Vintage Cobbler
|
I think our owners stand to make more than "a few quid" from the land they and not the club. hold. The 2 leases should be merged and/or be placed in the ownership of NTFC and KT & DB will still stand to gain substantially from a sale of their 80%+ holding in the club through Ventures. We are probably talking about significant sums of money that could be a watershed for our club. If supporters want to continue to bump along the bottom then continue to make noises in favour of KT. If he shafted the Council, which is the current theme of this thread, think who could be next.
|
|
|
|
claretparrot
|
Posters on both sides of the fence are still making leaps (admittedly the leaps are getting smaller). I still agree with AS among others that we don't have enough information to make an informed judgement.
However... If I were the council, and the current theory put forward by JC is accurate, I would have been responding to KT's second statement quickly and in the strongest terms. The fear of sounding like you ballsed up a bit is nothing compared to the need to defend yourself against false accusations of foul play, surely!?
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 07:31:44 am by claretparrot »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
Monty
|
Looks to me like Team KT have something the council wants, the council has the power over vetoing any development so at the moment the football club is the one that's getting shafted the most. There must be a deal to be worked out that benefits KT, Council and NTFC - why doesn't everyone try to go down that path rather than the current impasse where no-one is going to win?
|
Hotel End Grand National Sweepstake Winner 2018, Fantasy Premier League Winner 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
Looks to me like Team KT have something the council wants, the council has the power over vetoing any development so at the moment the football club is the one that's getting shafted the most. There must be a deal to be worked out that benefits KT, Council and NTFC - why doesn't everyone try to go down that path rather than the current impasse where no-one is going to win?
Yes KT and DB do have something the council wants, the land leases which would yield enough money for the council to pay off the Sixfields loan. They have to hammer out a way forward so that everybody wins, unfortunately the club will come a very poor third. The ideal scenario would be the council gets the £10m back, the club gets a new east stand the same as the west with boxes and an extended south stand with the rest going to KT an DB.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 08:14:47 am by Manwork04 »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
Was the full planning permission granted to build the 255 houses plus additional bits? The conference centre and hotel were to be added to the West so nothing stopping that from happening although that would be directly attached to the club.
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
guest2539
|
Looks to me like Team KT have something the council wants, the council has the power over vetoing any development so at the moment the football club is the one that's getting shafted the most. There must be a deal to be worked out that benefits KT, Council and NTFC - why doesn't everyone try to go down that path rather than the current impasse where no-one is going to win?
I believe there was a meeting with the new Chief Executive of NBC on Tuesday................progress?
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
But wasn't the issue of the leasehold covered in the CVA for CDNL, which proposed that if KT & Bower paid the £170k to get the CVA through then no further action would be taken to realise the leasehold?
Ah - interesting comment from a newbie. Might be interesting to see JC comment on Barnabas point?
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
|
guest1269
|
Sifting through the facts and the opinions here I'm getting the impression that the KT skeptics are not necessarily calling him out for pulling a flanker on the lease acquisition (after all it was a free market and if he as a businessman was more nimble to spot an opportunity arguably why not) - what seems to nark particularly was the backdrop to the acquisition & perhaps why the council stepped back was the promise of the 4 million to develop the stand irrespective of any land or lease arrangement - translating the councils consistent wording on nothing to do with the leases stops that particular development then they have a point and KT has perhaps chosen other business interests ahead of that of the football club - wiser posters on the subject please advise if I've (finally) got it........
|
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
Here is the MoU. Can’t see any mention in it of £4 million. It does mention about the completion of the East Stand and also about the leases. As CDNhttp://www.northamptonboroughcouncil.com/councillors/documents/s48420/Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20-%20TC%20181115%202.pdfL never went into liquidation it never lost the control of said leases.
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
Manwork04
|
That MoU is one of the most badly written and meaningless documents I have ever read. The council fully expected to get the land back from the liquidator and made it clear that the east stand was to be finished. BTW the council fought hard to block KT and DB getting the land.
|
Rule Britannia
|
|
|
Zen Master
|
Their vote was worth less than Buckingham’s so did not block the agreement
|
I think someone should just take this city of Peterborough and just... just flush it down the f***in' toilet
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2022
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
Sifting through the facts and the opinions here I'm getting the impression that the KT skeptics are not necessarily calling him out for pulling a flanker on the lease acquisition (after all it was a free market and if he as a businessman was more nimble to spot an opportunity arguably why not) - what seems to nark particularly was the backdrop to the acquisition & perhaps why the council stepped back was the promise of the 4 million to develop the stand irrespective of any land or lease arrangement - translating the councils consistent wording on nothing to do with the leases stops that particular development then they have a point and KT has perhaps chosen other business interests ahead of that of the football club - wiser posters on the subject please advise if I've (finally) got it........
