[Spireite S41]

fishini, on Jan 2 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

If like it has been inferred that Saltergate has been sold then what if the new ground fails do we have a time scale when we have to vacate Saltergate or do we have to pay rent to the owners?

queens park football pitch seems the closest with 'facilities'. only holds 1100 tho

[fishini]

spireiteblue, on Jan 2 2009, 04:06 PM, said:

They will be building houses on it,we will have to play in the back yard like we did when we were kids

Gound share at feel ill?

[Wooden Spoon]

fishini, on Jan 2 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Gound share at feel ill?

[Spireite S41]

fishini, on Jan 2 2009, 04:09 PM, said:

Gound share at feel ill?

wash your mouth out!!

[fishini]

spireiteblue, on Jan 2 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

Try Dema just accept it Les......

I certainly will with glee and happiness when it starts til then I will remain a touch sceptical

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on Jan 1 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

It is true. The key date is the clean acquisition of the 10 acres. There have been several delays, the most prominent one being the withdrawal of our original major partner in the project.

Are you suggesting that the takeover will be delayed if we are in a position to sign for the land, but the Wednesday takeover is delayed?>

So why did Hubbard suggest all those other occasions for the takeover to happen?

Why hasn't he categorically stated that the handover of the cleared site is the criteria for the takeover to be completed from day one?

And what does "in a position to sign for the land" actually mean?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

MP-Spire, on Jan 2 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

Like Dimview has said, the ground will have been sold subject to certain clauses. However, why can't we get the new investor to commit and go public subject to the same clauses?

Like i said MP, rather than being in control of events, this "patient and diligent" Board are merely powerless bystanders.

And i wonder if that description now applies to the running of the Club, too?

[fishini]

MP-Spire, on Jan 2 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

I wonder how many of them can be described as patient at the minute? Obviously from a footballing point of view, I'd say they've been very patient, from a ground move point of view, I'm not so sure.

If they are not patient at the minute like you suggest why have they sat on their proverbial backsides and watch the season disappear into a farce?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

fishini, on Jan 2 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

If they are not patient at the minute like you suggest why have they sat on their proverbial backsides and watch the season disappear into a farce?

The question evey Town fan should be screaming!

[dim view]

MP-Spire, on Jan 2 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

Like Dimview has said, the ground will have been sold subject to certain clauses. However, why can't we get the new investor to commit and go public subject to the same clauses?

well, pure guesswork, but if I were the investor ..........
1. I would not commit such a vast amount of money until the 10 acres was owned by the club.
2. I would not want to publicise to any people who may be thinking of buying some of my old shares what I want the money for, as it weakens my negotiating position.
3. I would be thinking that whilst the council are willing to 'relax' the planning rules to give a poverty stricken club these 10 acres, they may wish to avoid the negative publicity of bequeathing said 'gift' to a multi millionaire.

[dim view]

MDCCCLXVI, on Jan 2 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

So why did Hubbard suggest all those other occasions for the takeover to happen?

Why hasn't he categorically stated that the handover of the cleared site is the criteria for the takeover to be completed from day one?

And what does "in a position to sign for the land" actually mean?

Because he was unable to foresee the delays.

He has been saying this for several months. Maybe it was put on the back burner as a key milestone until this part of the project started. Dunno.

When all the site work undertaken by W/B on behalf of all interested parties has been completed and paid for, they will give us the 10 acres. We have obtained a grant to pay for our share.

[fishini]

dim view, on Jan 2 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

Because he was unable to foresee the delays.

He has been saying this for several months. Maybe it was put on the back burner as a key milestone until this part of the project started. Dunno.

When all the site work undertaken by W/B on behalf of all interested parties has been completed and paid for, they will give us the 10 acres. We have obtained a grant to pay for our share.

In his first load of bull poo concerning the new ground build the Hubbard stated that the board would be paying the £600k for the work done to date, he never mentioned anything about a grant. I do realise though that anything he says means very little in the real world, in his own little world he may believe what he's saying

[fishini]

spireiteblue, on Jan 4 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

Yes he did,the money is coming from various sources....

He said the board was paying the £K initial payment, do you honestly think we could get a grant of this amount to pay someone for work carried out on land we don't own? Get real SB or are you still suffering new years hangover