|
Post by jdl on Nov 9, 2017 21:13:20 GMT
The report in the KM is not a story from a reporter, but a notice from the council stating that they wish to dispose of the land. It is printed in the public notice section on page 60 It's a box on the front page ("see page 9") and a short article on page 9 (or 6, or wherever...). First time I've done more than turn the KM over to look at the back in months!
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Nov 9, 2017 21:59:49 GMT
I stand corrected (Ant sent me a link to the info)
A new company, named Maidstone United Ground Ltd, was formed to deal solely with stadium matters, and by the summer of 2011 £1 million had been raised towards building the ground, and the lands freehold had been purchased outright from the Ministry of Defence. It was at this time it was decided to go ahead with the construction of the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by moonboots on Nov 9, 2017 22:15:43 GMT
The article on page 60 is a legal notice that believe the council has to publish in the event that they wish to sell or dispose of any land or property belonging to the public.
|
|
|
Post by soulstone on Nov 9, 2017 22:21:17 GMT
Maybe this is the way out if we reach the playoffs and the club cant bring themselves to rip the pitch up for what might only be one season.
|
|
|
Post by calaisangleterre on Nov 9, 2017 23:00:20 GMT
Whilst I'm sure the Club will have all of the professional legal advice at its disposal...
Were the Club to take up the leasehold, and build upon the land then, in 99 years time (and assuming no change to the law), the Club could make an argument for adverse possession ( the true position of the legal boundary must now belong to those who have exclusively enjoyed the use of the disputed land for a period of at least twelve years).
Recent changes to the law regarding adverse possession have affected the ability of a squatter to obtain ownership of an entire parcel of land. Nevertheless, adverse possession appears likely to remain a viable argument where the land under dispute is limited to a small strip along a disputed boundary.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by spurstone on Nov 10, 2017 4:06:03 GMT
Whilst I'm sure the Club will have all of the professional legal advice at its disposal... Were the Club to take up the leasehold, and build upon the land then, in 99 years time (and assuming no change to the law), the Club could make an argument for adverse possession ( the true position of the legal boundary must now belong to those who have exclusively enjoyed the use of the disputed land for a period of at least twelve years). Recent changes to the law regarding adverse possession have affected the ability of a squatter to obtain ownership of an entire parcel of land. Nevertheless, adverse possession appears likely to remain a viable argument where the land under dispute is limited to a small strip along a disputed boundary.
Just a thought. Can't we just build on the Hollingbourne MSA? Plenty of now 'brownfield' land there . And plenty other nearby service stations now so ?
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 10, 2017 11:35:27 GMT
I used to live in a leasehold flat. It's not something I would ever recommend, but it didn't stop us getting a mortgage, or selling the flat on, and, although our landlords were BASTARDS, even they would never have kicked us out and demolished our block, just because they owned the land.
And very few of us will be around in 99 years time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 11:37:12 GMT
How do people not know we own the land? It was one of the major steps in returning the club to the town. Without that, I seriously doubt if Oliver and Terry would have gone ahead with their investment. I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question because I've got no clue how you show how people don't know something. and ...
living up to my name I think you'll find that technically "we" don't own the land.
For two reasons: i) "we" didn't put in the investment; and ii) the ground/stadium is owned by a separate company to the football club.
Holding the stadium in a separate registered company is a tactic. It basically means that, if the football club were to go bust, creditors wouldn't be able to seize the ground as an asset because legally, the football club company wouldn't own it. In reality the ground holding company is also Oliver and Terry's. For all intents and purposes the club does own the stadium. Both businesses were actually started by PBB. We did buy the freehold, and then the directors had to negotiate / buy the bank too as this was owned by KCC. Without it we wouldn't have had the space to build a large stand on the East side of the ground.
|
|
|
Post by La femme de Vic Jobson on Nov 10, 2017 12:33:27 GMT
Agree with the last sentence not so for the rest.
The 'story', I suspect, is just the KM blowing something up to sell copies. That isn't exactly their "Luis Boa Morte".
|
|
|
Post by pmhnot on Nov 10, 2017 12:37:24 GMT
Oh this is a bit doom and gloom , but I'd like to say to all those that argue the toss about who owns the club , ground and whatever they want to throw at it ; it's ok to be a know-all but at the end of the day , it's Terry and Oliver that have put their money where their mouths are ! ... So please , until you can come up with £5.000.000 plus , I suggest that the best course of action would be to support them and maybe sign a petition to support their endless efforts to see this club progress in the right direction. Terry and Oliver are Mr. Maidstone United as far as the running of the club goes and with Jay Saunders and his backroom team on the playing field are the one that have got us where we are today. I get fed up hearing names of people who did nothing but get this club to disappear and in debts. Support our board now !!
