Just read Cardoza's comments with regards to unveiling new stadium plans for NTFC in the next few weeks. I wonder how long that will take to build? 5 years? I certainly doubt it...I'm not sure what plans they have with Sixfields (probably housing development if any) but a) where does that leave us when it is built and b) is the answer to a) Sixfields permanently? Highly unlikely, but if someone had said to me 12 months ago we'd now be playing in Northampton I wouldn't have believed them...even with the scum in charge. Just a thought?
Sixfields is being redeveloped isn't it??
I see the angle you're readin it from MancSB, why is he polishing it up as if its going to be a new stadium?
I see the angle you're readin it from MancSB, why is he polishing it up as if its going to be a new stadium? No wonder Fisher is mates with this guy! Another liar!!
”
“We are also running plans for the new stadium alongside that and once we have got the heads of terms signed we will put in for planning permission for the new stadium very soon after that.
“Basically plans will be ready within the next couple of weeks, obviously everyone can see those, and hopefully, fingers crossed, the planning will go in for the beginning to the middle of September.”
As i understand it the finance for the stadium(12m) is coming from the local council as a loan........... sure i have heard of that sort of thing happening elsewhere ...........
Ground expansion has been in planning wrangles for at least 10 years. Going ahead now through £12 loan from central government as part of the waterside redevelopment zone. Northampton as a whole is seeing huge regeneration. Nothing whatsoever to do with Cov.
That £12 loan is really going to get NTFC far..
It will cover the wear and tear that all the extra fans will cause to the stadium.
Just to clarify ours is the redevelopment of Sixfields like some have pointed out and not a new stadium. Work will begin in January which will mean our East Stand being knocked down and rebuilt as the first part of the development. There will then be boxes placed in the West Stand and a hotel and conferencing facility in the South West corner of the ground. The capacity will go up to around 10k-12k. The money is coming from the council, £12million - they are doing something similar with Northampton Saints Rugby Club, although I believe their loan is £6million and just for one new stand. It isn't tax payers money it's a little different than a standard loan - all very confusing really.
I believe we will be selling off land around the ground that will eventually actually recoup more than the £12million loan. The council have to rehouse the athletics club somewhere also as they currently use the track behind our ground.
From January the capacity will be reduced to about 6,300 - obviously won't affect your crowds, might do ours but that will depend on how well we are doing.
Does that mean SISU will file for Judicial Review of this council loan too then? What hypocrisy if they don't! From their own JR submission:
“The claimants submit that it is no part of the function of a local authority to interfere with the ownership and commercial operation of a local football club and that this misconceived project has led the defendant to act unlawfully, and/or for an improper purpose"
You couldn't make this up.....
Unless your post is meant as a joke:
Why would SISU submit a JR against the Council Loan to NTFC when it clearly has nothing to do with us??
My post was factitious, as it's exactly the same. They were tenants at the Ricoh when they claimed this investment was unlawful. They are now tenants at another venue where a similar, or identical transaction is in progress
But under different circumstance's, the money given to NTFC is to improve there Stadia and Facilities. The money given to ACL by the Council was used to pay off the debt to Yorkshire Bank.
Oh come on, talk about semantics. The SISU JR criticised the CCC investment as: 'it is no part of the function of a local authority to interfere with the ownership and commercial operation of a local football club'.
Isn't paying to improve stadia and facilities (as you put it) playing a part in the 'commercial operation of a local football'?
You have said it yourself why SISU felt obliged to push for the JR. They felt threatened that the Football Club (in SISU's words), "ACL and the Council were seeking to unlawfully "wrest control" of the club away from Sisu companies as its legal and rightful owners".
Loaning x amount of money from a local council to improve facilities to a sporting organisation, is no way the same as ACL/CCC "allegedly" trying to wrest the club from SISU's control.
Again, no. It's cause and effect you're confusing. The loan from the council was the cause. To wrest control was the alleged effect. It's the cause the JR was all about, as that's the only basis for legal debate.
The effects are identical. It would appear that, for some reason, your trying to defend the indefensible here
They felt threatened that the Football Club (in SISU's words), "ACL and the Council were seeking to unlawfully "wrest control" of the club away from Sisu companies as its legal and rightful owners".
I am not defending SISU if that's your implication I am defending however a loan given from a local Council to NTFC, but cannot understand why SISU would want to submit a JR against this? It has nothing to do with CCFC.
SISU clearly complained about the ''function of a local authority to interfere with the ownership and commercial operation of a local football club" when they were tenants at the Ricoh. The same is clearly happening at the ground where they are new tenants. You're stating the basis of the legal challenge is different due to the basis of the loan. It's not. It's still influencing the commercial operation at Northampton, and therefore falls under the umbrella of activity SISU tried to rescind.
It appears like double standards from SISU. Why are you trying so hard to defend it?
A reason as to why SISU won't challenge the NTFC decsion:
They're not trying to withold Monies from a company which could make them go bust which could leave the former with a chance to pick up a modern, communal Stadia and business for next to nothing.
And so we arrive at the conclusion I was pushing toward all the time. The legal basis is the same; but its an irrelevance to SISU because the legalities were never the issue. So it's hypocrisy, huh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?