The Hotel End
March 29, 2024, 08:59:43 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  

NTFC Trust Presentation to WNC

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: NTFC Trust Presentation to WNC  (Read 12507 times)
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #160 on: September 13, 2021, 15:49:27 pm »

Quote
 
Dear BACK OF THE NET,

Your diatribe fascinated me, so much to comment on (presuming you want comments after such negativity)

 

Let me stop you there. I don't really want a counter observation to every one of my observations about the ridiculous and nebulous presentation the Trust board put to the council, no.

What do I want, then?

  • A financially secure football club playing entertaining football.
  • A supporters trust that doesn't try to undermine the club at every turn, doing so without the approval or agreement of the fans it claims to represent.

And that's it. I'm a simple soul, really, and quite easily pleased. The odd promotion here and there would be quite nice too but isn't essential.

We're relatively secure as it stands. We don't owe money externally, all debts are to our owners. Would it be better if those debts weren't there? Of course, but they are there because that is how our owners have decided to structure the money they have put into the club. The only way we will be in trouble with those debts is if the owners decide to call it quits and walk away from the existing sunk costs, which is highly unlikely given how deep they are already.

The only scenario in which I see them walking away is if they are continually stymied in their attempts to redevelop the area.

I struggle to see how the Trust fail to see this as they continually attempt to stymie the owners' attempts to redevelop the area.

Worse still, they do so in all of our names and that, quite frankly, makes me rather angry with them.

The best outcome for all is if the Trust put aside their pipe-dreams & prejudices and work with both the club and the council to get the redevelopment over the line, leaving us with better (but realistic and sustainable) facilities, clear of debt (and yes, that means the owners getting their money back out of the proceeds) and an attractive proposition for any new owners coming in. When it looked like they were doing that I applauded the Trust. When they backpedalled a few months later, that was it for me.

By the way, you're right, I "don't do legal stuff" in the sense that I'm not legally trained. I do however do a lot of supplier negotiations and contract reviews, working closely with some top level legal professionals over the years.  Several of them have pointed out to me that I've missed my vocation, because apparently I have quite an eye for it!

One final point, if you are going to call someone out for pedantry, probably best not to point out that they were one out on a slide number.  Wink
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 16:02:04 pm by BackOfTheNet » Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
guest1269
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #161 on: September 13, 2021, 16:12:28 pm »

Yes life member and contribute further annually but I have written to the board expressing my concern on their approach and why I feel it is not in line with their stated democratic charter - I have acknowledged the good work they have done in the past and politely suggested how I would approach the current issue - I have yet to receive a reply

An update on the above - I have had a polite and quick response from the Trust inviting me to their next meeting as a guest to join a discussion where I can air my concerns. This is very much appreciated and I thank them for their opennness.

I am certainly not an expert and definitely don't have all the answers - others have expressed similar concerns to mine in an intelligent and articulate manner. If these individuals have additional points or areas of expansion on any constructive discussion could I ask them to PM me with their comments by Wednesday evening and I will try to consolidate these thoughts to present briefly to the trust board.

Thank you.
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #162 on: September 13, 2021, 17:18:00 pm »

Let me stop you there. I don't really want a counter observation to every one of my observations about the ridiculous and nebulous presentation the Trust board put to the council, no.

What do I want, then?

  • A financially secure football club playing entertaining football.
  • A supporters trust that doesn't try to undermine the club at every turn, doing so without the approval or agreement of the fans it claims to represent.

And that's it. I'm a simple soul, really, and quite easily pleased. The odd promotion here and there would be quite nice too but isn't essential.

We're relatively secure as it stands. We don't owe money externally, all debts are to our owners. Would it be better if those debts weren't there? Of course, but they are there because that is how our owners have decided to structure the money they have put into the club. The only way we will be in trouble with those debts is if the owners decide to call it quits and walk away from the existing sunk costs, which is highly unlikely given how deep they are already.

