horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18730
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #180 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 16:40:07 » |
|
Council money. If anyone is that interested, bang in a freedom of information request.
I suspect the amount that can be revealed by FoI will be limited a little as it relates to a commercial agreement with a private non-council entity. However there is nothing to stop banging an FoI request in.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cookie
Offline
Posts: 1232
|
|
« Reply #181 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 17:26:28 » |
|
Be very specific and detailed with questions on FOIs otherwise it's fairly easy to dodge. As said above though, commercial agreements won't be revealed due to commercial confidentiality clause.
The club are in a competitive market even regarding ground rental with egg chasers playing wherever they like so is fair enough.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3863
|
|
« Reply #182 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 18:19:15 » |
|
FOI applies to any information the Council holds. The fact there is a private entity is involved is irrelevant.
Commercial confidentiality isn't applicable for FoI either (I.e. Merely marking an agreement as confidential won't do it) - standard confidentiality clauses will have a carve out for things such as FoI disclosures. Confidentiality only applies in very limited circumstances, such as disclosing a third parties intellectual property. It is a very high threshold to meet.
The council would most likely disclose it, but redact the financials under the commercial interests exemption. They'd need to show the public interest in withholding that information is greater than the public interest in disclosure. Their argument would be that disclosing the numbers and profile of payments would inhibit their ability to negotiate terms with othrr tenants, to the public detriment.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oaksey Moonraker
Offline
Posts: 904
|
|
« Reply #183 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 21:41:07 » |
|
What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3863
|
|
« Reply #184 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 22:50:40 » |
|
What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.
All of which would be entirely disclosable.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18730
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #185 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 23:10:19 » |
|
What would be interesting is what expenditure the council have made at the County Ground since the turn of the century or future planning SBC have made for the long term future of the site. Other than maybe resurfacing the car park, very little. As SBC issue the safety certificate, they determine a lot of the maintenance expenditure.
I would suspect that as the Council are of the opinion that the lease is a full maintaining lease and it would appear that Power is the first to question this I would suspect there will not be much for the Council to disclose as their maintenance contribution is probably in the region of nothing.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
horlock07
Offline
Posts: 18730
Lives in Northern Bastard Outpost
|
|
« Reply #186 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 23:13:06 » |
|
FOI applies to any information the Council holds. The fact there is a private entity is involved is irrelevant.
Commercial confidentiality isn't applicable for FoI either (I.e. Merely marking an agreement as confidential won't do it) - standard confidentiality clauses will have a carve out for things such as FoI disclosures. Confidentiality only applies in very limited circumstances, such as disclosing a third parties intellectual property. It is a very high threshold to meet.
The council would most likely disclose it, but redact the financials under the commercial interests exemption. They'd need to show the public interest in withholding that information is greater than the public interest in disclosure. Their argument would be that disclosing the numbers and profile of payments would inhibit their ability to negotiate terms with othrr tenants, to the public detriment.
Interesting you say this as when I previously worked in a public sector role (not a council) our Information Officers could find any number of excuses not to provide information for legal reasons - sadly normally after I had spent hours digging stuff out and passing it to them!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frigby Daser
Offline
Posts: 3863
|
|
« Reply #187 on: Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 23:25:42 » |
|
Interesting you say this as when I previously worked in a public sector role (not a council) our Information Officers could find any number of excuses not to provide information for legal reasons - sadly normally after I had spent hours digging stuff out and passing it to them!
Whether or not they're valid reasons is entirely different. If you want to withhold, if you haven't got valid or particularly robust grounds to, you'll likely throw as much at it and hope whoever wants it loses interest - a common tactic with journalistic requests, for example, because the story often becomes old before the timescales elapse. If you want the information, it's worth understanding how the exemptions actually apply (i.e. how the information commissioner would find at a tribunal) so you can navigate your way through intentional or unintentional bullshit from the public authority.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@mwooly63
Offline
Posts: 3377
|
|
« Reply #188 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:03:20 » |
|
Sam Morshead @SamMorshead_ · 15m 15 minutes ago Swindon Town were due to be at County Court again today. Only made aware of it in last hour so not present and no further details. Dont know if to do with rent or something else
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lambourn red
|
|
« Reply #189 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:28:21 » |
|
I would imagine it was to sign and seal the payment plan for the outstanding debt
The tweet he was replying to was
Any reason why I would have seen Lee Power and Sangita Shah leave magistrates' court approx 1:30pm today? All smiles too
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerry red
|
|
« Reply #190 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:30:39 » |
|
He'd just slipped her one in the bogs?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
@mwooly63
Offline
Posts: 3377
|
|
« Reply #191 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:43:27 » |
|
Sam Morshead @SamMorshead_ 3m3 minutes ago Canterbury, England The case involving Swindon Town at the County Court today is not an offshoot of the hearing regarding rent arrears.
Plot thickens
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kerry red
|
|
« Reply #192 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:45:17 » |
|
Where's the Adver when we need 'em!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sir Pissalot
|
|
« Reply #193 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 15:54:11 » |
|
Can't see anything obvious in today's listings.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JayBox325
Offline
Posts: 1546
|
|
« Reply #194 on: Friday, January 16, 2015, 16:55:52 » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|