Saracens

[Anthony]

It is the case that Barnet Council spent £1m pursuing. The judge couldn’t have been clearer in his finding that Barnet Holdings had taken advantage of incompetence on the councils part and to the detriment of local council tax payers. Not sure how anyone can pretend that this wasn’t material to the way the Tory council subsequently dealt with the club.

I don’t get how these are”contractual manoeuvrings” though. They signed the contract that was presented to them.

To suggest that the council’s position was affected by this issue you would have to look for some evidence that the were willing to help the club before this incident. The only thing the council did before this incident was to scupper South Underhill. Of course if they were willing to help the club they could have offered this help as leverage to resolving the contract issue - which could have been very lucrative for them.

But they didn’t.

[DerekRocholl]

It is the case that Barnet Council spent £1m pursuing. The judge couldn’t have been clearer in his finding that Barnet Holdings had taken advantage of incompetence on the councils part and to the detriment of local council tax payers. Not sure how anyone can pretend that this wasn’t material to the way the Tory council subsequently dealt with the club.

I don’t get how these are”contractual manoeuvrings” though. They signed the contract that was presented to them.

To suggest that the council’s position was affected by this issue you would have to look for some evidence that the were willing to help the club before this incident. The only thing the council did before this incident was to scupper South Underhill. Of course if they were willing to help the club they could have offered this help as leverage to resolving the contract issue - which could have been very lucrative for them.

But they didn’t.

As a member of the KBA committee and Supporters Trust I discussed this with Tory councillors and the local MP enough times to know that it absolutely did cloud every single aspect of relations with the Club.

I don’t know what you call a party to a contract knowing that the other party has made a mistake in a contract and taking advantage of the mistake but I think “manoeuvring” is probably on the gentle side.

[Anthony]

I wonder what this help from the council would have looked like had the contact issue not have happened. They already weren’t going to help with South Underhill. Did you get any impression of what help they would have offered if they weren’t so affected by the contractual manoeuvrings/signing the contact given to them?

Di you get any impression of the help they would have offered if they weren’t so affect by the contract? it have just been a site outside of the town of Barnet, which would have been against the aims of the group eventually formed to lobby for a return to Barnet (town)

Again, if they were affect by the contract issue, some evidence of willingness to help before it would be the only reliable illustrations that the contract problem actually changed the way how the council behaved. As it was they were against a new stadium before and after the contract issue.

[DerekRocholl]

I wonder what this help from the council would have looked like had the contact issue not have happened. They already weren’t going to help with South Underhill. Did you get any impression of what help they would have offered if they weren’t so affected by the contractual manoeuvrings/signing the contact given to them?

Di you get any impression of the help they would have offered if they weren’t so affect by the contract? it have just been a site outside of the town of Barnet, which would have been against the aims of the group eventually formed to lobby for a return to Barnet (town)

Again, if they were affect by the contract issue, some evidence of willingness to help before it would be the only reliable illustrations that the contract problem actually changed the way how the council behaved. As it was they were against a new stadium before and after the contract issue.

The impression I got was that there was zero chance of Barnet Tories ever really supporting anything other than redevelopment on the existing Underhill footprint in the full knowledge that TK would reject the option. This led to the conclusion that the best chance of Barnet FC ever getting anywhere in Barnet was if the Tories lost control of the council to Labour and or a Lab/Libdem coalition

Had the breakdown in trust between the parties not occurred over the contract issue I suspect TK would have had considerably more joy with the way forward plan for Underhill, Quinta and Stationers. After it, the chances of people like Cornelius, Salinger x 2, Coleman and even Freer giving TK the opportunity to acquire more council owned property were negligible.

[Norfolk & Chance]

It is the case that Barnet Council spent £1m pursuing. The judge couldn’t have been clearer in his finding that Barnet Holdings had taken advantage of incompetence on the councils part and to the detriment of local council tax payers. Not sure how anyone can pretend that this wasn’t material to the way the Tory council subsequently dealt with the club.

I don’t get how these are”contractual manoeuvrings” though. They signed the contract that was presented to them.

To suggest that the council’s position was affected by this issue you would have to look for some evidence that the were willing to help the club before this incident. The only thing the council did before this incident was to scupper South Underhill. Of course if they were willing to help the club they could have offered this help as leverage to resolving the contract issue - which could have been very lucrative for them.

But they didn’t.

As a member of the KBA committee and Supporters Trust I discussed this with Tory councillors and the local MP enough times to know that it absolutely did cloud every single aspect of relations with the Club.

I don’t know what you call a party to a contract knowing that the other party has made a mistake in a contract and taking advantage of the mistake but I think “manoeuvring” is probably on the gentle side.

Interestingly if it was a mistake that lead to one party gaining advantage, had the council pursued this, especially with the benefiting party being aware of the error, then the outcome would most likely have been set aside.
I wonder why the council didn't pursue this course of action?

[Norfolkbee]

Saracens: Barnet Council considered ending £22.9m stadium redevelopment loan - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51538187

[BeesKnees]

Could this go the same way as Northampton?

If love to think so.

[DerekRocholl]

Could this go the same way as Northampton?

If love to think so.

in what way would the resultant disappointment of thousands of Saracens fans benefit anyone connected with Barnet FC ?

[DerekRocholl]

Could this go the same way as Northampton?

If love to think so.

in what way would the resultant disappointment of thousands of Saracens fans benefit anyone connected with Barnet FC ?

[BeesKnees]

Could this go the same way as Northampton?

If love to think so.

in what way would the resultant disappointment of thousands of Saracens fans benefit anyone connected with Barnet FC ?

Not at all, but seeing Tory councillors and the owner of sarries on trial would cheer me up.

[ETBee]

Looks like the council are doing something sensible for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51538187

[BeesKnees]

Looks like the council are doing something sensible for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51538187

Seems like an awful lot of money to lend someone for a 3,000 capacity stand

[hoofer2]

Looks like the council are doing something sensible for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51538187

Seems like an awful lot of money to lend someone for a 3,000 capacity stand

At least they still have the stand @ Bramley Road - back to basics

[#Beebot]

Looks like the council are doing something sensible for a change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51538187

"We're going to give you an extra £19.7m in case it stops you from giving us £3.2m".

Ah, Barnet Council.