Redevelopment Closer Than Ever?

[BackOfTheNet]

I think we as supporters should and are entitled to know and, if in the case of our club, I can do anything to make this happen I will.

We might want to know but we have no entitlement to know.

If you think it's acceptable to put commercially sensitive information about a company into the public domain simply because you feel you are entitled to do so then I'm afraid you are no friend of that business, be it your employer, your customer or your football club.

[singcobb]

I think we as supporters should and are entitled to know and, if in the case of our club, I can do anything to make this happen I will.  If that is an agenda (I hate this over-used word) then so be it.  After all, what possible reason could KT have to hide anything from us paying and loyal customers when as owners they always act in the best interests of the club? Like a good marriage there should be no secrets. Agree Kelvin?

That is the key word "customers". Why do you think as a customer you are entitled to see the company accounts? I don't expect Kamal down the corner shop to show me his accounts because I go in every day to buy my copy of The Socialist Worker and twenty woodbines.

[guest3086]

As I see it KT suddenly posts a 23 minute video on the Club site basically having a go at the Trust. It seems to me the only reason he does this is because the supposed July deadline on the Council offer has arrived with nothing at all mentioned about it. No further information about the East Stand, just a thinly veiled (or no veil at all!) attack on the Trust. I say no further information on the development although he does seem to acknowledge now that the completion of the stand comes before the land development deal. I do not recall him agreeing this before but I may be wrong.
All of a sudden all manner of folk start having a go at the Trust over a loan/donation for the benefit of club employees at a time it was really needed. Weird or what?
I notice that the administrators for Wigan are rejecting upfront and out of hand anyone whose interest is land development. Why? I would suggest it is a poisoned chalice as it attracts the wrong sort of owners. Interesting, heh?
As for Gareth he will swing anyway his paymaster requires as indeed most employees do in my experience.
With regard to company accounts for limited companies or plc's by law these have to be in the public domain which is why there are timeframes on publishing them. The trouble with these is that over the years accountants have found ways of being creative with which column to place certain numbers in and what the column heading is!
KT and his mucker have said for a good few years now that they want to sell the club so I would imagine their aim is to reduce the loss figure to the lowest they can or, if possible, turn the loss into a profit.

[Vintage Cobbler]

BOTN & singcobb good evening - and there with your comments lies the difference in our opinions and approach. A football club is not Kamal’s shop on the corner or, for that matter, a private family company.  Even KT has said the present owners are custodians only of the club.  Easy words but actions not words are how they will be judged in time.

If, as KT claims, NTFC is a community club then transparency and openness when it comes to finances must be part & parcel of that set up, especially when something so important as outside investors becoming 60% owners come onto the scene or at least that was according to the very limited information KT ever released on the subject.  Smoke & mirrors, always smoke & mirrors with him.  Transparency is an alien concept to him. To his credit and from his secretive perspective he plays our undemanding supporters like a fiddle.  My own conclusions on 5USports have been reached by following what paper trail is out there and in the public domain.  From that I have drawn my own conclusions.  I can and will say no more.  But if you are happy with your unquestioning complacency concerning our owners that is a  matter for you.  I assume the same complacency applies to the development issues.  I am not so minded.

I will say nothing further until if and when that elusive truth like oil comes to the surface.  TFAMH like Rip Van Winkle can sleep well, perhaps like Rip for a long time before I return. BFN.

[guest3355]

"Kamals shop on the corner".

It's 2020!

[GrangeParkCobbler]

We might want to know but we have no entitlement to know.

If you think it's acceptable to put commercially sensitive information about a company into the public domain simply because you feel you are entitled to do so then I'm afraid you are no friend of that business, be it your employer, your customer or your football club.

At the end of the day anyone can access the Clubs accounts at year end, a lot of it is abridged but the greatest hits are there for all to see. The Trust, as a shareholder presumably gets to see the full accounts.

Not sure what you mean by "commercially sensitive"....its not like we're in competition with other clubs from a financial perspective.

[BackOfTheNet]

At the end of the day anyone can access the Clubs accounts at year end, a lot of it is abridged but the greatest hits are there for all to see. The Trust, as a shareholder presumably gets to see the full accounts.

Not sure what you mean by "commercially sensitive"....its not like we're in competition with other clubs from a financial perspective.

I was thinking the ins and outs of individual transfer fees and potential land deals.

[guest3086]

At the end of the day anyone can access the Clubs accounts at year end, a lot of it is abridged but the greatest hits are there for all to see. The Trust, as a shareholder presumably gets to see the full accounts.

Not sure what you mean by "commercially sensitive"....its not like we're in competition with other clubs from a financial perspective.

Is the Trust still a shareholder?

[wazzacobbler]

Is the Trust still a shareholder?

Yes. To the tune of 2.6%

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Is the Trust still a shareholder?

According to the latest full confirmation statement lodged at Companies house the Trust held 76,956 ordinary shares in the Football Club, and it is the third largest shareholder (behind NTFC Ventures and the George/Wilson/Lomas shareholding)

[singcobb]

"Kamals shop on the corner".

It's 2020!

And what has that got to do with the price of bread in Kamal's shop?

[Manwork04]

And what has that got to do with the price of bread in Kamal's shop?

Maybe he’s sold it?

[Manwork04]

That is the key word "customers". Why do you think as a customer you are entitled to see the company accounts? I don't expect Kamal down the corner shop to show me his accounts because I go in every day to buy my copy of The Socialist Worker and twenty woodbines.