The only scenario in which I see them walking away is if they are continually stymied in their attempts to redevelop the area.

I struggle to see how the Trust fail to see this as they continually attempt to stymie the owners' attempts to redevelop the area.

Worse still, they do so in all of our names and that, quite frankly, makes me rather angry with them.

The best outcome for all is if the Trust put aside their pipe-dreams & prejudices and work with both the club and the council to get the redevelopment over the line, leaving us with better (but realistic and sustainable) facilities, clear of debt (and yes, that means the owners getting their money back out of the proceeds) and an attractive proposition for any new owners coming in. When it looked like they were doing that I applauded the Trust. When they backpedalled a few months later, that was it for me.

By the way, you're right, I "don't do legal stuff" in the sense that I'm not legally trained. I do however do a lot of supplier negotiations and contract reviews, working closely with some top level legal professionals over the years.  Several of them have pointed out to me that I've missed my vocation, because apparently I have quite an eye for it!

One final point, if you are going to call someone out for pedantry, probably best not to point out that they were one out on a slide number.  Wink

I'm sorry BOTN, i'm going to challenge some of the above!!

First bit....we all want a financially secure football club playing entertaining football!
Second bit though, I really don't believe that the Trust are trying to undermine the club at every turn. Sure, there are some differences of opinion but people on both sides of the argument have got to get away from the thought there it is actually one side or another.....we (the supporters, Trust and Club all want the same thing....namely point one as you mentioned!

You put that "we don't owe money externally"....... well are you sure on that? We can all hope that is the case, but the last set of published accounts showed for example that the club owed over £562,000 in taxation and social security.... that was up from £209k the previous year.

Now, we may owe nothing, we may owe more, but its just plain wrong to state that "we don't owe money externally"...unless you know it to be fact.

In one sentence you suggest that the owners will not walk away considering how deep they are in...then in the next you suggest that they may walk away because the Trust are stymying their redevelopment efforts.....which is it? Do you think they will walk or will they not?

As for "attempts to redevelop the area".....do you know what those plans for the area are? I don't....other than a finished stand and a car park....thats about all that has been released publicly. As far as that particular part of the plan goes the only sticking point is "who pays for it?" In 2015 we were told about the supposed ringfenced money, in 2018 we were told that the leases were holding things up....now in 2021 it's the Trust putting a blocker on things?

The only things we know for sure are that there is almost £7m leveraged against the club owed to its owners in the form of debt. The plans put to the Council (the same as the plans put to the old NBC) would see a finished stand and not a lot else. The plans that are with WNC now seek guarantees that up to £3m of the cost of the stand (plus another substantial sum on top to cover expenses) are paid back to the owners before the council sees a penny. That would appear to be the sticking point....not a Powerpoint presentation made to the Council at the meeting that the Council requested with The Trust.
Then the fear is that the next £7m plus would clear the debt to the current owners (Mr and Mrs Bower by the way...i'm not talking about Kelvin here) before the possibility that a further penny from this deal would see its way into the club coffers for use on other projects. I say the fear.....because in reality nobody knows. You seem to be comfortable with that scenario playing out...as is your right......i'm not comfortable.....as is my right too!
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #163 on: September 13, 2021, 18:33:07 pm »

I'm sorry BOTN, i'm going to challenge some of the above!!

First bit....we all want a financially secure football club playing entertaining football!
Second bit though, I really don't believe that the Trust are trying to undermine the club at every turn. Sure, there are some differences of opinion but people on both sides of the argument have got to get away from the thought there it is actually one side or another.....we (the supporters, Trust and Club all want the same thing....namely point one as you mentioned!

I don't doubt that we all want broadly the same thing, we just disagree on the roadmap of how to get there. I'm afraid that, in my perception at least, the Trust are undermining the club at every turn. Whether they mean to or not is open to debate, but I do think the Trust are so blinkered they just see the path they want to tread and are blissfully unaware of the mess they are leaving in their trail.

