ShotsTrust Letter to Rushmoor Borough Council

[chimpster99]

The formation of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), in this case ATFCRL, is standard practice for a project of this nature. It ringfences the project risks away from the operating club and prevents the club being exposed to tax liabilities, cashflow pinches and any debts arising from the project. It would also be standard to have some different directors in the SPV as the project won’t happen without these external investors. All perfectly sensible and responsible in my view.

From the football club perspective, I’m with the Trust in having the lease applied to ATFC and not the SPV. I fear this has stalled the project however, as the investors in the SPV are now no longer legally linked to the head lease which will control the residential and hotel elements of the project. If nothing else it’s added layers of legal work which will slow things down.

The delays must surely be linked to COVID as well. Current conditions are not conducive to starting new property developments and the finances of ATFC are uncertain without fans in the ground. If I was an investor I would be waiting for the storm clouds to blow over before thinking of putting a spade in the ground.

My biggest concern right now if that we haven’t seen proper proposal drawings yet, which suggests that the project is miles away from starting. As far as supporter consultation goes, the club should be tabling thought-out designs based on site/cost constraints and not just asking fans for a list of ‘nice to haves’ as otherwise the whole exercise will end up in a slanging match. A quick read of this forum demonstrates how uncertainty leads to adversity amongst Shots fans!

[WTF]

The formation of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), in this case ATFCRL, is standard practice for a project of this nature. It ringfences the project risks away from the operating club and prevents the club being exposed to tax liabilities, cashflow pinches and any debts arising from the project. It would also be standard to have some different directors in the SPV as the project won’t happen without these external investors. All perfectly sensible and responsible in my view.

From the football club perspective, I’m with the Trust in having the lease applied to ATFC and not the SPV. I fear this has stalled the project however, as the investors in the SPV are now no longer legally linked to the head lease which will control the residential and hotel elements of the project. If nothing else it’s added layers of legal work which will slow things down.

The delays must surely be linked to COVID as well. Current conditions are not conducive to starting new property developments and the finances of ATFC are uncertain without fans in the ground. If I was an investor I would be waiting for the storm clouds to blow over before thinking of putting a spade in the ground.

My biggest concern right now if that we haven’t seen proper proposal drawings yet, which suggests that the project is miles away from starting. As far as supporter consultation goes, the club should be tabling thought-out designs based on site/cost constraints and not just asking fans for a list of ‘nice to haves’ as otherwise the whole exercise will end up in a slanging match. A quick read of this forum demonstrates how uncertainty leads to adversity amongst Shots fans!

Good post Chimpster, I think the Trust are right to query the lease and it being applied to ATFC, to protect the Club going forward.

[IanShots]

[Is there a need for a convenant ? All the talk is about ground redevelopment- updating what we already have. Also, if the BOD was attempting to get the ground redeveloped without a football ground included, I very much doubt RBC would let that happen./quote]

There is no doubt both BOD and RBC had set up the lease around the football club, but no issue with there being a convenant being inserted.

As for the actual development company being different to say only ATFC, if you look at just about every new stadium developments, it is usually done by a different team of investors to that of just a football club. The folk who invest the cash in the development are the ones taking biggest risk, and will only naturally want to see a return on their investment. Do you think Spurs Football Club own their own ground?

The Club, when stadium built, will have a base to play football and earn monies to invest in its future from off field opportunities. I don’t think we can ask more.

Going back to The Trust, midweek show answered most regarding the rift. The bad feeling is clear, damage done and things said will not fix with current parties and personnel being near same. The club has affiliated itself with the newer Supporters Club all officially in place, so still see the need to embrace us fans.

But I’m sure The Trust will continue with their own agenda.

I think you made the key point above in that the people need to change if the Trust want to go forwards and work with the club in any positive way. If you have the best interests of the club at heart then having walked away from the board you should leave the role in its entirety. If that happened and there was fresh new leadership preferably with someone with a long history of supporting the club then perhaps people could pull together?