Socialist worker  Venezuela anyone?

[Melbourne Cobbler]

Knowing the nature of how “deals“ tend to go generally, my guess is the current owners won’t be entirely happy with it as it stands? Conversely neither will the council from their end in either, it just seems to be the way it usually goes? It’s rare to find one party completely happy let alone both and there are nearly always reservations? So assuming the council are not entirely happy, can you imagine the backlash when some with more forceful opinions or reservations discover the intricate detail? That’s what drives the need for a confidential pre deal agreement? Is it reasonable to insist on full financial disclosure for example pre deal, when there has been years of sensitive negotiation time and cost for all parties, where final agreement has been reached with full access to facts and circumstances? Putting to one side the emotion and the parties involved it clearly isn’t? It may result in a backlash based on limited or misinformation? Some parties may somewhat unjustifiably be put under pressure to withdraw or re-evaluate their balanced earlier decisions? What is needed is public reassurance that suitably qualified individuals and/or organisations have been engaged in full due process and consultation that fulfils reasonable expectations? They should be able to fully justify and be held fully accountable for any decisions reached? To achieve that there has to be full access to the detail at some point so it can be scrutinised? However the timing of that is crucial and has to be reasonable and fair? To be absolutely clear it’s imperative that the process is robust and flawless in its drafting and execution. Furthermore qualified individuals and/or external bodies conducting the negotiations, recommendations and involved in the decision making process are identified from the outset? Their individual responsibilities are clearly defined, they are held fully accountable for their actions, recommendations and decisions. That way any deal is made under reasonable and fair conditions, public confidence is maintained and there is protection from unforeseen or unfortunate examples of incompetence or consequence post deal? It’s probably the case that there will always be criticisms and accusations from certain individuals and bodies irrespective of the nature and detail of any deal, no matter how it is drafted and reached? Therefore that’s not really important, what’s important is that those accusations are not justified or indefensible? That’s my view anyway, although I’m not sure how realistic, achievable or popular it will be, or frankly the competence levels of those involved to achieve it?

[singcobb]

Socialist worker  Venezuela anyone?

It's actually the Süddeutschland Zeitung and a packet of L&M red.

[guest3359]

                                                       
                                                         NTFC Supporters Trust and Fan Ownership
The NTFC Supporters Trust would like to make it 100% clear that we have no “agenda” on fan ownership and anyone who thinks or says that we have simply does not understand our policy and objectives.  We state every month on the Trust website that our ongoing research into fan ownership is a contingency in case the club needs rescuing again in the future, or is put up for sale.  This could be a hybrid ownership scheme as there is more than one model across Europe.
      Since we made a statement about a potential land development deal between NBC and NTFC there have been further comments that we have an "agenda" regarding fan ownership.  Those claiming that we have such an agenda have misunderstood what is being communicated.  We are not the only supporters' organisation. in the country looking at alternative ways to run their club and we feel it is the very least any committed supporters' group should be doing whilst financial instability is common in lower league football.

We stand by our last statement based on what we learned from our freedom of information request to the Borough Council about the East Stand and surrounding land at Sixfields.

If you dont consider it to be an agenda, do you consider it to the the prime path for any future ownership? If / when KT sells the club will you 'accept' any future ownership model that doesnt include an element of fan ownership? What is the minimum you would 'accept'?

[Manwork04]

It's actually the Süddeutschland Zeitung and a packet of L&M red.

Haha the good old Bavarian post, a good read.

[Shoemaker]

If you dont consider it to be an agenda, do you consider it to the the prime path for any future ownership? If / when KT sells the club will you 'accept' any future ownership model that doesnt include an element of fan ownership? What is the minimum you would 'accept'?

What would it matter.
The trust gave up board representation and as such have no more relevance than you or I
The trusts opinion is of zero importance on this issue in reality as they have no power to enforce or change anything.
The day they gave up their place on the board was the day they should have disbanded as any influence they had on club matters was over.

I think the main issue the trust has is that they fail to accept this despite previously agreeing to be marginalised and cannot grasp the concept that they can bark all they like but the owners are under no obligation whatsoever to listen to them.

That is the reality and again it is one of the trusts own making.
They made decisions off their own back on behalf of supporters with no communication to members at the time and are now reaping what they’ve sown.

I said at the time that it was handled badly and would come back to bite them and so it has come to pass...

[BackOfTheNet]

What would it matter.
The trust gave up board representation and as such have no more relevance than you or I
The trusts opinion is of zero importance on this issue in reality as they have no power to enforce or change anything.
The day they gave up their place on the board was the day they should have disbanded as any influence they had on club matters was over.

I think the main issue the trust has is that they fail to accept this despite previously agreeing to be marginalised and cannot grasp the concept that they can bark all they like but the owners are under no obligation whatsoever to listen to them.

That is the reality and again it is one of the trusts own making.
They made decisions off their own back on behalf of supporters with no communication to members at the time and are now reaping what they’ve sown.

I said at the time that it was handled badly and would come back to bite them and so it has come to pass...

I don't often agree with many of Shoey's posts, being tonally the same as one of Eeyore's missives as they generally are, but in this instance I think he's hit the nail on the head.

[everbrite]

What would it matter.
The trust gave up board representation and as such have no more relevance ...... ..........................................I said at the time that it was handled badly and would come back to bite them and so it has come to pass..

To appreciate your comments on the Trust of whom you were once a member; what has caused you to persistently criticise them? Is it the call of free speech tempered or aided by a grudge?