|
|
|
Post by Loftus Road Stone. on Nov 10, 2017 13:12:11 GMT
It's seems like the council wanting control because that small section of land can't be of any use to the council. It's time for us all to start asking our elected councillors why because the club gives so much to the town in many ways? And if we don't like the answers then it's time to publicly name and shame a few of them. Because thay are public servants. Its not simply about supporting the local club its also good business for the local tax payer just all the housing developments thy have approved.
|
|
|
Post by barmingstone on Nov 10, 2017 13:49:16 GMT
It's not so much the councillors that are at fault. They only followed the recommendation from the officer who the put the report together. They were led to believe (as I understand) that the club could and would take up the leasehold option.
Terry & co were at pains to say that this wasn't a viable option, but this didn't get into the report.
Effectively the councillors could only vote on 1). Retain the strip, or 2). Classify it as surplus (but strategic) and offer a 99 year lease. I can't see that a vote on a freehold disposal was even raised.
|
|
|
Post by jdl on Nov 10, 2017 14:14:57 GMT
Oh this is a bit doom and gloom , but I'd like to say to all those that argue the toss about who owns the club , ground and whatever they want to throw at it ; it's ok to be a know-all but at the end of the day , it's Terry and Oliver that have put their money where their mouths are ! ... So please , until you can come up with £5.000.000 plus , I suggest that the best course of action would be to support them and maybe sign a petition to support their endless efforts to see this club progress in the right direction. Terry and Oliver are Mr. Maidstone United as far as the running of the club goes and with Jay Saunders and his backroom team on the playing field are the one that have got us where we are today. I get fed up hearing names of people who did nothing but get this club to disappear and in debts. Support our board now !! What "doom and gloom" exactly? We're just discussing the KM article. No one is expressing any doom, or indeed anything remotely negative, nor is anyone having a go at, or in any way expressing any lack of confidence in, Terry and Oliver.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 14:41:29 GMT
Oh this is a bit doom and gloom , but I'd like to say to all those that argue the toss about who owns the club , ground and whatever they want to throw at it ; it's ok to be a know-all but at the end of the day , it's Terry and Oliver that have put their money where their mouths are ! ... So please , until you can come up with £5.000.000 plus , I suggest that the best course of action would be to support them and maybe sign a petition to support their endless efforts to see this club progress in the right direction. Terry and Oliver are Mr. Maidstone United as far as the running of the club goes and with Jay Saunders and his backroom team on the playing field are the one that have got us where we are today. I get fed up hearing names of people who did nothing but get this club to disappear and in debts. Support our board now !! A bit harsh. It seems to me that some people on here were still a little confused about the legal side of ownership of the site and, since that is directly relevant to the topic in hand, some clarification for those people was required. Clearly it would be a nonsense to have a situation where the club owns 80% of a piece of land covered by a stand, but then they have to pay a rent for the other bit. That is a fundamental part of the problem. Petitions don't usually work - they've never really worked. I think it would be far more potent for as many people as possible to writ to email or otherwise contact the council with their own personal feelings on the matter. Be firm, but be polite and if possible, reasonably informed with the facts so that they take the correspondence seriously. I strongly suspect our friend on 'The Maidstone' will be getting the ball rolling shortly, in his own inimitable style! I have a large social media following for my business, and I know many others on here do too. Facebook and Twitter are another great place to publicise the council's embarrassment. Pressure to make them rethink the case can be placed in all sorts of different ways. I'll make my posting now.
|
|
|
Post by porkystone on Nov 10, 2017 14:53:05 GMT
According to the article on the Vanarama Web page the council were proposing a 99 year lease. "Cllr David Pickett, Chairman of the Heritage, Culture and Leisure Committee, said: “We are supportive of Maidstone United’s expansion plans however there is nothing in the Council’s proposed course of action that prevents the club from pursuing further development. The only issue is that the land the football club plans to use has been identified as strategic due to its location near the river and towpath. The Council has a Disposal of Land Policy to protect its assets and the security of land and we are following this policy. A report was brought to committee on the 31 October and a majority vote was made by councillors to uphold the recommendation to offer the land under a 99 year lease agreement.”www.maidstone.gov.uk/residents/news/website-news-articles/our-statement-regarding-gallagher-stadium-expansionSo David Pickett - mentioned above - is a Lib Dem Councillor in Bridge Ward. If this all goes up itself, anybody who resides in Bridge & is reading this & cares about the football club please bear this in mind when deciding whether or not to vote for Mr Pickett next time round.........
|
|