You put that "we don't owe money externally"....... well are you sure on that? We can all hope that is the case, but the last set of published accounts showed for example that the club owed over £562,000 in taxation and social security.... that was up from £209k the previous year.

Now, we may owe nothing, we may owe more, but its just plain wrong to state that "we don't owe money externally"...unless you know it to be fact.

Fair point. All companies owe money at some point and of course we have liabilities outside the club. The fact that no one is jumping up and down demanding payment on anything makes me think any money we owe is to an agreed schedule, although for all we know HMRC might come knocking on the door tomorrow! The point I was trying to make is that the fuss is being made about the 6 point whatever million in the accounts owed as director loans - and that doesn't put us at any material risk. You're right though, I should be more circumspect in my phrasing there.

In one sentence you suggest that the owners will not walk away considering how deep they are in...then in the next you suggest that they may walk away because the Trust are stymying their redevelopment efforts.....which is it? Do you think they will walk or will they not?

In fairness, I didn't say they "will not" walk away, I said I think it's highly unlikely that they will. I don't know how deep their pockets are or how long their patience is. As with any potential debtors coming out of the woodwork at any point, our owners could just say "bollocks to this" at any point. As I said, I don't think they will any time soon, but the longer this goes on then I think the odds must shorten.

As for "attempts to redevelop the area".....do you know what those plans for the area are? I don't....other than a finished stand and a car park....thats about all that has been released publicly. As far as that particular part of the plan goes the only sticking point is "who pays for it?" In 2015 we were told about the supposed ringfenced money, in 2018 we were told that the leases were holding things up....now in 2021 it's the Trust putting a blocker on things?

I think this is where we disagree. I'd be happy with a finished stand and a car park. If that has a bloody great row of warehouses next to it then so be it. I'm a pragmatist, things need to be paid for from somewhere and whatever the enabling development is, I'm happy for it to be done. I also think it's overplaying the Trust's significance to think they have the power to block anything, but they are the proverbial noisy neighbour, making complaints and slowing things down.

The only things we know for sure are that there is almost £7m leveraged against the club owed to its owners in the form of debt. The plans put to the Council (the same as the plans put to the old NBC) would see a finished stand and not a lot else. The plans that are with WNC now seek guarantees that up to £3m of the cost of the stand (plus another substantial sum on top to cover expenses) are paid back to the owners before the council sees a penny. That would appear to be the sticking point....not a Powerpoint presentation made to the Council at the meeting that the Council requested with The Trust.
Then the fear is that the next £7m plus would clear the debt to the current owners (Mr and Mrs Bower by the way...i'm not talking about Kelvin here) before the possibility that a further penny from this deal would see its way into the club coffers for use on other projects. I say the fear.....because in reality nobody knows. You seem to be comfortable with that scenario playing out...as is your right......i'm not comfortable.....as is my right too!

You're right, I am comfortable with this. I think this is another one where we have diametrically opposed viewpoints. The owners put the money in, they are doing all the work to get whatever the deal turns out to be with the council pushed through, they should be the ones to reap the rewards. Yes, I'd love it if there was a 60/20/20 cut of the profits between the owners, the council and the club, but at the end of the day that's out of our control, and so should it be because the deal is between the owners and the council; the club (and certainly the supporters) aren't really any part of it (except as tax payers getting value for money from the council's cut!).

I think what none of us know is the magnitude of the surrounding development. If we're talking a profit of, say, £10m then it's unreasonable for the owners to expect the loans repaid before any share of profits is calculated. If we're talking £50m+ then actually, I think that's fair enough. Without knowing the sums of money we're talking about, I think it's difficult to judge.


« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 18:39:37 pm by BackOfTheNet » Report Spam   Logged

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

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #164 on: September 13, 2021, 18:51:47 pm »



At least we have (in the main) balanced views and can substantiate and back up our thoughts and feelings......nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate.....rather that than silly sniping like others do!

