Posts: 4,935
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
47
Carteledge and Bennoy have much bigger fish to fry than this development. This a a true heart over head from carteledge to get involved so much. People need to keep their political views out of what is in essence a business transaction.
Forest NEED a stadium of at least 40,000 and need to protect their interests long term. The freehold is worthless if they can’t do that.
Posts: 12,015
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
115
09-07-2024, 06:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2024, 06:16 PM by Salvatore Matrecano.)
(09-07-2024, 06:04 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: Carteledge and Bennoy have much bigger fish to fry than this development. This a a true heart over head from carteledge to get involved so much. People need to keep their political views out of what is in essence a business transaction.
Forest NEED a stadium of at least 40,000 and need to protect their interests long term. The freehold is worthless if they can’t do that.
Cartledge and Benoy have bigger fish than a £100-300m development? I doubt it.
They want the best deal for themselves which is why I don’t trust our chairman. It isn’t heart over head at all.
Won't believe a thing until the diggers move in to the CG. Thats not to say it won’t happen, we may still get a 40k City Ground that suits all parties, just Im not believing any announcements in the media.
Posts: 4,935
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
47
Carteledge and Bennoy work on world wide infrastructure projects. Look at their portfolio- didn’t they build the F1 track in the Middle East?
Posts: 12,015
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
115
It’s still a major deal and still not heart over head. If they are playing hardball to get the best outcome for Forest then that’s fine. Still need convincing they aren’t just in it for themselves.
Posts: 4,935
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
47
Agree to disagree. I just think cartledge has been given some bad press recently - some deserved with price hikes and stadium delays. He is a fan - undoubtedly. He is probably a Tory too. He also has a track record of delivering top class infrastructure projects world wide. Time will tell!
Posts: 12,015
Threads: 16
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
115
(09-07-2024, 07:22 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: Agree to disagree. I just think cartledge has been given some bad press recently - some deserved with price hikes and stadium delays. He is a fan - undoubtedly. He is probably a Tory too. He also has a track record of delivering top class infrastructure projects world wide. Time will tell!
I didnt like the devious season ticket hikes
I didn’t like his bullshit about the freehold costing us £250m and putting the whole blame on the council
I couldn’t give a stuff about his politics as long as he delivers in the best interest of Forest and not himself.
Like you say time will tell and of course there is definitely room for a mutual win, Forest get a shiny new City Ground, the council get a great local development and TC makes a tidy profit.
Posts: 4,893
Threads: 128
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
41
(09-07-2024, 06:04 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: Carteledge and Bennoy have much bigger fish to fry than this development. This a a true heart over head from carteledge to get involved so much. People need to keep their political views out of what is in essence a business transac
Another point to consider is the fact that the City Council would have to make some kind of declaration about ttion.
Forest NEED a stadium of at least 40,000 and need to protect their interests long term. The freehold is worthless if they can’t do that.
Where, in my comment did I give any political opinions Ozzy?
Stating facts is not offering political views, one way or the other, it is stating facts!
However, after reading other posters comments with regards to mine, I can now see and understand the possible reason for the stance Forest are currently taking. Moreover though, the fact that Forest's statement came out on the back of the City Council statement, did create confusion, as it came across to me (and no doubt many others) the ball was back in the City Councils court. But the bottom line is despite on paper this being a business transaction, as you state, it is being conducted with a local authority, which brings with it other considerations and complications that cannot be swept under the carpet by law.
I have seen the City Council have been criticised for prematurely announcing the possible deal. FACT.......... the City Council have a legal duty to the electorate to be transparent with matters relating to the City finances. The leader alone, cannot endorse the sale of a freehold lease worth between £250,000, currently and £1M potentially per annum. He/She has to report to the Executive Board and or the Full Council.
I am not defending the City Council out of any political alliance or support I may have for them. The truth is, I have no interest in the local government of Nottingham apart from where it affects my family still living there, or in this instance where my favourite football club is involved. However, having served on the City Council for 8 years, I do have some knowledge of how local government works and what it can and cannot do!
I do still have some reservations with regards to the true intentions of certain individuals at the club and those reservations will remain until I am proven wrong. If that is the case, I will gladly hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.
"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time, it's Trickay, It's Tricky, Tricky, Tricky Tricky" - Run DMC
Posts: 1,306
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation:
5
This all look stage managed.
The City Council want the Club to stay and need the money from the sale.
The Club want to stay, but wont pay what's being asked until there is agreement on planning.
This puts the onus on Rushcliffe - Rushcliffe may not be able to give a free pass on planning, but they can give guidance on how the whole process can be expedited.
I would guess that Rushcliffe will not want to be the ones who end up driving the Club out.
Posts: 3,075
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
31
(09-07-2024, 06:14 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: (09-07-2024, 06:04 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: Carteledge and Bennoy have much bigger fish to fry than this development. This a a true heart over head from carteledge to get involved so much. People need to keep their political views out of what is in essence a business transaction.
Forest NEED a stadium of at least 40,000 and need to protect their interests long term. The freehold is worthless if they can’t do that.
Cartledge and Benoy have bigger fish than a £100-300m development? I doubt it.
They want the best deal for themselves which is why I don’t trust our chairman. It isn’t heart over head at all.
Won't believe a thing until the diggers move in to the CG. Thats not to say it won’t happen, we may still get a 40k City Ground that suits all parties, just Im not believing any announcements in the media.
They had the deal already, it was only when the club were having issues with the council that they made him Chairman to guide the project through.
Posts: 971
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
6
Location: WFCG
IF Forest have changed the goal posts on planning, I don't think its reasonable to expect that to be a condition of sale for the freehold nor purchase of any new land without a separate planning process which is nothing to do with this transaction. If its to clear any remaining hurdles on existing plans then fair enough but it doesn`t read that way from Forests statement. Obviously hard to know what is going on behind the scene's and both party's have dropped a bollock when it comes to communication. IMHO nothing should have been said until signed on the dotted line on 16th if that is indeed still happening. I'm sure both party's have previously stated the transaction to be concluded in private yet here we are again ;)
Posts: 4,893
Threads: 128
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
41
(10-07-2024, 06:20 AM)ac_vodka Wrote: IF Forest have changed the goal posts on planning, I don't think its reasonable to expect that to be a condition of sale for the freehold nor purchase of any new land without a separate planning process which is nothing to do with this transaction. If its to clear any remaining hurdles on existing plans then fair enough but it doesn`t read that way from Forests statement. Obviously hard to know what is going on behind the scene's and both party's have dropped a bollock when it comes to communication. IMHO nothing should have been said until signed on the dotted line on 16th if that is indeed still happening. I'm sure both party's have previously stated the transaction to be concluded in private yet here we are again ;)
I watched a video on Forest Fan TV last night AC and a Councillor was asked what was happening. He said the Council had to disclose it at this weeks Full Council because the decision had to go to the Executive Board. Any item going to any committee on the Council have to have the relevant papers produced and distributed to all members on that committee/board 7 days before the committee/board sits, which is what the Council have done. Those papers have to be made available to the public by law, so the statement from the City Council was made prior to the publication of those papers.
The one thing that I am surprised at though is the fact that there are certain items that can be discussed behind closed doors and in private if financial details or individual persons or extremely sensitive matters are involved, if memory serves me right. I cannot though remember if the entire agenda item can be withheld from public knowledge or just the relevant details set out within it. I think it's the latter TBH as no actual details have emerged from the statements.
"It's Tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time, it's Trickay, It's Tricky, Tricky, Tricky Tricky" - Run DMC
Posts: 4,136
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2018
Reputation:
41
It's the latter Tricky. The topic needs to be disclosed but you can exempt details within it. The financial in this are exempt.
|