[15-4-08]

Read letter several times.

Already stated my thoughts on Trust, so may be me, but letter still comes across as aloof. It was our current BOD and Chairman that worked socks off with RBC to get 188 year lease and at no time do the Trust seem to acknowledge this (I may have missed). There is so clearly people on The Trust that our current BOD do not wish to work alongside, no point keep dragging up the why's and where fors.

Unless Moses returns to part the seas or Prince Boris Van Arkinnwright steps in with the odd billion things are what they are.

Still begs two questions though Jim, both of which I find troubling.

Why did the Board want a lease without a covenant built in?
Why was the redevelopment to be run by a separate company rather than the football club?

I have my thoughts on this, but will await further updates from the BoD before my mind is put to rest.

Is there a need for a convenant ? All the talk is about ground redevelopment- updating what we already have. Also, if the BOD was attempting to get the ground redeveloped without a football ground included, I very much doubt RBC would let that happen.

On the second point, the redevelopment would need a totally different management team, I very much doubt the board of the football club have any idea or experience in construction, so having a separate board to oversee it, seems logical to me.

The good Dr is right when he says the trust come across a bit aloof in all this, what exactly can they bring to the table to assist ? Especially as Shaheed has stated tonight, it was the trust that left the table..No one forced them.

Is there a need for a covenant? Really? So, you’re happy that Shahid and co hadn’t been wise enough to put in a covenant to prevent the ground being sold off?! GOOD GRIEF?! Can that man do no wrong?!

[15-4-08]

Read letter several times.

Already stated my thoughts on Trust, so may be me, but letter still comes across as aloof. It was our current BOD and Chairman that worked socks off with RBC to get 188 year lease and at no time do the Trust seem to acknowledge this (I may have missed). There is so clearly people on The Trust that our current BOD do not wish to work alongside, no point keep dragging up the why's and where fors.

Unless Moses returns to part the seas or Prince Boris Van Arkinnwright steps in with the odd billion things are what they are.

Still begs two questions though Jim, both of which I find troubling.

Why did the Board want a lease without a covenant built in?
Why was the redevelopment to be run by a separate company rather than the football club?

I have my thoughts on this, but will await further updates from the BoD before my mind is put to rest.

Please give us your thoughts rather than tease us. You’ll probably find a lot of us will agree with you.

[15-4-08]

Still begs two questions though Jim, both of which I find troubling.

Why did the Board want a lease without a covenant built in?
Why was the redevelopment to be run by a separate company rather than the football club?

I have my thoughts on this, but will await further updates from the BoD before my mind is put to rest.

Is there a need for a convenant ? All the talk is about ground redevelopment- updating what we already have. Also, if the BOD was attempting to get the ground redeveloped without a football ground included, I very much doubt RBC would let that happen.

On the second point, the redevelopment would need a totally different management team, I very much doubt the board of the football club have any idea or experience in construction, so having a separate board to oversee it, seems logical to me.

The good Dr is right when he says the trust come across a bit aloof in all this, what exactly can they bring to the table to assist ? Especially as Shaheed has stated tonight, it was the trust that left the table..No one forced them.

The need for a covenant is to protect the football club from having the ground sold from under it. The redevelopment hasn’t started yet, what’s to stop the lease being sold to a developer once the lease is signed and before work commences?

As to your second point, look at the make up of the two company boards. ATFCL (the club) is made up of Shahid,a couple of property developers and a solicitor acting for an unknown investor. ATFCRL (the development company) is made up of Shahid, two builders and the owner of Spedeworth.

Read into that what you will.

^Absolutely this

[15-4-08]

[Is there a need for a convenant ? All the talk is about ground redevelopment- updating what we already have. Also, if the BOD was attempting to get the ground redeveloped without a football ground included, I very much doubt RBC would let that happen./quote]

There is no doubt both BOD and RBC had set up the lease around the football club, but no issue with there being a convenant being inserted.