That last paragraph of yours is a significant point.....nobody knows for sure. I do think though that the actual figure is likely to be much nearer the lower end of the scale, and tha'ts based on the first part of any return finding its way back to the clubs owners, the relative land prices, the type of development on that land (warehousing), and the cost of remediating the bulk of the land to make it fit for development in the first place.

A best guess is that actually we are at the point where perhaps the owners are in "deep enough" and will not see a return on any further money they "invest"....therefore we may have reached the end of the Bowers propping up the club to the tune of 500k to £1m a season. Where that leads us is another unknown.

As for the deal.....and this is partly with a bit of background knowledge and also with a bit of realism......I think its as far away as ever.....certainly with what's on the table at the moment. I have yet to see or hear of Sixfields being discussed at any Council Cabinet or sub-cabinet committee meeting. It certainly does not appear on the agenda anywhere, and I don't think its the priority of a newly formed council trying to right the wrongs of its predecessor......they have a lot bigger fish to fry at the moment...... with or without any perceived "Trust stymying" along the way. Just my thoughts there......not a matter of facts!  Wink
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
Another Pedj
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1322


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Apple User Windows User
« Reply #165 on: September 13, 2021, 19:06:26 pm »

The council cannot ignore an application,however.
If the club seeks to develop the land the application has to be considered. If the application is rejected the club can appeal  and it may be subject to a review ourside the control of the Council. It cannot be rejected on ideology grounds alone.It would be far better that all parties worked together to maximise the return for both the ownwers and the Football Club
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #166 on: September 13, 2021, 19:13:33 pm »

The council cannot ignore an application,however.
If the club seeks to develop the land the application has to be considered. If the application is rejected the club can appeal  and it may be subject to a review ourside the control of the Council. It cannot be rejected on ideology grounds alone.It would be far better that all parties worked together to maximise the return for both the ownwers and the Football Club

You do know that the current deal is about more than the development of the land......The Club, or rather the owners want to buy the freehold of the land, giving the Council a "best value" price for the land. The Council certainly has something to say about that.

When, or rather if that is done, then your statement is correct.....
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #167 on: September 13, 2021, 19:17:48 pm »

At least we have (in the main) balanced views and can substantiate and back up our thoughts and feelings......nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate.....rather that than silly sniping like others do!


Indeed! Not that I don't stoop to other's level on occasion (see earlier this evening for citation  Tongue)

That last paragraph of yours is a significant point.....nobody knows for sure. I do think though that the actual figure is likely to be much nearer the lower end of the scale, and tha'ts based on the first part of any return finding its way back to the clubs owners, the relative land prices, the type of development on that land (warehousing), and the cost of remediating the bulk of the land to make it fit for development in the first place.

A best guess is that actually we are at the point where perhaps the owners are in "deep enough" and will not see a return on any further money they "invest"....therefore we may have reached the end of the Bowers propping up the club to the tune of 500k to £1m a season. Where that leads us is another unknown.

As for the deal.....and this is partly with a bit of background knowledge and also with a bit of realism......I think its as far away as ever.....certainly with what's on the table at the moment. I have yet to see or hear of Sixfields being discussed at any Council Cabinet or sub-cabinet committee meeting. It certainly does not appear on the agenda anywhere, and I don't think its the priority of a newly formed council trying to right the wrongs of its predecessor......they have a lot bigger fish to fry at the moment...... with or without any perceived "Trust stymying" along the way. Just my thoughts there......not a matter of facts!  Wink

Interesting stuff, and yes, I suspect you might be right on the Bowers gravy train reaching the end of the line. Like you, no evidence, but it has to stop somewhere, unless they've caught the Cobblers bug, of course. Grin

What that does mean is that we might start to see how well the club is capable of standing on its own two feet...
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5110


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 5000 Posts Level 6
« Reply #168 on: September 13, 2021, 19:41:31 pm »

How long is a fair amount of time?  Exeter supporters have owned their club since 2003. They had a windfall playing Man U, they were in the process of a bond scheme, which they cancelled as the Man U windfall meant they could move forward without it.

