|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Sept 8, 2015 13:57:09 GMT
Can anyone please tell me who was in charge of Bulls Banter when, just after the new club got the keys to Edgar Street, a poll was run on whether the fans wanted to stay there, would they still support the club at a new venue, etc?
The timing of this poll seemed extraordinary - or at best extraordinarily clumsy.
It was almost as though the new club had seized the asset and was immediately formulating a plan or at least establishing some groundwork and testing the water for leaving Edgar Street in a few years' time.
Now who would profit from a move like that?
Fair enough if someone innocent was in charge and it was just an innocent bit of fun as a poll looking into the future.
But it just seemed weird to me.
So can anyone help with any info or explanation for this strange piece of timing?
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Sept 8, 2015 14:37:20 GMT
I'm afraid that the old girls days are numbered. I take no pleasure in recalling a thread I started on the old forum on this very issue.
The announcement of the proposed site of the new police station and fire HQ just makes it even more inevitable.
Which is why we need to be having a discussion about what is going to happen when the incredibly short lease the club has comes to an end. I'm afraid the presence of a number of property developers in the Benevestor list is setting off all sorts of alarms.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Sept 8, 2015 14:49:34 GMT
The fact that something new is being planned for the site next door doesn't automatically mean that the Edgar street ground is going to go too.
Also the benefactors list point is a red herring as the lease allows no opportunity for the club or the shareholders to develop the site. This remains with the council alone.
I agree though that the length of the lease remains a concern. I understand the reasoning behind an initial 5 years as it was explained at the time in that it allowed the lease to be granted in time for the club to be entered into a league without the delays that the lengthy consultation and due diligence required for a longer lease would have necessitated. However I think it is important that the club is working now to negotiate and extension that will give us a more longer term future at the site and suggest this is something that needs to be pressed at the forthcoming HUST AGM.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 8, 2015 14:54:19 GMT
The fact that something new is being planned for the site next door doesn't automatically mean that the Edgar street ground is going to go too. Also the benefactors list point is a red herring as the lease allows no opportunity for the club or the shareholders to develop the site. This remains with the council alone.I agree though that the length of the lease remains a concern. I understand the reasoning behind an initial 5 years as it was explained at the time in that it allowed the lease to be granted in time for the club to be entered into a league without the delays that the lengthy consultation and due diligence required for a longer lease would have necessitated. However I think it is important that the club is working now to negotiate and extension that will give us a more longer term future at the site and suggest this is something that needs to be pressed at the forthcoming HUST AGM. Not disputing this, but weren't the terms of the lease confidential? We could all see the ones that Mr Keyte etc renegotiated, but I don't think the new ones were every released on the council's website were they? |
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Sept 8, 2015 15:00:10 GMT
The fact that something new is being planned for the site next door doesn't automatically mean that the Edgar street ground is going to go too. Also the benefactors list point is a red herring as the lease allows no opportunity for the club or the shareholders to develop the site. This remains with the council alone.I agree though that the length of the lease remains a concern. I understand the reasoning behind an initial 5 years as it was explained at the time in that it allowed the lease to be granted in time for the club to be entered into a league without the delays that the lengthy consultation and due diligence required for a longer lease would have necessitated. However I think it is important that the club is working now to negotiate and extension that will give us a more longer term future at the site and suggest this is something that needs to be pressed at the forthcoming HUST AGM. Not disputing this, but weren't the terms of the lease confidential? We could all see the ones that Mr Keyte etc renegotiated, but I don't think the new ones were every released on the council's website were they? That may have some truth to it but I don't for one moment think that the council would have been assigning leases to a new football club with the intention of allowing them to profit from an almost immediate plan to redevelop when it would have been far easier and much more profitable for them to simply send in the bulldozers whilst the place was empty. It would have been very easy for the council to produce and inspection report stating that the ground was no longer fit for purpose and beyond reasonable prospect of being made so as justification to not assign the leases. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 15:10:29 GMT
Except that such a plan needed the club to have a chance at working out for the Council and the Investors not to look too villainous. 5 years to get up and running, then find a new home?
|
|
|
|
Post by spiritofradford on Sept 8, 2015 15:22:56 GMT
Except that such a plan needed the club to have a chance at working out for the Council and the Investors not to look too villainous. 5 years to get up and running, then find a new home? Possible but that plan has far more risk of failing than simply declaring the ground not fit for purpose. I mean, what happens if the new club takes off and achieves a level of success to warrant the new ground having a similar capacity and facilities to the existing one ? This new home would probably then eat up all the profits generated by developing the old one. For the record, I am not totally against the possibility of the club being relocated in the future as long as it is for the benefit and growth of the football club. However, if that is the councils aim then i suspect they have taken a huge gamble by assigning the leases to HFC. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 15:29:24 GMT
Mmmm.
