|
guest3481
|
Obviously yes but as there are no kitchens in the East it wouldn't be a vast amount.
So the point remains. But all irrelevant anyway |
|
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
Cant remember it word for word but the point was that its a really bad time to start construction / building as steel and copper are still at stupid prices (not sure about timber but that was up a year ago), as well as a shortage of labour which pushes the prices up. If you had time you 100% wait until the market stabalises.
Not even to mention the cost of fuel, energy etc.
Materials and labour were 35% and 30% cheaper seven years ago so had work commenced when it was suggested things would look so different today. The blame lies with the owners as it's them that need to get things done and not constantly look for convenient excuses so to not do anything. Something stinks... |
|
|
|
|
|
guest3481
|
Materials and labour were 35% and 30% cheaper seven years ago so had work commenced when it was suggested things would look so different today.
Agree
The blame lies with the owners as it's them that need to get things done and not constantly look for convenient excuses so to not do anything.
Something stinks...
Partly agree / partly disagree. They're not. It doesn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welly Cobb
|
They're not giving convenient excuses, thats the whole point. Kelvin said if he was more bothered about the cost, then the stand wouldn't be built until the end of the 5 years, but to show how much that isnt factoring into his thinking he's committed to start work as soon as physically possible. I can forgive you thinking thats not's what he said as the trust I budy putting out truthspeak about what he actually said, depsite it being incredibly to evidence afterwards with a physical recordings. Perhaps if the truth had sent a single person to present the case, they would have heard the words with their own ears and wouldn't be so confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Frost
|
I read some of this stuff and whilst I don’t actually know what KT is going to do (very few people actually do) but views have got so entrenched that I honestly think there is body of people who actually want him to run off with profits and do nothing with the stand or infrastructure just so they can be proved right - as I’ve always said, if anyone can offer a tangible and deliverable alternative that better benefits the club I’m 100% behind- currently I see nothing as such on the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
guest3481
|
if anyone can offer a tangible and deliverable alternative that better benefits the club I’m 100% behind- currently I see nothing as such on the table.
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
Risdene
|
The next rung of the ladder is the Judicial revue's decision (in a month?).
If it goes in KT and WNC's favour then they can proceed with the contract, whatever the Trust think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
The next rung of the ladder is the Judicial revue's decision (in a month?).
If it goes in KT and WNC's favour then they can proceed with the contract, whatever the Trust think!
That’s the important fact to remember. The judicial review will either find in favour of WNC in which case CDNL get the green light as CDNL will reject the ACV bid (as is their right) or the review goes against WNC and this whole process can start again, if that happens then I’m sure CDNL would still be the preferred bidder for the reasons mentioned so many times (leases, quicker return etc)…..if they decided to stay in the process. |
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
|
guest2995
|
i honestly think most folk want to see the stand finished to a decent standard with hospitality included and the athletics track given back to those that lost the facility .
That’s it .
The owners can then make money out of the associated land if they wish to do so .
This is where the Trust fall short and do not represent us all because the majority just want the ground completed so that we can all move on . They don’t want obstacles in the way
|
|
|
|
|
|
guest3481
|
i honestly think most folk want to see the stand finished to a decent standard with hospitality included and the athletics track given back to those that lost the facility .
That’s it .
The owners can then make money out of the associated land if they wish to do so .
This is where the Trust fall short and do not represent us all because the majority just want the ground completed so that we can all move on . They don’t want obstacles in the way
They already have a new facility. This is one of the points of contention. Personally I don't think the athletics track area needs to be for 'Community Value'. That has been taken care of (the community have new athletics facilities). It should used as per the plans for the club, which in turn could be argued is for the benefit of the community |
|
|
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there effectively 2 stages to the judicial review? The way I read it, it will initially go before a judge to decide if there is valid grounds for a judicial review. I believe that's the part that is due within a month. If it's slung out at that point then all barriers are out of the way and things can progress as planned.
If however the judge thinks there is reasonable grounds then it goes on to the judicial review itself. This could come down on either side of the fence depending on the findings, but I don't think there's a timescale attached at this point - in theory it could drag on for years.
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
That’s the important fact to remember. The judicial review will either find in favour of WNC in which case CDNL get the green light as CDNL will reject the ACV bid (as is their right) or the review goes against WNC and this whole process can start again, if that happens then I’m sure CDNL would still be the preferred bidder for the reasons mentioned so many times (leases, quicker return etc)…..if they decided to stay in the process.
Which begs the question...what was the point of the Trust ACV bids? Both the Goodwill and the current £3m bid appear doomed to failure from the start with CDNL being the preferred bidder for the reasons you state. Are they just a delaying tactic? A publicity stunt? |
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
Re the 5 years, he said that he shouldn't say this but it would be better to wait 5 years as it could well be cheaper.
