|
Post by frankinstone on May 11, 2018 19:46:56 GMT
£20 each we buy it...job done
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2018 19:49:51 GMT
If those figures are accurate then Id argue the cubs valuation is way too low. I have no doubt the council are pitching for as much as they think they can get away with and as they hve a duty to the taxpayer why shouldn't they. The clubs valuation if really only £500 is never going to be accepted. Uts irrelevant if its just a bit if scrub land. When I wanted to buy land at the back of my house that was only big enough to oark a car on the valuation was £8000 and that was 5 years ago. Yes the council could help and probably would if it wasn't fpr one or two hardliners. But to expect a purchase price of £500.00 to be accepted is ridiculous I know what you are saying and as much as I agree with some of it, the analogy isn’t quite the same. The club are bringing a vast amount of money into the town and this should be taken into account. I think the valuation should be made, and then a discount should be offered as surely, to get some money for the land is better than the alternative - that it stays as a patch of nettles Dont think the club will achieve a discount of £19500 though lol
|
|
|
Post by jdl on May 11, 2018 19:54:20 GMT
Someone (DaveU?) said there was a planning clause relating to the land the stadium is built on restricting its use to recreation. I think there's something in this, otherwise we would never have got hold of it, as it would have been flats well before 2010.
If this is so, it's makes the council's 'valuation' look even sillier.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on May 11, 2018 20:10:27 GMT
Can't help thinking the council are being very short sighted. Presumably, the club pay rates, council tax, etc like everyone else, so let the club have the land cheaply, so they can do something with it and then get it back later through local taxes. Or is that too simple??
|
|
|
Post by nws on May 11, 2018 20:16:05 GMT
It is always reduced to money and greedy grabbing. Can this idiotic council not grasp the concept that MUFC is providing something that encourages young people to enjoy a healthy day out and potentially play more sport. It is also a great recreational service that puts a little pride back into the town (which let's face it has been diminished by silliness such as flowery sheep and totem poles over the years). If they think it adds nothing to their business rates then they might want to consider that some businesses may be kept afloat by Stones fans buying things.
I'm sorry but we are told to be nice to the councillors because we need to work with them and form a partnership. The trouble is that all they do is put obstacles in the way to try and prevent us doing things and want money all the time. They are greedy, self-serving useless bureaucrats without whom we would all be better off. Other councils are helping their clubs. If it is Liberal councillors then next election let us put a candidate in against them. Get shot of them. Pathetic dross and I really hope I get to meet one so I can inform him/her what I think of them.
|
|
|
Post by nws on May 11, 2018 20:19:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on May 11, 2018 21:00:48 GMT
The council elections were last Thursday - pressure applied now is a bit ------er late.
|
|
|
Post by soulstone on May 12, 2018 7:13:26 GMT
If all fans stopped paying their council tax for a month and gave the money to the club to buy the land we would solve the problem.
|
|
|
Post by nws on May 12, 2018 7:19:34 GMT
The council elections were last Thursday - pressure applied now is a bit ------er late. I know...its a bummer on that front. However, we must find a way. Complain, use anything we can to be a thorn in their side and make sure we get vocal about the people that stand in our way. It would be good if we could get hold of their expenses bills etc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 7:31:17 GMT
There should have been a compromise. The club reckon it's only worth 500 quid and the council want £20K, well it is public land and so the council have an obligation to get something like a decent price. I am sure if they'd asked, for arguments sake, 3K the club probably would have gone with it. I suspect a compromise along those lines will eventually be reached, but the process should not be like pulling teeth.
|
|
|
Post by pieman1982 on May 12, 2018 7:34:30 GMT
nws it’s called a freedom of information act application, it should cost £10 and within a month they have to provide expenses etc.. May well be worth the tenner just for s—ts and giggles 🤔
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on May 12, 2018 7:40:48 GMT
There should have been a compromise. The club reckon it's only worth 500 quid and the council want £20K, well it is public land and so the council have an obligation to get something like a decent price. I am sure if they'd asked, for arguments sake, 3K the club probably would have gone with it. I suspect a compromise along those lines will eventually be reached, but the process should not be like pulling teeth. Council has fallen into the classic public sector procurement trap..they know the price of everything but the value of nothing. MBC have plenty of form over the last 30 years hindering Maidstone United so we should not be surprised. They should look at what Dartford, Medway and even Tonbridge & Malling councils have done for their clubs and hold their collective heads in shame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 8:24:31 GMT
There should have been a compromise. The club reckon it's only worth 500 quid and the council want £20K, well it is public land and so the council have an obligation to get something like a decent price. I am sure if they'd asked, for arguments sake, 3K the club probably would have gone with it. I suspect a compromise along those lines will eventually be reached, but the process should not be like pulling teeth. Council has fallen into the classic public sector procurement trap..they know the price of everything but the value of nothing. MBC have plenty of form over the last 30 years hindering Maidstone United so we should not be surprised. They should look at what Dartford, Medway and even Tonbridge & Malling councils have done for their clubs and hold their collective heads in shame. They probably valued it using some old and dusty 'per square metre' formula instead of making an objective valuation based on what the land actually is, and its usefulness to the public. This really comes down to an overdose of bureaucracy that generally leads to a complete lack of common-sense and flexibility. Rules are rules, the council will have their valuation systems and they must be adhered to etc. etc. Tedious, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by gromley on May 13, 2018 20:46:01 GMT
The council elections were last Thursday - pressure applied now is a bit ------er late. I disagree.
My experience has always been that (most) Borough Councillors are very receptive to the views of their voters. (This doesn't mean that they will always agree with you).
They are not "on the gravy train like MPs" (which itself is a total misrepresentation) - they are by and large local people who believe in their local community (which again does not always mean they will agree with your views on the same).
As I understand it, the original decision NOT to sell the land was based on the opinions of the employed officers. Councillors, probably tend to defer to the views of the 'experts' they employ, but some councillors (including one of mine) chose to challenge this decision otherwise we would not have got this far with the discussion.
When 'our' plans a thwarted it is tempting to think that this is "MBC" once again failing to recognise the value of the stones, but I really don't think so. "MBC" does not really exist in the context of these votes, it is individual councillors expressing their views. Whilst there may be some in "totally safe" wards who only want to spread their own prejudices (probably shared by their recumbent electorate); the majority actually want to represent their communities (and some feel the fear if they do not); so I would say that most councillors WILL take on board the views of their elctorate. If you RANT at them they will ignore you, but if you give a calm statement of your views, they WILL engage.
I do not really know the land valuation issues, but I am totally confident (more probably than Terry!) that they can be resolved amicably - When the "grown ups" get to talk to each other, **The only bad deal is no deal** {COMMENT INTENDED FOR THIS TOPIC ONLY}
|
|
|
Post by daveu on May 14, 2018 8:01:17 GMT
Someone (DaveU?) said there was a planning clause relating to the land the stadium is built on restricting its use to recreation. I think there's something in this, otherwise we would never have got hold of it, as it would have been flats well before 2010. If this is so, it's makes the council's 'valuation' look even sillier. There is a covenant on the land stating that it must be used for sporting activities but such covenants have been overturned before. Clearly MBC doesn't want to overturn that covenant otherwise why be so protective of a strip of land bordering the towpath, but if enough financial pressures or inducements are brought to bear it's not unknown for councils to cave in on such matters.
|
|