I'm sitting in Shrewsbury supping coffee with my daughter.
On the train up I again passed the Slop's shiny but soulless new ground.
Then I thought of the Highgate ground. Then I thought of the Merton Stand and where my seat is in G block.
Then I thought "yeah, maybe we should move to a new location."
Maybe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 15:31:39 GMT
Except that such a plan needed the club to have a chance at working out for the Council and the Investors not to look too villainous. 5 years to get up and running, then find a new home? Possible but that plan has far more risk of failing than simply declaring the ground not fit for purpose. I mean, what happens if the new club takes off and achieves a level of success to warrant the new ground having a similar capacity and facilities to the existing one ? This new home would probably then eat up all the profits generated by developing the old one. For the record, I am not totally against the possibility of the club being relocated in the future as long as it is for the benefit and growth of the football club. However, if that is the councils aim then i suspect they have taken a huge gamble by assigning the leases to HFC. I know what you mean. FWIW it's not a theory that I hold myself with any degree of certainty, and I do believe that the 'Founding Shareholders' and their HFC cronies are fans, and are, in their uniquely arrogant way, going about things in a way that they believe is for our benefit. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 8, 2015 15:34:47 GMT
Possible but that plan has far more risk of failing than simply declaring the ground not fit for purpose. I mean, what happens if the new club takes off and achieves a level of success to warrant the new ground having a similar capacity and facilities to the existing one ? This new home would probably then eat up all the profits generated by developing the old one. For the record, I am not totally against the possibility of the club being relocated in the future as long as it is for the benefit and growth of the football club. However, if that is the councils aim then i suspect they have taken a huge gamble by assigning the leases to HFC. I know what you mean. FWIW it's not a theory that I hold myself with any degree of certainty, and I do believe that the 'Founding Shareholders' and their HFC cronies are fans, and are, in their uniquely arrogant way, going about things in a way that they believe is for our benefit. I think. benefitsters? |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Sept 8, 2015 15:35:44 GMT
Except that such a plan needed the club to have a chance at working out for the Council and the Investors not to look too villainous. 5 years to get up and running, then find a new home? Possible but that plan has far more risk of failing than simply declaring the ground not fit for purpose. I mean, what happens if the new club takes off and achieves a level of success to warrant the new ground having a similar capacity and facilities to the existing one ? This new home would probably then eat up all the profits generated by developing the old one. For the record, I am not totally against the possibility of the club being relocated in the future as long as it is for the benefit and growth of the football club. However, if that is the councils aim then i suspect they have taken a huge gamble by assigning the leases to HFC. Which is exactly why the club needs to be engaging with the fan base (or more correctly the Trust) to ensure that football is preserved in the City for the futue, whether at ES or elsewhere. I simply do not believe that no-one is currently applying their minds to what happens in 2020 when the current lease expires. By then the OM Development will be seven years old and established and the Merton Car Park will be a building site (or a shiny new Emergency Services Centre). The Council will have a pretty clear plan for the football club footprint. I would be very surprised if it has anything to do with football. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 16:38:10 GMT
To repeat what I was told some time ago by someone in the employ of the council:
'Softly softly catchee monkey."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 17:32:34 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles!
How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles?
Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors.
Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 17:36:23 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles! How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles? Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors. Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary? Any follow up from Andrew Gray to your email yet, Simon? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 17:39:42 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles! How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles? Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors. Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary? Who else would you suggest should decide? The cleaner? |
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 8, 2015 17:48:56 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles! How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles? Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors. Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary? I should imagine that the wage relates to the company secretary, not the club secretary. Different roles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 18:09:41 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles! How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles? Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors. Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary? Any follow up from Andrew Gray to your email yet, Simon? Not a sausage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 18:14:25 GMT
It is written in the A of A's that a Director can profit from a conflict of interests with the club as long as the other Director's say it's ok. This is exactly the sort of thing HUST should have been questioning, not endorsing or even helping to write into the articles! How can it possibly be ok for a Director or Directors to act in conflict with the interests of the football club & why the need for this to be written in the articles? Amazingly it was also written in the articles that the club secretary could be paid a wage as decided by the Directors. Now remind me, who helped draft the articles & who, along with being Football Director, has also ended up being announced as the club Secretary? I should imagine that the wage relates to the company secretary, not the club secretary. Different roles. You may well be right but having looked again it doesn't specify. It just says 'the secretary'. Has anyone been appointed as company secretary? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 18:19:54 GMT
Moving didn't do Swansea any harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexington on Sept 8, 2015 18:24:38 GMT
I should imagine that the wage relates to the company secretary, not the club secretary. Different roles. You may well be right but having looked again it doesn't specify. It just says 'the secretary'. Has anyone been appointed as company secretary? Hugh Brooks. |
|
