Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Trust look to buy the CG  (Read 105145 times)
Ardiles


+28/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 10285





Ignore
« Reply #900 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:01:06 »

Reg doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, but I do think that some of the 'negativity' would be better described as 'balance'.  And this forum is the better for it.  Not saying I always agree, but that's not the point.
Logged
FreddySTFC!


+22/-23
Offline Offline

Posts: 1364





Ignore
« Reply #901 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:03:25 »

I wonder if some of you lot have been supporting a different club for the last 25 years.

Having follwed the STFC loony bin, I don't think the points Reg is raising are particularly negative. Realistic questions.
You're missing the point. It's the inability to say something even remotely positive about the news. Reg's first thought is how can I comment on this in a negative fashion. Talk about pissing on the Trust's chips.
Logged

I have a culture, I don't stop my culture!!
FreddySTFC!


+22/-23
Offline Offline

Posts: 1364





Ignore
« Reply #902 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:04:35 »

If only there was a meeting being held in the next couple of weeks, in a location easy for people living in the Town to get to, where people with genuine concerns could voice them to the people best placed to provide answers. 
No doubt it will clash with a historical society meeting or a local ramblers forum.
Logged

I have a culture, I don't stop my culture!!
horlock07


+31283/-27190
Offline Offline

Posts: 8874


Lives up north




Ignore
« Reply #903 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:07:31 »

Reg doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, but I do think that some of the 'negativity' would be better described as 'balance'.  And this forum is the better for it.  Not saying I always agree, but that's not the point.

Its not balance, its using conjecture at best and lining up for the ITYS posts down the line, his recent habit of quoting himself to try and appear as some sort of sage merely backs this need up.

I don't think anyone on here is going down any sort of happy clapper line, we have had our fingers burnt in the past too many times for that but the fact that the Trust are directly on board at least suggests that this needs to be given some benefit of the doubt, until the terms of the deal are actually known at fucking least.

The constant harping on about 'tell me why Power having a 50% share is a good thing' when no one has actually said that anyway (its the only show in town), and 'if the trust fails to raise the cash Power will own it all and go mwah mwah mwah' (we don't know the terms of the deal to have the slightest idea as to whether the agreed mechanism allows sale to either one of the parties alone), just grates a lot as it repeats the constant drip drip of nonsense to support an ingrained position being dressed up as fact!

I don't have any axe to grind (although the times when he talks bollocks about planning and dresses it up as fact does grate a bit), however you reap what you sow and sadly I fear this is just a few posters getting bloody sick of the cumulative effects of the same old same old.

Fuck me its the most positive day for potentially 25+ years, enjoy it while it lasts! Anyway I am off to the positive thread to clap my hands happily!
« Last Edit: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:11:27 by horlock07 » Logged
Flashheart


+54/-10082
Offline Offline

Posts: 26091


FUCK YEAH! ©™



« Reply #904 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:10:42 »

Even the discussion about Reg's constant negativity has grown old. I think I'll keep clear of this thread for a while.
Logged

I like it firm and fruity.
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+136/-480
Offline Offline

Posts: 32637





Ignore
« Reply #905 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:29:23 »

Its not balance, its using conjecture at best and lining up for the ITYS posts down the line, his recent habit of quoting himself to try and appear as some sort of sage merely backs this need up.

I don't think anyone on here is going down any sort of happy clapper line, we have had our fingers burnt in the past too many times for that but the fact that the Trust are directly on board at least suggests that this needs to be given some benefit of the doubt, until the terms of the deal are actually known at fucking least.

The constant harping on about 'tell me why Power having a 50% share is a good thing' when no one has actually said that anyway (its the only show in town), and 'if the trust fails to raise the cash Power will own it all and go mwah mwah mwah' (we don't know the terms of the deal to have the slightest idea as to whether the agreed mechanism allows sale to either one of the parties alone), just grates a lot as it repeats the constant drip drip of nonsense to support an ingrained position being dressed up as fact!

I don't have any axe to grind (although the times when he talks bollocks about planning and dresses it up as fact does grate a bit), however you reap what you sow and sadly I fear this is just a few posters getting bloody sick of the cumulative effects of the same old same old.

Fuck me its the most positive day for potentially 25+ years, enjoy it while it lasts! Anyway I am off to the positive thread to clap my hands happily!

However as much as you gripe you still cannot answer a simple question. I've said 100% Trust ownership would be a good thing, Trust ownership of the Club is also something I've advocated, but the news is Power gets 50% of the club. Now I'm sceptical that is a good thing... but always receptive to a reasoned argument that I might be wrong.  So go then....
Logged
Bogus Dave
A pretend Dave.


+23/-65
Offline Offline

Posts: 14811





Ignore
« Reply #906 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:32:55 »

Because it lets the trust do what it otherwise couldn’t afford to do and (joint) own the football ground to give the club and the community a stable base to begin redeveloping while retaining (joint) ownership of the ground with the football club (not lee power) to ensure both a) a more attractive proposition when the time comes that the club is sold and b) a greater revenue generating entity the opportunity and need to direct funds into a property and land it has ownership of

cc reg
Logged

Things get better but they never get good
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+136/-480
Offline Offline

Posts: 32637





Ignore
« Reply #907 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:36:07 »

Even the discussion about Reg's constant negativity has grown old. I think I'll keep clear of this thread for a while.

