In response to Dr Congo above - there is green belt land and green belt land. Sadly I suspect it is inevitable that some geeen belt land directly adjoining developed land may go. Have a look at an aerial photo of the training ground - its in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by trees and fields. If they allowed development on the training ground, all those adjoining landowners would be trying the same thing. If they could no, the scaffolding would almost certainly be up. Never say never but I am afraid it feels a remote likelihood to me.
Rather surprised at Aloysis regarding those questions as eye opening - they seem pretty naive to me with the greatest possible respect. Lets have a go at answering
Why did Mr Beeks, Sandra Kane and Ian Keizner ask for their identities to remain secret when they did the training ground deal in the Spring of 2013? Dont know their business. As the trust had to decide whether to accept the offer, not sure its overly relevant.
Why is the investment in the name of Sandra Kane, rather than Brian Kane? Dont know, their business, I presume tax planning - fairly standard procedure
Why would Ian Keizner, director of Camberwick Properties Limited, be interested in investing in the training ground? Dont know Ian Keizner. May have been a favour to Beeks. If Beeks was after a multimillion capital gain, why would he have wanted to share?
There are further questions for the Trust to answer.
Q: Having sold the training ground (a FALL asset), the proceedings of the sale (£350,000) were given to another company (WWFC). Are there any plans for WWFC to pay this sum back to FALL? It would be taken on greater significance should WWFC be sold in future.
For now while there is a legal difference between the two organisations, essentially they are one and when cash is short then reality is cash will have been managed across the organisations prioritising what had to be paid. Any intercompany debt at any prospective sale in future can be discussed then, but whether due or not would plainly influence any sale price.
Q: A virtue has been made of the training ground owners being prepared to write-off the unpaid rent on the training ground (c. £45,000). There has however been no mention of the unpaid rent on Adams Park from WWFC. What are the plans for WWFC to pay this unpublished sum to FALL?
As before
The unpaid rent for Adams Park meant FALL were unable to pay the rent on the training ground. As a consequence, WWFC now rent the training ground directly from the owners. I wonder who gains to benefit from this situation?
Dont understand the inference. In the real world nobody I would have thought.
Despite being unable to pay the rent on the training ground, FALL has ensured all payments have been made to Steve Hayes. Clearly a priority, how has this been funded?
How it is funded is from player sales from the football club. I understand Hayes has a charge over the stadium if his debt is not paid to schedule. Seems a sensible priority to prioritise his debt repayment over the training ground rent to me.
The training ground owners are prepared to negotiate a new buy-back clause and / or sell-on. Are these negotiations with WWFC or FALL? Will TRUST members been informed of the details or will these been confidential too?
As the trust owns both companies, I dont see that it really matters. Hopefully when negotiated the terms will be publicised.
What happens if the training ground owners choose to develop the land themselves? Are they prepared to negotiate any remuneration on that basis.
Even if developed, the land would be sold either as one lump to say Barratt or lots of individual plots when the houses are sold.
Andrew Howard has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of an artificial pitch at Adams Park which would mean there would no longer be any need for a training ground, nor any buy-back clause.
No question that I can see.
Ongoing endless conspiracies. Or we can trust the trust board to be doing their best to do the right thing in all the circumstances. But if you are really concerned that there is a grand conspiracy, ask the questions to the trust board members personally - dont they still have a stand somewhere before home games?
@Chris In the case of the training ground, it was an asset of the TRUST protected by the enshrined rights and it is in the interests of TRUST members to ensure any deal was done for the benefit of the TRUST.
Whether the money sits with FALL or WWFC matters because they are seperate companies and ownership (particularly WWFC) could change in future. The money would be used to protects the assets of FALL.
Other TRUST members and supporters will also have questions that matter.
All the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Some questions raised to make things look shady without any substance behind them. And a few random capitalisations thrown in for dramatic effect.
I guess the conspiracy theory is that Beeks and co swindled the club out of the land on the cheap in order to make some money for themselves down the line by selling the training ground for development.
At the end of the day I suppose this is unlikely, but we have to assume these people do have the clubs interests ahead of their own.
The club now have an annual expense of £30,000 they didn't have before.
DJT - I would have thought the sale proceeeds were lent from FALL to WWFC to meet urgent financial bills. I would be incredibly surprised if either legal company had that money in the bank now. Contrary to what you say intercompany debt makes little difference either while the two companies are in common ownership or on sale of one. Quite simply if company A owns B and C and B owes C £350k, then the sales value of B will be £350k higher if the debt to C is written off than if it needs to be paid.
You are with respect building scare stories on ignorance of how the world works.
As for Wild, given the trust members approved the sale and then the club under trust ownership failed to meet the lease terms, hard to see how Beeks could have "swindled anybody". You are right the club has an anuuak expense of £30k a year. It also has a cash receipt of £350k that it wouldnt have had otherwise. Without that cash receipt it may well not have survived.
I had rather assumed that if you posted questions on an internet message board, you were rather hoping that another poster on the internet message board may be able to provide answers and clarity to enlighten you. This I have done above.
If you wanted a trust director to answer your questions, presumably a better approach to posting them here would have been to ask them of a trust director.
Geoffrey is such a niche and pointless dig. I have no idea what reference you are trying to make. Much like the first two hundred words above to be honest.
I'm quite happy for you to continue the not very good digs if you like. I'm not that judgemental.
I'm actually being far more polite in these posts than you could possibly believe but I suppose being the victim helps your internet persona.
It's a bit like all the years I've watched Mitchell Johnson play for Australia. Every time the crowd bait him and every time he reacts. Always amazed me why as he's better was than that. Any thoughts?
I for one welcome somebody posting the answers to the points that @DJTaylor has raised. Anybody who has sat in a boardroom meetings or even a senior management meeting will know that smoke and mirrors are used on a weekly basis. It seems that unfortunately this is happening at a degree here but why!
I've come to this late and it's all a bit too technical for me to follow I'm afraid. But I'll guarantee one thing - if Beeks and Co. manage to develop that land for housing in the future, any complainant on here will be told to 'get over it, no point in harking on about the past' etc.
@arnos_grove said:
I've come to this late and it's all a bit too technical for me to follow I'm afraid. But I'll guarantee one thing - if Beeks and Co. manage to develop that land for housing in the future, any complainant on here will be told to 'get over it, no point in harking on about the past' etc.
Probably the most insightful post of the day.
Nobody knows. That is the only fact we have.
But as @DevC mentioned earlier, this is an Internet forum and if we could only post facts it would be a very boring place indeed. No speculation, no discussion, not even player ratings as even those are subjective and not based on fact.
I for one am glad some people at least are willing to ask the questions, even if there are no answers.
Perhaps the fans of Northampton Town would agree with this sentiment.
Northampton and Portsmouth have benefited greatly from running up debts so high they've written much of it off and suppliers have suffered. It's a horrible way to run a football club but does give them a competitive advantage over those who budget properly
Ive been reading a lot about Northampton's plight on their forums. And one thing that stands out, is that people were warning their Trust for some considerable time about the Cardoza's only to be shouted down by others for being negative and trouble making.
As the Cobblers plight got more desperate in recent weeks, the overwhelming opinion was as fans and Trust members they should have demanded more answers instead of being fobbed off with half truths and barely truths
If you avoid answering the questions, you have something to hide.
The reality is probably that the truth is somewhere between letting people run the club and asking questions in the right places.
Northampton as a club appear to have got away with some major mistakes and while every football club gets away with them it will continue to happen. I don't want a Football League club to go bust but I fear it might be the only way to focus the minds of everyone else. At the moment it appears all to simple to move on.
Comments
@aloysius Where have I made any allegations, oblique or otherwise?
Any inferences are yours, or those of the reader.
I personally think the answers would be interesting to hear. I also agree that there has been no defamation whatsoever, in simply asking questions.
In response to Dr Congo above - there is green belt land and green belt land. Sadly I suspect it is inevitable that some geeen belt land directly adjoining developed land may go. Have a look at an aerial photo of the training ground - its in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by trees and fields. If they allowed development on the training ground, all those adjoining landowners would be trying the same thing. If they could no, the scaffolding would almost certainly be up. Never say never but I am afraid it feels a remote likelihood to me.
Rather surprised at Aloysis regarding those questions as eye opening - they seem pretty naive to me with the greatest possible respect. Lets have a go at answering
Why did Mr Beeks, Sandra Kane and Ian Keizner ask for their identities to remain secret when they did the training ground deal in the Spring of 2013? Dont know their business. As the trust had to decide whether to accept the offer, not sure its overly relevant.
Why is the investment in the name of Sandra Kane, rather than Brian Kane? Dont know, their business, I presume tax planning - fairly standard procedure
Why would Ian Keizner, director of Camberwick Properties Limited, be interested in investing in the training ground? Dont know Ian Keizner. May have been a favour to Beeks. If Beeks was after a multimillion capital gain, why would he have wanted to share?
There are further questions for the Trust to answer.
Q: Having sold the training ground (a FALL asset), the proceedings of the sale (£350,000) were given to another company (WWFC). Are there any plans for WWFC to pay this sum back to FALL? It would be taken on greater significance should WWFC be sold in future.
For now while there is a legal difference between the two organisations, essentially they are one and when cash is short then reality is cash will have been managed across the organisations prioritising what had to be paid. Any intercompany debt at any prospective sale in future can be discussed then, but whether due or not would plainly influence any sale price.
Q: A virtue has been made of the training ground owners being prepared to write-off the unpaid rent on the training ground (c. £45,000). There has however been no mention of the unpaid rent on Adams Park from WWFC. What are the plans for WWFC to pay this unpublished sum to FALL?
As before
The unpaid rent for Adams Park meant FALL were unable to pay the rent on the training ground. As a consequence, WWFC now rent the training ground directly from the owners. I wonder who gains to benefit from this situation?
Dont understand the inference. In the real world nobody I would have thought.
Despite being unable to pay the rent on the training ground, FALL has ensured all payments have been made to Steve Hayes. Clearly a priority, how has this been funded?
How it is funded is from player sales from the football club. I understand Hayes has a charge over the stadium if his debt is not paid to schedule. Seems a sensible priority to prioritise his debt repayment over the training ground rent to me.
The training ground owners are prepared to negotiate a new buy-back clause and / or sell-on. Are these negotiations with WWFC or FALL? Will TRUST members been informed of the details or will these been confidential too?
As the trust owns both companies, I dont see that it really matters. Hopefully when negotiated the terms will be publicised.
What happens if the training ground owners choose to develop the land themselves? Are they prepared to negotiate any remuneration on that basis.
Even if developed, the land would be sold either as one lump to say Barratt or lots of individual plots when the houses are sold.
Andrew Howard has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of an artificial pitch at Adams Park which would mean there would no longer be any need for a training ground, nor any buy-back clause.
No question that I can see.
Ongoing endless conspiracies. Or we can trust the trust board to be doing their best to do the right thing in all the circumstances. But if you are really concerned that there is a grand conspiracy, ask the questions to the trust board members personally - dont they still have a stand somewhere before home games?
Tell me why I should be interested!
What does it matter if money sits with FALL or WWFC? Why are the particular questions you raised the ones that matter?
@Chris In the case of the training ground, it was an asset of the TRUST protected by the enshrined rights and it is in the interests of TRUST members to ensure any deal was done for the benefit of the TRUST.
Whether the money sits with FALL or WWFC matters because they are seperate companies and ownership (particularly WWFC) could change in future. The money would be used to protects the assets of FALL.
Other TRUST members and supporters will also have questions that matter.
I'm out.
All the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory. Some questions raised to make things look shady without any substance behind them. And a few random capitalisations thrown in for dramatic effect.
I guess the conspiracy theory is that Beeks and co swindled the club out of the land on the cheap in order to make some money for themselves down the line by selling the training ground for development.
At the end of the day I suppose this is unlikely, but we have to assume these people do have the clubs interests ahead of their own.
The club now have an annual expense of £30,000 they didn't have before.
DJT - I would have thought the sale proceeeds were lent from FALL to WWFC to meet urgent financial bills. I would be incredibly surprised if either legal company had that money in the bank now. Contrary to what you say intercompany debt makes little difference either while the two companies are in common ownership or on sale of one. Quite simply if company A owns B and C and B owes C £350k, then the sales value of B will be £350k higher if the debt to C is written off than if it needs to be paid.
You are with respect building scare stories on ignorance of how the world works.
As for Wild, given the trust members approved the sale and then the club under trust ownership failed to meet the lease terms, hard to see how Beeks could have "swindled anybody". You are right the club has an anuuak expense of £30k a year. It also has a cash receipt of £350k that it wouldnt have had otherwise. Without that cash receipt it may well not have survived.
Time to follow Chris's very sensible lead I feel.
@DevC Seeking answers and clarity to the questions not building scare stories/conspiracy theories.
Thanks for your input DevC.
DJT"Seeking answers and clarity to the questions not building scare stories/conspiracy theories."
I gave you them above. Happy now?
@DevC I am not sure you are in a sufficiently informed position to give any answers.
Fair enough.
I had rather assumed that if you posted questions on an internet message board, you were rather hoping that another poster on the internet message board may be able to provide answers and clarity to enlighten you. This I have done above.
If you wanted a trust director to answer your questions, presumably a better approach to posting them here would have been to ask them of a trust director.
Just a thought.
Over and out.
DevC word count update for today.
2285 words
Well done DevC. A cracking effort. Wish I had that much time
You counted them Geoffrey!
Microsoft did my friend.
Geoffrey is such a niche and pointless dig. I have no idea what reference you are trying to make. Much like the first two hundred words above to be honest.
2289 now. How do you find the time?
Oh I think you do. Leave out the digs son, you really aren't very good at it.
I'm quite happy for you to continue the not very good digs if you like. I'm not that judgemental.
I'm actually being far more polite in these posts than you could possibly believe but I suppose being the victim helps your internet persona.
Not for the first time, Righty, absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Leave it there I think.
I'm amazed you've kept going as long as you have.
It's a bit like all the years I've watched Mitchell Johnson play for Australia. Every time the crowd bait him and every time he reacts. Always amazed me why as he's better was than that. Any thoughts?
DJT When did the training ground become an Enshrined Right? I think you may have been misinformed.
I for one welcome somebody posting the answers to the points that @DJTaylor has raised. Anybody who has sat in a boardroom meetings or even a senior management meeting will know that smoke and mirrors are used on a weekly basis. It seems that unfortunately this is happening at a degree here but why!
I'm just waiting for the announcement that we swapped all future Jordan Ibe add-ons for a bag of jelly babies.
I've come to this late and it's all a bit too technical for me to follow I'm afraid. But I'll guarantee one thing - if Beeks and Co. manage to develop that land for housing in the future, any complainant on here will be told to 'get over it, no point in harking on about the past' etc.
Probably the most insightful post of the day.
Nobody knows. That is the only fact we have.
But as @DevC mentioned earlier, this is an Internet forum and if we could only post facts it would be a very boring place indeed. No speculation, no discussion, not even player ratings as even those are subjective and not based on fact.
I for one am glad some people at least are willing to ask the questions, even if there are no answers.
Perhaps the fans of Northampton Town would agree with this sentiment.
Northampton seem to be in a better position than us now. Joint top of the league, new owner and all debts cleared.
Portsmouth and Northhampton amongst others show that sometimes there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Northampton and Portsmouth have benefited greatly from running up debts so high they've written much of it off and suppliers have suffered. It's a horrible way to run a football club but does give them a competitive advantage over those who budget properly
Ive been reading a lot about Northampton's plight on their forums. And one thing that stands out, is that people were warning their Trust for some considerable time about the Cardoza's only to be shouted down by others for being negative and trouble making.
As the Cobblers plight got more desperate in recent weeks, the overwhelming opinion was as fans and Trust members they should have demanded more answers instead of being fobbed off with half truths and barely truths
If you avoid answering the questions, you have something to hide.
The reality is probably that the truth is somewhere between letting people run the club and asking questions in the right places.
Northampton as a club appear to have got away with some major mistakes and while every football club gets away with them it will continue to happen. I don't want a Football League club to go bust but I fear it might be the only way to focus the minds of everyone else. At the moment it appears all to simple to move on.
Keep an eye on the Trust website (and your emails if you are a Trust member) from 8pm. Thanks