans what they would like to see? Did the Club ask the Trust what they would like to see? No.....this is the plan drawn up by KT and DB, and KT & DB alone. Its not acceptable is it? Even you acknowledge that......and because its not acceptable the Trust has withdrawn its support for it. What else could it do?
That doesn't mean this plan is dead and buried...its still on the table! We'd all like to see a lot more but we (fans, Trust or whoever) hold none of the cards.
When you say "clocks ticking"....what exactly are you proposing anyone does? This plan as it is either goes through or it doesn't....its the only plan.....the club isn't listening to suggestions!
Case in point...the New Hotel End plans..... great idea on paper, but how much funding was going to come from the club? I think we can all guess at the answer. If it was crowdfunded however it would be a different matter! Shouldn't this type of thing be embraced by the Club and its owners?
Wasnt the carpark designed so that fire engines could be turned around on it. Thought Tel told us this a million pages ago. Perhaps wont be able to charge a fee to park on match days then?
|
|
|
|
guest3338
|
I would guess that your guess is correct.
Unfortunately though you'd have to think a bit more long term than that (IMO).....the club built up debts under Cardoza which were cleared when KT and DB came along. Now the club is in debt again which could potentially be wiped clean if the land deal goes ahead.
What happens in 5-10 years when those debts have built up again? How do we pay them off next time? Does having 18 boxes and a few rooms make the club "sustainable"......that's what I thought the Redev was meant to be about.
Ergo, the deal is s***e?
|
|
|
|
singcobb
|
Incorrect.... Belle-De-Jour has no shareholding in Northampton Town Football Club.
Northampton Town FC does/did owe £4,839,997 to Belle-De-Jour according to the latest set of accounts submitted for year end June 2020.
Northampton Town Ventures does have a majority (84.58%) shareholding in the Football Club. The club owed Ventures £1,291,028 in the aforementioned set of accounts.
Sorry wrong company same situation. Is NTV solely owned by DB and KT? or is it controlled through BDJ? Theoretically BDJ could claim shares in NTFC in leiu of repayment of loan. I still worry that the loans will be the first thing paid out if and when any money starts coming into the club.
|
|
|
|
singcobb
|
Now why would you set up a shell company in BVI ?
We have been through this before with you. It's called tax avoidance. Which is perfectly legal if not morally correct.
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
We have been through this before with you. It's called tax avoidance. Which is perfectly legal if not morally correct.
And if our owners were or had avoided tax you would not have an issue with it?
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
guest49
|
I would guess that your guess is correct.
Unfortunately though you'd have to think a bit more long term than that (IMO).....the club built up debts under Cardoza which were cleared when KT and DB came along. Now the club is in debt again which could potentially be wiped clean if the land deal goes ahead.
What happens in 5-10 years when those debts have built up again? How do we pay them off next time? Does having 18 boxes and a few rooms make the club "sustainable"......that's what I thought the Redev was meant to be about.
But from our current position it’s probably the best case scenario. How do the majority of other clubs survive? It’s not breaking news that KT isn’t going to bag £100m and make us some self sustaining lower league super power. Only the most gullible are still holding onto any hope of that. If we wait for anything more then the chances are most of us to go to our graves looking at that thing. We’re not trying to save the planet for our grandchildren here. If they were to disappear debt free (and a few quid) with their declared completion we’d be in much better shape than when they arrived. Sure, it won’t be the super vision some had. The land may be tied up but most have never had much interest in some barren land behind the ground, or that it was going to fund the running of the club. We knew from the off he came from Oxford. He stepped in to take over from that last mess. We can complain about the sh*t managers, lack of progress (on and off the field) and growing debt all we want but that isn’t going to go away unless something gives. I’d love to know in very plain English what some people expect and want.
|
|
|
|
singcobb
|
And if our owners were or had avoided tax you would not have an issue with it?
In the grander scheme of things they are bit players in an international theatrical production with the stars being the likes of Starbucks, Google, Lewis Hamilton etc. I'm not saying that it makes what they have done OK, just that it is legal and exploited by thousands of people. I read somewhere a few years ago that if all of the top earners in the US paid what they should do in taxes the national debt of the country could be wiped out overnight. It is said that John Paul Getty never paid any tax and on paper he owned nothing despite being at the time one of the if not the richest man in The World. Which brings the old addage you have to have money to make money.
|
|
|
|
|