FFS everyone, he spent the previous 40 mins or so stating that he was going to finish the stand, even after as some rightly quote above, we are losing revenue so why would we delay ? and then comes out with that !! IF you sole focus was to build the stand, it would not even enter to you head to say it, but it is clearly up his sleeve - again otherwise why say it?  especially as they have the money They didn't say that down at the Saints with the indoor training. It is not me making it up or misrepresenting the meeting - it is his words not mine Even when saying about finishing the stand, their is a caveat of "we will do it sensibly"
|
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
It's irrelevant, he made a joke about prices coming down etc - he literally said they want to do it right away.
No the joke was him saying it in the first place - and the joke, if there was one was they he shouldn't say it BUT |
|
|
|
|
|
guest3481
|
Re the 5 years, he said that he shouldn't say this but it would be better to wait 5 years as it could well be cheaper.
FFS everyone, he spent the previous 40 mins or so stating that he was going to finish the stand, even after as some rightly quote above, we are losing revenue so why would we delay ? and then comes out with that !! IF you sole focus was to build the stand, it would not even enter to you head to say it, but it is clearly up his sleeve - again otherwise why say it? especially as they have the money They didn't say that down at the Saints with the indoor training. It is not me making it up or misrepresenting the meeting - it is his words not mine Even when saying about finishing the stand, their is a caveat of "we will do it sensibly" So you're right and we're all wrong... again |
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
i honestly think most folk want to see the stand finished to a decent standard with hospitality included and the athletics track given back to those that lost the facility .
That’s it .
The owners can then make money out of the associated land if they wish to do so .
This is where the Trust fall short and do not represent us all because the majority just want the ground completed so that we can all move on . They don’t want obstacles in the way
Exactly right my booty. All this extra delay (i could say convenient) delay was caused by CDNL / NTFC not being satisfied with just the 17 acres of enabling land , no they wanted the juicy 3.61 acres of (ACV) running track land too That is when the Trust and the ACV kicked in Again when the Trust registered the ACV there was no complaints or issues from the club - Indeed David Bower told both the Trust and Council it has no impact on completing the East stand And as far as I'm aware - not one fan, Trust member or not, asked for the ACV not to be put in place - not one. Now the Trust is the devil for invoking the very reason the ACV was registered for - I could understand it more if it was stopping some grand plan to develop Sixfields or even meaning that the owners couldn't benefit elsewhere - but there are 17 other acres to profit from. |
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
So you're right and we're all wrong... again
yes if you like, well those that we saying about the 5 years as protection for the club - that wasn't the 5 years I was talking about Its not about who is right or wrong - I am trying to explain what my view point is |
|
|
|
|
|
MCHammer
|
Re the 5 years, he said that he shouldn't say this but it would be better to wait 5 years as it could well be cheaper.
FFS everyone, he spent the previous 40 mins or so stating that he was going to finish the stand, even after as some rightly quote above, we are losing revenue so why would we delay ? and then comes out with that !! IF you sole focus was to build the stand, it would not even enter to you head to say it, but it is clearly up his sleeve - again otherwise why say it? especially as they have the money They didn't say that down at the Saints with the indoor training. It is not me making it up or misrepresenting the meeting - it is his words not mine Even when saying about finishing the stand, their is a caveat of "we will do it sensibly" Three quick thoughts for you. 1. If you or anyone else from the Trust had attended they could have challenged him publicly rather than selecting out of context sentences after the event. 2. Why would you not want the stand finished "sensibly" when you are constantly complaining about the debt? 3. Since you've returned after your enforced silence you've not said a single positive thing about the Trust ACV bid and how it's going to be beneficial for supporters and the club. You've spent ALL your time being negative, repetetive and telling us how bad the owners are while offering nothing as a positive alternative. And you won't even answer my simple question from yesterday to clarify what was said in Andy's letter. |
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
So you're right and we're all wrong... again
London - do you not agree with what I am saying? you think it is reasonable to say that given all the desperation from fans to get the stand finished - you really think he should be saying it is better to wait - let alone even thinking it |
|
|
|
|
|
random1
|
Three quick thoughts for you.
1. If you or anyone else from the Trust had attended they could have challenged him publicly rather than selecting out of context sentences after the event.
2. Why would you not want the stand finished "sensibly" when you are constantly complaining about the debt?
3. Since you've returned after your enforced silence you've not said a single positive thing about the Trust ACV bid and how it's going to be beneficial for supporters and the club. You've spent ALL your time being negative, repetetive and telling us how bad the owners are while offering nothing as a positive alternative.
And you won't even answer my simple question from yesterday to clarify what was said in Andy's letter.
How exactly is it out of context? We were planning to attend the meeting (4 of us) but we got wind of what KT was planning so decided to defuse the situation somewhat rather than attending. Plus we couldn't afford the security bill  |
|
|
|
|
|