So fan ownership did't help at Wycombe? Sure Wycombe were in the Championship very very recently, remind me when was we there last?

If KT was to remain here, what do you think our highest league position would be?  Would he take us to the Championship, when he could hardly wait for us to return to L2.

Wycombe Wanderers are 75% owned by a holding company. They weren’t Trust run when they were promoted to the championship. 

Exeter received the cash for their development from Exeter University as far as I know.

Of course I could be wrong. I'm not as in to this shyte as you are 😀😀
Report Spam   Logged
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5110


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 5000 Posts Level 6
« Reply #169 on: September 13, 2021, 19:49:56 pm »

I'm sorry BOTN, i'm going to challenge some of the above!!

First bit....we all want a financially secure football club playing entertaining football!
Second bit though, I really don't believe that the Trust are trying to undermine the club at every turn.


So the suggestion that someone from the Trust went to the press to tip them off about some of KT/DB's business dealings is untrue is it?

So holding an open meeting in a local hotel about fan ownership, with the Trust at the forefront of that ownership, doesn’t strike you as undermining a clubs current owners.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m absolutely sure you and others could equally share experiences where the Trust could have been on the receiving end of unnecessary treatment. But there is no way you are going to convince anyone, that you are as bad as each other. That’s why everyone's bored stiff with you all..
Report Spam   Logged
guest3086
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #170 on: September 13, 2021, 19:57:01 pm »

So the suggestion that someone from the Trust went to the press to tip them off about some of KT/DB's business dealings is untrue is it?

So holding an open meeting in a local hotel about fan ownership, with the Trust at the forefront of that ownership, doesn’t strike you as undermining a clubs current owners.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m absolutely sure you and others could equally share experiences where the Trust could have been on the receiving end of unnecessary treatment. But there is no way you are going to convince anyone, that you are as bad as each other. That’s why everyone's bored stiff with you all..

Why would two sides try and convince others that they are as bad as each other? That would make for an interesting election campaign!
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #171 on: September 13, 2021, 20:15:12 pm »

Why would two sides try and convince others that they are as bad as each other? That would make for an interesting election campaign!

To be fair, that sounds like EVERY election campaign!
Report Spam   Logged

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

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #172 on: September 13, 2021, 20:27:15 pm »

So the suggestion that someone from the Trust went to the press to tip them off about some of KT/DB's business dealings is untrue is it?

So holding an open meeting in a local hotel about fan ownership, with the Trust at the forefront of that ownership, doesn’t strike you as undermining a clubs current owners.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m absolutely sure you and others could equally share experiences where the Trust could have been on the receiving end of unnecessary treatment. But there is no way you are going to convince anyone, that you are as bad as each other. That’s why everyone's bored stiff with you all..

So bored you just can’t resist posting?

I was not around for either of the things you claim happened….from what I’ve been told in regards to the first, no….it was actually the press approaching the Trust, not the other way round. There was a sniff of a story which had surfaced….who knows from where and by who.

As for your second claim, yes there was a meeting, but it’s a matter of individual feeling whether people feel it is ‘undermining the club’ or not. There is, and this is not in dispute, a general push to have more fan involvement and make clubs more accountable to their fans and their communities….the fan led, government commissioned report will be out soon…..

Whilst you’re around (again)…..what are your thoughts on the plans for the East stand?
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
MCHammer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1342


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 1000 Posts Apple User
« Reply #173 on: September 13, 2021, 21:04:34 pm »

The only things we know for sure are that there is almost £7m leveraged against the club owed to its owners in the form of debt. The plans put to the Council (the same as the plans put to the old NBC) would see a finished stand and not a lot else. The plans that are with WNC now seek guarantees that up to £3m of the cost of the stand (plus another substantial sum on top to cover expenses) are paid back to the owners before the council sees a penny. That would appear to be the sticking point....not a Powerpoint presentation made to the Council at the meeting that the Council requested with The Trust.
Then the fear is that the next £7m plus would clear the debt to the current owners (Mr and Mrs Bower by the way...i'm not talking about Kelvin here) before the possibility that a further penny from this deal would see its way into the club coffers for use on other projects. I say the fear.....because in reality nobody knows. You seem to be comfortable with that scenario playing out...as is your right......i'm not comfortable.....as is my right too!

I guess your last sentence kind of sums up the current issue a lot of people have with the trust.  We all have a right to have our opinion but unless you are on the board of the trust and it aligns with them it's irrelevant is it not?  I know you will say this isn't the case but there are plenty who disagree with you and the trust.  They simply either are pushed aside as Trust bashing or ignored.  How is the opposing view ever considered/respresented?  How do trust board members put their own opinions to one side and listen to the membership or wider fan base?

A prime example is the offer of a meeting instead of the written answers scenario of which many were in favour including a lot of ex board members who couldn't understand the reason for declining.

Do you think this development decision is a massive defining moment in the future of this club?  Could a negative outcome for the owners potentially jeopardise the future of this club?

Perhaps you can also answer something else I feel has never been given a satisfactory detailed answer from anyone from a Trust perspective.  It's approx a year ago that the Trust publicly backed this development deal.  By the Trusts own admission the deal on the table is the same, the plans are the same.  The Trust had grave concerns around the Chinese deal and our current owners behaviour in that deal which they raised with the club just a month prior.  Yet shortly after they backed this deal.  How did that even happen if it really is as bad a deal as you are clearly saying, bad for the future of the club and offering such a poor basic development of the East stand.

Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #174 on: September 14, 2021, 08:24:46 am »

I guess your last sentence kind of sums up the current issue a lot of people have with the trust.  We all have a right to have our opinion but unless you are on the board of the trust and it aligns with them it's irrelevant is it not?  I know you will say this isn't the case but there are plenty who disagree with you and the trust.  They simply either are pushed aside as Trust bashing or ignored.  How is the opposing view ever considered/respresented?  How do trust board members put their own opinions to one side and listen to the membership or wider fan base?

A prime example is the offer of a meeting instead of the written answers scenario of which many were in favour including a lot of ex board members who couldn't understand the reason for declining.

Do you think this development decision is a massive defining moment in the future of this club?  Could a negative outcome for the owners potentially jeopardise the future of this club?

Perhaps you can also answer something else I feel has never been given a satisfactory detailed answer from anyone from a Trust perspective.  It's approx a year ago that the Trust publicly backed this development deal.  By the Trusts own admission the deal on the table is the same, the plans are the same.  The Trust had grave concerns around the Chinese deal and our current owners behaviour in that deal which they raised with the club just a month prior.  Yet shortly after they backed this deal.  How did that even happen if it really is as bad a deal as you are clearly saying, bad for the future of the club and offering such a poor basic development of the East stand.



Where does it say that other opinion is irrelevant? I've posted that everyone is entitled to their views......whether I agree with them or not is down to me! The fact I am engaging in a civil conversation with that particular poster should show that I don't actually find his opinion or thoughts irrelevant. I am listening to the membership or wider fanbase, I have no idea if BOTN is a Trust member or not...it doesn't matter to me!

The meeting offer....ah yes! Its true that the club invited questions from the Trust with regards to the deal and other issues. The club never announced that they invited the questions did they? So the "25 questions" were asked, and eventually the club did come back and offer a zoom meeting which "could possibly be attended by the Trust board, Trust members or even open it up to all fans" as kind of an open forum. It was felt that this scenario was not the right way to go forward at that particular point in time.....If the club had answered all or even some of the questions, THEN there could have been an open forum or similar to discuss......but that would have been for further down the line. Thats a decision that was made.

Yes, definitely the development is a defining moment in the clubs history.....that's why it has to be done right. The club has already been stung twice in this saga *Cardoza and the LXB scheme many moons ago, and then the missing millions of 2013-2015). Yes too, a negative outcome for the owners could jeopardize the club.....thats entirely the point! The owners have stacked £7m of debt against the club, the only way they are going to get that back is from a deal with the Council.....all their eggs in one basket! The council and only the council will decide whether this deal goes through.  This line from the Club's presentation is rather concerning don't you think?? Football club will take on any development risk

The last part.....again, I was not around then, but from what i've been told the Trust gave their CONDITIONAL backing to the deal, based on the (vague) information provided at the time. There weren't even any pictures of a stand or a car park at that time! The Trust board always wanted more detail as to what was planned and what was proposed. Those proposals only came to light when the club made its "show and tell" presentation back in June.

The Chinese deal....again, at the time limited information was available. As time has passed further information has been gained which changed the views as to the whole deal. ie it was not known at the time about the "second sale" of the shares......the second 40%. I'm not sure of the timeframes but it's clear that what actually took place is at odds with what was actually reported.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
guest3338
Guest

Badges: (View All)
« Reply #175 on: September 14, 2021, 09:16:10 am »

Where does it say that other opinion is irrelevant? I've posted that everyone is entitled to their views......whether I agree with them or not is down to me! The fact I am engaging in a civil conversation with that particular poster should show that I don't actually find his opinion or thoughts irrelevant. I am listening to the membership or wider fanbase, I have no idea if BOTN is a Trust member or not...it doesn't matter to me!

The meeting offer....ah yes! Its true that the club invited questions from the Trust with regards to the deal and other issues. The club never announced that they invited the questions did they? So the "25 questions" were asked, and eventually the club did come back and offer a zoom meeting which "could possibly be attended by the Trust board, Trust members or even open it up to all fans" as kind of an open forum. It was felt that this scenario was not the right way to go forward at that particular point in time.....If the club had answered all or even some of the questions, THEN there could have been an open forum or similar to discuss......but that would have been for further down the line. Thats a decision that was made.

Yes, definitely the development is a defining moment in the clubs history.....that's why it has to be done right. The club has already been stung twice in this saga *Cardoza and the LXB scheme many moons ago, and then the missing millions of 2013-2015). Yes too, a negative outcome for the owners could jeopardize the club.....thats entirely the point! The owners have stacked £7m of debt against the club, the only way they are going to get that back is from a deal with the Council.....all their eggs in one basket! The council and only the council will decide whether this deal goes through.  This line from the Club's presentation is rather concerning don't you think?? Football club will take on any development risk

The last part.....again, I was not around then, but from what i've been told the Trust gave their CONDITIONAL backing to the deal, based on the (vague) information provided at the time. There weren't even any pictures of a stand or a car park at that time! The Trust board always wanted more detail as to what was planned and what was proposed. Those proposals only came to light when the club made its "show and tell" presentation back in June.

The Chinese deal....again, at the time limited information was available. As time has passed further information has been gained which changed the views as to the whole deal. ie it was not known at the time about the "second sale" of the shares......the second 40%. I'm not sure of the timeframes but it's clear that what actually took place is at odds with what was actually reported.
What was the LXB scheme GPC? I've read pretty much everything this board has offered for years but don't once remember it being raised before.
Report Spam   Logged
BackOfTheNet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5885


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Level 6 Combination
« Reply #176 on: September 14, 2021, 09:18:09 am »

What was the LXB scheme GPC? I've read pretty much everything this board has offered for years but don't once remember it being raised before.

That was retail development, wasn't it?
Report Spam   Logged

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

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #177 on: September 14, 2021, 09:27:40 am »

That was retail development, wasn't it?