It was KT who mentioned 4 million ring-fenced, but I don't believe he ever stated this was purely for the stand, did he? However, part of the MoU covers his intention to complete, and infers finances already available. As for the CVA issue, which Barnabas and a few others mentioned, once KT's group successfully acted it was difficult for the council to do anything other than take the hit. I have been told they made legal moves to block KT acquiring the CVA deal, but I must stress this is just hearsay and I've found no evidence of this. It is a strange one though, as in the statement they released recently, KT and DB insisted they only made moves to acquire CDNL because of an issue with the lease, wherein a part of the East Stand had been signed over to CDNL. This is weird, and again I've found nothing showing this issue. However, if this should turn out to be the case, then, as Manwork suggests, surely it should be possible to strike a deal wherein everyone wins, ie; Impressive new stand; council recoup their ten million, plus terms applicable to their previous land deal, and KT's group make good money. I'm still inclined to believe the club is just a means to an end. Though, just like when the Cardozas' were here, I have no problems at all with our owners making a pot; just so long as the club reap some benefit, and - in this instance - the council too.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 11:49:13 am by JollyCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
clarkeysntfc
|
Stunning incompetence by the council, even with KT's group telling them what was going to happen with the leases they still managed to screw up.
I believe they've gone through 6 planning officers in the period since KT took over. An organisation in chaos.
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
The MoU.......
2e.....The Football Club will establish arrangements with the Supporters Trust for their involvement in the Football Club as soon as possible and at the latest by 31 st March 2016.
How did that work out?? And what did the Trust do about the "non-compliance"?
4. The Football Club shall have the exclusive use of the East Stand room hire on match days at no cost to include, but not limited to, Hospitality Boxes; Executive Lounge; Terracing and Concourse.
Seems to suggest that the East stand would be run as a separate entity to the rest of the ground? Why would this provision be there? Because someone else ran the stand and this was to stop them renting it out to other parties on matchdays??
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
The MoU.......
2e.....The Football Club will establish arrangements with the Supporters Trust for their involvement in the Football Club as soon as possible and at the latest by 31 st March 2016.
How did that work out?? And what did the Trust do about the "non-compliance"?
4. The Football Club shall have the exclusive use of the East Stand room hire on match days at no cost to include, but not limited to, Hospitality Boxes; Executive Lounge; Terracing and Concourse.
Seems to suggest that the East stand would be run as a separate entity to the rest of the ground? Why would this provision be there? Because someone else ran the stand and this was to stop them renting it out to other parties on matchdays??
Yeah, item 4 is certainly a strange one. It also doesn't actually mention about completing the East Stand works, and yet, in the Council minutes covering the vote to accept the MoU deal it says the new owners will complete the stand. I'm surprised this isn't outlined better here.
|
|
|
|
meccanostand
|
Yeah, item 4 is certainly a strange one. It also doesn't actually mention about completing the East Stand works, and yet, in the Council minutes covering the vote to accept the MoU deal it says the new owners will complete the stand. I'm surprised this isn't outlined better here.
What does involvement of the Trust in the football club actually mean? Really poorly worded which is a mistake with KT. That said it's clear the Council wanted the Trust to have a role with the club and yet the Trust have not been allowed a place on the club board. This is very poor indeed. However, despite being highly cynical of private club owners I and others have put faith in Thomas and Bower and hope that they will right any wrongs in their next moves. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
claretparrot
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that MoU hasn't been touched by one!
|
|
|
|
GrangeParkCobbler
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that MoU hasn't been touched by one!
It wasn't...but it states its non-legally binding anyway......just a memo of understanding.........no lawyers required!! However.....at the Council Meeting back in November 2015, at the height of the clubs financial woes the Council had a choice of three moves to make. 3.3.2 The Council has the following options: 3.3.3 Option 1 – Agree the proposed MoU and approach outlined in this report with the Kelvin Thomas Consortium. 3.3.4 Option 2 – Engage with one of the other parties to work with to purchase NTFC. It should be noted that there is insufficient time to undertake the required due diligence to approve such a proposal before the Administration and Liquidation deadlines. 3.3.5 Option 3 – The Council instigates an Administration process against NTFC in order to place the Club on a sustainable financial footing prior to it being marketed for sale by the Administrator. So that "non-legally binding untouched by a lawyer" document formed at least part of the basis for The Council choosing option 1.
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
guest170
|
What does involvement of the Trust in the football club actually mean? Really poorly worded which is a mistake with KT.
That said it's clear the Council wanted the Trust to have a role with the club and yet the Trust have not been allowed a place on the club board. This is very poor indeed. However, despite being highly cynical of private club owners I and others have put faith in Thomas and Bower and hope that they will right any wrongs in their next moves. We'll see.
From a business perspective the wording about involvement is perfect for KT. As long as any contact was made about the club then they have fore filled their obligation. Things such as the open sessions, consultations on fans village etc mean that have ticked that box. Not saying they have gone against the intent but as far as any "non-compliance" issues GPC mentioned, they have fully complied with it as it is written (IMO)
|
|
|
|
|