As for the actual development company being different to say only ATFC, if you look at just about every new stadium developments, it is usually done by a different team of investors to that of just a football club. The folk who invest the cash in the development are the ones taking biggest risk, and will only naturally want to see a return on their investment. Do you think Spurs Football Club own their own ground?

The Club, when stadium built, will have a base to play football and earn monies to invest in its future from off field opportunities. I don’t think we can ask more.

Going back to The Trust, midweek show answered most regarding the rift. The bad feeling is clear, damage done and things said will not fix with current parties and personnel being near same. The club has affiliated itself with the newer Supporters Club all officially in place, so still see the need to embrace us fans.

But I’m sure The Trust will continue with their own agenda.

im happy for the trust to continue with their “agenda” if it exposes the incompetence or questionable plans of our board.

Who wouldn’t have a covenant in place? Someone who didn’t have the best interests of the football club in mind, maybe?!

[Richard Petty]

When I decided to come back on Shotsweb it was after deciding that whilst I enjoyed the fun side of it I did not enjoy getting into arguments about how the club is run, what the Trust are doing or other similar contentious issues that led to me leaving Shotsweb over a year ago. So my decision to come back was under my own self-imposed discipline that I would avoid anything that could lead me to falling out with anyone.

However although I am not going to get involved in giving my personal opinion on this particular issue I do feel concerned enough over things I am reading on here that I think it would be useful for others who may be concerned by this if I were to maybe act in this instance as a sort of fact check and to point people in the right direction as to where those facts can be found.

In the Trusts statement they have claimed that they have effected changes in the Lease in particular regarding the addition of a Covenant when the lease was agreed in June 2019, this is puzzling for two reasons. Firstly because according to Council minutes the lease was agreed in May 2019 not June. Secondly Council minutes also indicate that the representations made by Councillor Roberts on the Trusts behalf regarding Covenants and the assigning of the lease were not made until the Cabinet meeting on the 12th November 2019. Further the minutes show that that the Cabinet did not in fact acknowledge those concerns but referred Councillor Roberts back to the terms and conditions already attached to the lease which had previously been agreed between the club and the council to protect the long term future of the football club.

Further the Trust claim that they have ensured that the lease would be assigned to the Football Club not to any other company, again the minutes show that this was raised by Councillor Roberts as part of his presentation and on this he was also referred to the document from May which clearly states that the Lease was to be with Aldershot Town Football Club. There is no mention anywhere of the lease being assigned to anyone else.

As I say I am only fact checking so do have a look for yourselves. Here is the link to the report of that meeting: https://democracy.rushmoor.gov.uk/ieLis ... 38&MId=685 The item relating to the club is item 58.

Here for those that want to read it is the report that the Cabinet referred Councillor Roberts to
https://democracy.rushmoor.gov.uk/docum ... RP1925.pdf

It does seem that the Trust not knowing the details of the lease may very well have raised the questions but it seems also clear that the council and the football club had quite rightly already ensured in May 2019 six months prior to the Trusts representations that the lease was going to be with the football club and that any future development would be for the benefit of the football club and that safeguards were already clearly in place to ensure that remained the case. If that is the case which the minutes seem to indicate then can they really claim credit for something that had already been done.

[Dr Jim Royle]

I think Mr Petty has again shown us all again, a little bit of wisdom goes a long way. Many thanks for more clarity.

Hopefully this will assist a few folk go to sleep tonight and try to see a little bit more good in folk who seem to be the brunt of unnecessary attacks regarding the running of the Club.

By the way, FANTASTIC RESULT TODAY

COYS

[bordon shot]

When I decided to come back on Shotsweb it was after deciding that whilst I enjoyed the fun side of it I did not enjoy getting into arguments about how the club is run, what the Trust are doing or other similar contentious issues that led to me leaving Shotsweb over a year ago. So my decision to come back was under my own self-imposed discipline that I would avoid anything that could lead me to falling out with anyone.