My recollection is pretty vague, but I believe it included buying the land on which the cinema, Burger King etc stands on and in operating everything into a grand retail scheme yes.

LXB went on to develop Rushden Lakes…..!

EDIT: From 2007...... https://northampton.vitalfootball.co.uk/a-plot-to-rival-the-godfather/
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 09:35:42 am by GrangeParkCobbler » Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5110


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search 5000 Posts Level 6
« Reply #178 on: September 14, 2021, 09:44:37 am »

So bored you just can’t resist posting?

I was not around for either of the things you claim happened….from what I’ve been told in regards to the first, no….it was actually the press approaching the Trust, not the other way round. There was a sniff of a story which had surfaced….who knows from where and by who.

As for your second claim, yes there was a meeting, but it’s a matter of individual feeling whether people feel it is ‘undermining the club’ or not. There is, and this is not in dispute, a general push to have more fan involvement and make clubs more accountable to their fans and their communities….the fan led, government commissioned report will be out soon…..

Whilst you’re around (again)…..what are your thoughts on the plans for the East stand?

You can simply answer without being unnecessarily rude. I appreciate that I’m hardly flavour of the month with the some elements of the Trust. That doesn’t make me either wrong, or less entitled to an opinion.

I’m not sure we are going to agree about the reporter. Mainly because at one point that was not the version given to me at all. But we'll never know.

I think we both know, that if you owned a business and a bunch of hobbyist turned up down the road to hold a public meeting, suggesting you should hand it over for free, so they can do it properly. I be really surprised if you didn’t find that a tad undermining.

My thoughts on the East Stand development vary, depending on which version of events you believe. If I listen to the Trust boards version of the intended design, then I’m completely on board with them, if an attempt is made to implement that plan by the club. I can assure you, I will oppose it with everything I can throw it.

However, and as everyone should, I have also heard the clubs version of events due to unfold. If their interpretation comes to fruition, I don’t see any issue with it at all.

Through my work and in general I have learnt to keep a balanced view as much as I can. My understanding of the East stand debacle, it that the Trust have decided to air their view. Where as the club holds a very different version of things. At the moment I need to forage a bit more.
Report Spam   Logged
GrangeParkCobbler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9415


View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Search Windows User Level 6
« Reply #179 on: September 14, 2021, 09:57:12 am »

You can simply answer without being unnecessarily rude. I appreciate that I’m hardly flavour of the month with the some elements of the Trust. That doesn’t make me either wrong, or less entitled to an opinion.

I’m not sure we are going to agree about the reporter. Mainly because at one point that was not the version given to me at all. But we'll never know.

I think we both know, that if you owned a business and a bunch of hobbyist turned up down the road to hold a public meeting, suggesting you should hand it over for free, so they can do it properly. I be really surprised if you didn’t find that a tad undermining.

My thoughts on the East Stand development vary, depending on which version of events you believe. If I listen to the Trust boards version of the intended design, then I’m completely on board with them, if an attempt is made to implement that plan by the club. I can assure you, I will oppose it with everything I can throw it.

However, and as everyone should, I have also heard the clubs version of events due to unfold. If their interpretation comes to fruition, I don’t see any issue with it at all.

Through my work and in general I have learnt to keep a balanced view as much as I can. My understanding of the East stand debacle, it that the Trust have decided to air their view. Where as the club holds a very different version of things. At the moment I need to forage a bit more.

Unnecessarily rude? Personally I didn't think I was being but apologies if any distress was caused. Everyone is entitled to an opinion....i've made that clear already...and no, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, nor does it make you right. An opinion is just that...an opinion.

I asked the question about your views regarding the East Stand plans....because i'd seen a post made by you (or maybe someone using your name!) on Facebook last Thursday which I've got to admit took me by surprise! Certainly not one of someone who claims to be "bored" with it all.
Report Spam   Logged

The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/7, 2007/8, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2018/19
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14   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