UPDATE FROM ANDREW FITTON

[janaage]

Basically Fitton is saying he doesn't want an Oxford style takeover where Kassam still owns the ground, but the new head-scummer owns the club.

Don't blame the bloke.

[OneAndrewFitton]

Yes good on fitton but the situation just doesn't look good like reg says, legal issues can drag on and on, i dont know if there is an hmrc deadline next week but banbury obviously knows something and says we only have until next week, hmrc will not give us anymore time and i doubt the football league will either.

[Reg Smeeton]

Basically Fitton is saying he doesn't want an Oxford style takeover where Kassam still owns the ground, but the new head-scummer owns the club.

Don't blame the bloke.

   Not really similar....Kassam owns the ground.....at STFC its SBC with a covenant..  the lease is up in about 10 years time I believe, can someone hazard a guess as to how SPD can get a profit from developing the site with no club?

[ronnie21]

Basically Fitton is saying he doesn't want an Oxford style takeover where Kassam still owns the ground, but the new head-scummer owns the club.

Don't blame the bloke.

Yeah, that's how I read the situation as well.  Does this mean that Shaw Park (which is james wills, dunwoody and St. Modwen) would benefit from a redevelopment of the CG?  That cannot be right as the council own the ground, so is AF considering building a new stadium somewhere (Ramsbury?)?  Somewhere in the legal jargon there must be a clause linking Shaw Park with ANY future development involving STFC.

[STFC_Gazzza]

It's not going to be sorted, you might be optimistic gazza but the issue with shaw park developments is a big one and it could take months to sort out, the club will be dead by then, i'm afraid to say it does not look good at all.

I read the original statement quickly and missed out the part where he said "I WISH i could say its all done"

[will power]

Basically Fitton is saying he doesn't want an Oxford style takeover where Kassam still owns the ground, but the new head-scummer owns the club.

Don't blame the bloke.

Yeah, that's how I read the situation as well.  Does this mean that Shaw Park (which is james wills, dunwoody and St. Modwen) would benefit from a redevelopment of the CG?  That cannot be right as the council own the ground, so is AF considering building a new stadium somewhere (Ramsbury?)?  Somewhere in the legal jargon there must be a clause linking Shaw Park with ANY future development involving STFC.

Did fitton not say devlopment of the COUNTY GROUND??

[lebowski]

i must have missed the lesson on shaw park developments... what is that? who is it? and what does it mean?

[yeo]

I dont think they are talking about the County Ground I think it means Shaw Developments have it in their contract that any development of any site will be done/owned by them and thats the sticking point.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

[ahounsell]

at STFC its SBC with a covenant..  the lease is up in about 10 years time I believe,

The lease expires in March 2013 (as stated in the clubs accounts).

Quite why it is March I dont know as there would clearly be a problem kicking off the 2012/13 season if you couldnt be sure of a ground to play at throughout.

Effectively that means that something needs to be resolved, even if its just an extension of the existing arrangement with the council ,within the next 4 - 5 years.

[Maverick]

I would think it is March because the Council will have wanted to do contracts based around complete financial years ..... hence the end of March.

[pauld]

I dont think they are talking about the County Ground I think it means Shaw Developments have it in their contract that any development of any site will be done/owned by them and thats the sticking point.

That's what the board have always claimed - ie that they somehow have the "rights" to do any ground redevelopment although we can't verify if it's actually true. As they don't actually own any property, the council own the ground so they can't sell it/redevelop it without council partnership, it's difficult to see what they think they have.

[Reg Smeeton]

at STFC its SBC with a covenant..  the lease is up in about 10 years time I believe,

The lease expires in March 2013 (as stated in the clubs accounts).

Quite why it is March I dont know as there would clearly be a problem kicking off the 2012/13 season if you couldnt be sure of a ground to play at throughout.

Effectively that means that something needs to be resolved, even if its just an extension of the existing arrangement with the council ,within the next 4 - 5 years.

 Thanks for that, sooner than I thought then.   May well be irrelevant, if this takeover fails though.

[sonic youth]

i must have missed the lesson on shaw park developments... what is that? who is it? and what does it mean?

joint venture between STFC and st modwen...someone else will be able to explain it far better than i could.

[Peter Venkman]

One interesting thing to come from the takeover was that there is someone famous with links to sport and business in the area as part of his backers.

I was wondering who that may be, I dont think its James Dyson as I dont think he has any links...as yet with sport, cant think of anyone else as yet though.

I actually felt the statement sounded pretty positive, for once, even though this last hurdle is a huge one.

Heres hoping.

Overall I think it was a very enlightening interview and a real breath of fresh air compaired to the BEST debacle.

[yeo]

I dont think they are talking about the County Ground I think it means Shaw Developments have it in their contract that any development of any site will be done/owned by them and thats the sticking point.

That's what the board have always claimed - ie that they somehow have the "rights" to do any ground redevelopment although we can't verify if it's actually true. As they don't actually own any property, the council own the ground so they can't sell it/redevelop it without council partnership, it's difficult to see what they think they have.

So is it that the Holding company is claiming to have bought these "rights"?