However although I am not going to get involved in giving my personal opinion on this particular issue I do feel concerned enough over things I am reading on here that I think it would be useful for others who may be concerned by this if I were to maybe act in this instance as a sort of fact check and to point people in the right direction as to where those facts can be found.

In the Trusts statement they have claimed that they have effected changes in the Lease in particular regarding the addition of a Covenant when the lease was agreed in June 2019, this is puzzling for two reasons. Firstly because according to Council minutes the lease was agreed in May 2019 not June. Secondly Council minutes also indicate that the representations made by Councillor Roberts on the Trusts behalf regarding Covenants and the assigning of the lease were not made until the Cabinet meeting on the 12th November 2019. Further the minutes show that that the Cabinet did not in fact acknowledge those concerns but referred Councillor Roberts back to the terms and conditions already attached to the lease which had previously been agreed between the club and the council to protect the long term future of the football club.

Further the Trust claim that they have ensured that the lease would be assigned to the Football Club not to any other company, again the minutes show that this was raised by Councillor Roberts as part of his presentation and on this he was also referred to the document from May which clearly states that the Lease was to be with Aldershot Town Football Club. There is no mention anywhere of the lease being assigned to anyone else.

As I say I am only fact checking so do have a look for yourselves. Here is the link to the report of that meeting: https://democracy.rushmoor.gov.uk/ieLis ... 38&MId=685 The item relating to the club is item 58.

Here for those that want to read it is the report that the Cabinet referred Councillor Roberts to
https://democracy.rushmoor.gov.uk/docum ... RP1925.pdf

It does seem that the Trust not knowing the details of the lease may very well have raised the questions but it seems also clear that the council and the football club had quite rightly already ensured in May 2019 six months prior to the Trusts representations that the lease was going to be with the football club and that any future development would be for the benefit of the football club and that safeguards were already clearly in place to ensure that remained the case. If that is the case which the minutes seem to indicate then can they really claim credit for something that had already been done.

Very good post Richard, thank you for putting some clarity into this thread.

[Localshot]

I think Mr Petty has again shown us all again, a little bit of wisdom goes a long way. Many thanks for more clarity.

Hopefully this will assist a few folk go to sleep tonight and try to see a little bit more good in folk who seem to be the brunt of unnecessary attacks regarding the running of the Club.

By the way, FANTASTIC RESULT TODAY

COYS

Unneccessary attacks!! Hope you can sleep well Jim.

Agree on the excellent performance and now let us hope we can enjoy a few matches like this rather than the tuesday performance.

[Dr Jim Royle]

Unnecessary attacks!! Hope you can sleep well Jim.

We are gonna have to stop meeting like this Localshot !!

Some clarity has been highlighted to ALL of us thanks to RP, an education to ALL me thinks (inc me). So yes I think certain folk are getting a hard and unjust ride at times. Is that another thing Trust Folk cannot accept or want to accept?

I accept that some Trust members are adamant they know and want what is best, I just happen not to agree with their stance or outlook, thus making me a master criminal in some folks eyes.

As for my sleeping habits ........... whenever I have issues nodding off, I just read a few Trust related posts and I'm off like a light

[ShotOnTarget]

It is crystal clear that the Trust are pursuing their primary remit in doing their best to protect the continuation of football in Aldershot by asking the right questions and giving the steers that are possible within their limited remit to address possible issues.

Well done.

[WTF]

It is crystal clear that the Trust are pursuing their primary remit in doing their best to protect the continuation of football in Aldershot by asking the right questions and giving the steers that are possible within their limited remit to address possible issues.

Well done.

Well said and yes well done the Trust!

[Shots1954]

It is crystal clear that the Trust are pursuing their primary remit in doing their best to protect the continuation of football in Aldershot by asking the right questions and giving the steers that are possible within their limited remit to address possible issues.

Well done.

I think the Trust have every right in asking questions as they are Shareholders who it appears are not getting the answers from the football club direct?