You Decide

[Cookie]

25/10/2004 08:04:36

 

Sandy, I am aware that an offer has been made to MFC regarding the 10

year secure

tenure lease but I also understand that there are several hurdles that

have

been placed within that offer which were not discussed during our

recent

meetings.

Could you please elaborate.

Kind regards

B

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Sandy.Ezekiel@thanet.gov.uk [mailto:Sandy.Ezekiel@thanet.gov.uk]

Sent: 25 October 2004 11:14

To: B. Cc: Jennifer.Seeley@thanet.gov.uk; Richard.Samuel@thanet.gov.uk

Subject: Re: Margate Football Club

 

 

Dear B

I am shocked at the response of the club, for clarity.

The Council would agree to give CNC a 125 year lease on there part of

the scheme enabling them to build out its commercial elements, at a

peppercorn group rent. (In other words they would get there site at no

cost)

 

In return the Council would receive a completed stadium five aside

football pitches an astro turf pitch banqueting suite etc. We would

then

give MFC 10 year leases on all those elements. On rents MFC would

receive a five year rent free period on the stadium, commercial rents

would be charged on all the other remaining developments. There would

also be a need to for community use on the five aside astro pitch etc.

Any commercial rent would take this into account when the rents are

formulised

 

MFC would retain all profits as an income stream to the club.

 

On top of this we agreed that should the club gain promotion to the

league that we would grant what ever that league required as security

of

tenure. It is fair to say that the third division would probably be

the

last stage before MFC would have to look for alternatives IE 50.000

stadium would not be viable option for Hartsdown

 

These are the principles that are going in front of cabinet subject to

du diligence and formal funding agreements in place the scheme can go

ahead without delay.

 

The hurdles as I see them for the club are; we need to see a business

plan project plan + an early start to the planning process. We still

have

not had sight of any detailed plans on the development.

 

The club has the responsibility for financing the scheme we have still

to date, not had any confirmation on how the scheme will be financed

from start to completion.

 

Why the club has now stated things have changed since Friday I have no

idea. We went to press on Friday with a press statement that the club

endorsed these proposals why they wish to see changes now is beyond

me.

 

 

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Sandy

 

Should you wish to meet please contact Rita I am away as of Wednesday

pm.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

>>> B 25/10/2004 12:42:42 >>>

 

 

Dear Sandy,

 

Many thanks for your reply.

 

Am I not correct in saying that during our meeting attended by the

officers

of the supporters association you stated that you (TDC) had no interest

in

owning the stadium, five a side & astro turf pitches after we had

joking

offered the five a side pitches to TDC.

 

Regards

 

B

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

>>> Sandy Ezekiel 25/10/2004 16:33:42 >>>

 

 

Dear B

No is the simple answer as TDC will always retain the freehold of the

whole site. As I recall there was banter when your colleague offered

the five aside but at no time was the freehold mentioned as part of any

deal. CNC were happy with 125 year leases and MFC were more than happy

with the agreement as listed in my previous email. You may recall that

Colin Page wanted to ensure that if the club gained promotion we would

extend the lease to 20 years if that was the minimum required by the

football league, we agreed to this providing that MFC kept to the

agreement within there current leases on offer IE rent rates etc were up

to date.

 

On the matter of running the enabling developments I am more than happy

for MFC to do so and keep all the profits for the benefit of Club.

The Council has never made a condition that we want to take over any

part of the scheme. We will ensure that if MFC fail then all remaining

elements outside of CNC control will be for the benefit of Football as

part of the lease agreement. No one wants to see the site become

available for any other development other than the one on the table.

 

 

MFC at present are in financial difficulties admitting on more than one

occasion they could go under. Hence our original offer of licences ,

this was to ensure all that the Council had acted with Thanet residents

in mind and to mitigate any challenge that may come should a member of

the public chose to complain to the district auditor or with a judicial

review.

 

The deal on the table is as agreed with all parties, now it would seem

the club are moving the goal post not the council. We want to see

football at Hartsdown sooner rather than later it really is in the clubs

hands now.

 

 

best regards

 

Sandy

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Mr.Ezekiel.Seems I must be geting to be a pain keep coming to you for an updatte but our website is down and as usual the fans and people of Margate are asking question upon question as to whats going on. Because of the web site being down nothing is coming out from the club. We need some answers i.e. what were the changes that you were supposed to have made from the meeting on that friday via the confirmation letter to the club.As of this day tues 26 oct what is the current situation and how do we the fans stand as regards to the club continuing. This is such a massive thing for us and others in margate that we cannot let this killing of of our club become a reality. As you know I am against ALL councils and have doubted your stance and your colleagues stance on this many times but I really am trying to see both sides and make a fair conclusion. Lately I have actually been on your side but again we find ourselves back in a delaying situation. If there is ANYTHING you can do to get all this through and at long last allow us to return home it would be seen as a massive feather in your cap. Again,with apologies can you update us. Willl post anything you say on our forum for other fans to see just for information purposes of course. I want to, like others, believe you at the council still have our best interests at heart but we are finding it more and more difficult when we hear that you have changed things from what was agreed. Though will emphasise this is not taken as completely true as we are only told one side of it.To that effect would it be possible to have you and KP a tthe same meeing with the fans to find out the truth.This meeting would once and for all give us the true story.Again please can you help.A time and place to be made and announced.

Yours sincerely

Tony c

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

Tony

No smoke and mirrors from our part this is the latest response to the

supporters that attended. If you can though any more light on the

situation or would wish to meet I would as I have always been more than

willing.

 

As for meeting with KP probably unable, as he has had no part in the

negotiation more than willing to meet with Directors at any time.

 

I am out of the country from Thursday back Saturday so if you wish to

meet next week contact Rita 577013 to arrange suitable time etc.

 

regards

 

Sandy

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

B = KEEPING NAME PRIVATE

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cookie]

Can someone tell me what he means by "no smoke and mirrors". Have heard of the "no smoke without fire" but in this context am unsure of what he is actually inferring. (think he meant "if you can THROW more light" and not "though").

[Hornet]

At last some proper dialogue to give us a clue.Top work Cookie.Although I'm still as confused as ever & don't know who to trust but at least we can start to form opinions. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

"No smoke and mirrors" means there is no trickery.

[Cookie]

Am very wary of what the council say as you all know but his offer dosen't sound too bad to me, but maybe without the I's and the T's crossed am missing something. This will at least get us back home, the club still will have an income from both sources,the gate receipts etc, the commercial side of things, i.e.the new buildings, and the club surviving.As owners of the stadium the council would have to maintain the ground too, at their expense not ours. It does seem that a signature would have all this tied up so the council it seems MUST have all the relevant details they require for a go-ahead. Maybe it all reads differently to others than it does to me but what I am seeing is a way forward, an immediate way forward here. After all the stadium, when built will be owned by the lease holder anyway. Please someone correct me if I am wrong here.

Like Hornet my mind is not completely made up as to who to REALLY trust here but the offer dosen't sound too bad to me.

Obviously an insurance should be in place should the council try and take over at some point and want us out but with the assurance of that not happening why are the club reluctant to take up this offer?