Stick to the issues... always the best way in a discussion.

You posited the question...what happens if the Trust can't raise the money for their 50%.  I answered we'll be fucked, but there have been no other replies as to potential outcomes.  Would be interesting to hear some...
Logged
horlock07


+31283/-27190
Offline Offline

Posts: 8874


Lives up north




Ignore
« Reply #908 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:38:08 »

However as much as you gripe you still cannot answer a simple question. I've said 100% Trust ownership would be a good thing, Trust ownership of the Club is also something I've advocated, but the news is Power gets 50% of the club. Now I'm sceptical that is a good thing... but always receptive to a reasoned argument that I might be wrong.  So go then....

What on earth are you on about, Power owns 100% of the club Or I imagine 99+%)?

The 50%-50% deal is the only show in town, yes its not the most preferable option but as the only option and on balance if one is looking at it objectively it has plenty of positives when compared with the status quo.  
« Last Edit: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:43:59 by horlock07 » Logged
horlock07


+31283/-27190
Offline Offline

Posts: 8874


Lives up north




Ignore
« Reply #909 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:42:19 »

Stick to the issues... always the best way in a discussion.

You posited the question...what happens if the Trust can't raise the money for their 50%.  I answered we'll be fucked, but there have been no other replies as to potential outcomes.  Would be interesting to hear some...

Fuck sake.....

I (and others) have asked on numerous occasions for you to provide the evidence that we will be 'fucked' as we don't know any of the terms or even if the Council will sell if the JV fails to raise the money (note the HoT's as agreed will relate to a sale to the JV vehicle, to sell to either party alone would as it stands likely constitute a sale to a second party and thus be outside the scope of the HoT and thus the process will start again), you have chosen not to and now use the normal tactic of demanding others answer questions whereas you refuse to answer any asked of you.

Jesus man, at least wait till the report to Cabinet on 20th for some flesh on the bones (although I suspect it may be heavily redacted) before peddling unfounded conspiracy theories.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:44:34 by horlock07 » Logged
pauld


+125/-122
Online Online

Posts: 18987





Ignore
« Reply #910 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:44:15 »

FWIW, my take is that SBC are currently involvd in a fire sale brought on by the austerity policies of central government... therefore it's important that the Trust get the freehold, as a way of preventing it falling into the hands of vultures, and there are those who specialise in sport grounds, some not a million miles away.

My preferred option would be 100% Trust owned, whilst I can see the case for the JV, I'd like to hear what safeguards are being put in place, to prevent Power or a future owner getting outright ownership.
TBF, the council were willing to sell the foothold for a price not unadjacent to that being discussed now when we put out the Trust's proposals for redevelopment 10 years ago so I don't think it's entirely austerity-driven, although that will have concentrated minds in the council no doubt. As to your second point, I think everyone would prefer 100% Trust ownership but that's not on offer, so you are right to emphasise the need for safeguards to prevent the Trust holding being diminished in the future.

If only there was a meeting being held in the next couple of weeks, in a location easy for people living in the Town to get to, where people with genuine concerns could voice them to the people best placed to provide answers.  
Quite so.
Logged
Paolo69


+2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756





Ignore
« Reply #911 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 13:51:08 »

Reg - In your first post you mused whether this news (which is massive IMO) could lead to the demise of the club. It's little wonder that people sometimes feel your interpretations are a little on the negative side.
Logged
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+136/-480
Offline Offline

Posts: 32637





Ignore
« Reply #912 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 15:13:48 »

Reg - In your first post you mused whether this news (which is massive IMO) could lead to the demise of the club. It's little wonder that people sometimes feel your interpretations are a little on the negative side.


In the same post that I said it could work out well... it would be foolish not to point out the dangers to our future inherent in this.

Whilst I think everyone agrees that a 100% Trust ownership would be good, I've yet to read anybody explain why Power's 50% is good, other than that's what we've got. I need a bit more before accepting a fait accompli.
Logged
RobertT


+53/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 6631




Ignore
« Reply #913 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 15:37:47 »

and nobody has said Power owning 50% is anything, not that I can tell.  So who are you asking that of?

The Trust owning 50% is, I think, better than the Trust owning 0% if the Council are inclined to sell the freehold.

Owning a freehold releases you from the burden of being a leaseholder - which in turn increases the value of your asset and provides greater options when it comes to financing, and decreases the risk of investing capital onto leased land.  The DR stand can be moved relatively easily in construction terms, the rest of the ground has zero value other than in situ.  Outside investment is less likely with a short term lease in place - which is the current situation since the original 99 year expired.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 15:57:38 by RobertT » Logged
RobertT


+53/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 6631




Ignore
« Reply #914 on: Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 15:39:30 »

Oh, and Power has expressed a desire to be sole owner, so the Trust owning more than 0% is also a good thing in that context.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65   Go Up
Print
Jump to: