|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 16, 2017 10:32:47 GMT
If OUFC as main tenants aren't involved in the basics of these discussions they can't know if this will actually solve long term profitability. But isn't that jumping the gun? THESE discussions are about the acquisition of the stadium - absolutely nothing to do with what the relationship will be between the 'community owners' and the club once it has been acquired. I'm sure the club will (have to) be involved when and if that situation arises. How can OxVox etc let the club know what the terms of them playing at the stadium will be when they haven't bought it, presumably haven't finalised the terms of purchase and cannot even be certain that it will happen at all. Let's not forget - OxVox are supporters! They will be pushing for the club to get the most advantageous terms when/if the stadium changes hands.Quite right! These are points (especially the highlighted) that are often forgotten in the stampede to appoint blame or pick sides.
|
|
|
Post by lambchop on Jan 16, 2017 10:49:08 GMT
Mark, so if I've understood what you are saying, and please forgive me if I haven't, then this is basically DE wanting the club to look more attractive to a new buyer? I hope you are wrong as for the first time in years I actually like the chairman and I think we are on the brink of something special here. .... oh well it's never easy being an OUFC supporter
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Jan 16, 2017 10:57:09 GMT
Difficult not to view the announcement as anything but churlish, despite the huge respect in which the chairman is held for his investment.
Come one, this is due diligence stuff DE!
Day one of exploring the possibility of purchasing this club should have been understanding the implications of owning/not owning/moving
Day two working out a one-, two- three-year plan etc with each of those scenarios
It's toys out of pram stuff now. Particularly as we were told that owning the stadium was not necessary when the takeover was done.
Bit late in the day to hit the panic button. Feasibility into WE should have been done and that ship may have sailed. What an opportunity wasted! (potentially).
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 16, 2017 11:11:33 GMT
Does this start to feel like a Coventry situation? (In terms of ground ownership)?
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Jan 16, 2017 11:12:59 GMT
I wonder why the rush all of a sudden? Yes. They didn't seem in that much of a rush when Mark Sennett came on the radio a year or more ago urging them to do something regarding Water Eaton. Also, if it's that easy, then why haven't they come to a similar agreement themselves in the time they have been here. They haven't come to a similar agreement themselves because as he has stated Kassam doesn't wish to sell to them! As DE has confirmed he has made 3 firm bids in that time one of which is still on the table.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 16, 2017 11:14:21 GMT
Yes. They didn't seem in that much of a rush when Mark Sennett came on the radio a year or more ago urging them to do something regarding Water Eaton. Also, if it's that easy, then why haven't they come to a similar agreement themselves in the time they have been here. They haven't come to a similar agreement themselves because as he has stated Kassam doesn't wish to sell to them! As DE has confirmed he has made 3 firm bids in that time one of which is still on the table. But you could also say he could have found that out Day one before buying the club if he had enquired to fk
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Jan 16, 2017 11:14:23 GMT
I don't get the idea of Eales releasing statements as some sort of sign that he is going, couldn't he just keep schtum and sell the club anyway? How does it help him get shot of the club?
It's one of the stranger things to go on at the club, and with Oxford United that is saying something.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Jan 16, 2017 11:16:25 GMT
Yes. They didn't seem in that much of a rush when Mark Sennett came on the radio a year or more ago urging them to do something regarding Water Eaton. Also, if it's that easy, then why haven't they come to a similar agreement themselves in the time they have been here. They haven't come to a similar agreement themselves because as he has stated Kassam doesn't wish to sell to them!As DE has confirmed he has made 3 firm bids in that time one of which is still on the table. Yes, but how long ago did Kassam state he wouldn't sell to an individual? I can't remember, but Mr Eales must have had plenty of time before that statement to seek an agreement?
|
|
|
Post by lambchop on Jan 16, 2017 11:57:30 GMT
I just get the feeling that Ka$$am is sitting back in his chair (maybe stroking a white cat) laughing his bollox off at the situation and enjoying being the puppet master.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Jan 16, 2017 11:59:37 GMT
I'm very disappointed to read the statement from the club today especially in the wake of a very friendly and professional statement from OxVox last week. Some things in today's statement don't seem to make sense to me. Firstly I've been around various owners of this club and others to know that it's impossible to budget for next season in January 2017. There's far too many unknowns, for example: 1) we could be playing in championship, league one or league 2 2) we have no idea what cup revenue we could still make 3) potential player sales 4) heck even the economy needs to be taken into account ref new ST prices etc. So the football club simply wouldn't be able to put budgets for 2017/18 season into place now. The clear underlying tone is that without a heads of terms agreement then the current level of investment can't be continued. Well, a couple of points on this. Heads of Terms agreement doesn't guarantee anything. It's a non-legal statement of intent and does not guarantee a sale as Jem so rightly said. And it certainly will not say what the financial implications of the deal are for the club. So why is the club pressing for heads of terms, rather than asking what the terms of a completed deal would be? The Heads of Terms have (quite literally) nothing to do with the club.
Ever since DE came to OUFC – when I was still chairman of OxVox - the club has been very outspoken about a stadium deal not being a necessity, despite OxVox and others arguing the contrary. Even at the start of this season, when embarking on this budget, the club made no murmurs about the vital nature of a stadium deal. If it was (that crucial) then they should have set a lower playing budget. So why is it suddenly so urgent now? Cup runs and attendances are great and the budget has been set for this season, which with player sales too (we were told that COD was only sold because he wanted to go, not because we needed to sell him) should mean we will perform better than budgeted at this rate. Furthermore if this deal is so easy to conclude then why hasn't Eales himself done it already? It's become apparent that Kassam doesn't want to deal with Eales (something that darryls quotes at Xmas confirmed). I can tell you for a fact that Firoz Kassam's always stayed the same in his view his preference is to sell to the fans/community but any individual that offers a certain asking price would have an offer accepted. Kassam had no problem selling to IL if the numbers worked but he won't sell to Eales as it's clearly personal and that's due to the fact the two parties are in arbitration!!! How can eales expect to be directly involved in negotiations when he's involved in a hefty legal fight with Kassam? How can OxVox bring him in to negotiations in this scenario? OxVox are trying to broker a deal for the benefit of the club. The club has been kept completely informed so what more can they do? They either try and do a community bid that will help the club but at this stage not directly involve the club...or they do nothing and the chance to do a stadium deal evaporates as the club can't get it done! OxVox will be here long after any club owner and they will always have the interests of the club at heart whereas understandably an owner will often have to put his own immediate business interests first. For me timing is the key thing: Any heads of terms now would not or directly affect things right now as it's not a guaranteed sale. But it would be a great element of a sales story for an owner who is openly questioning his own continued involvement. It's not a surprise really that this is happening in January, which is a period where we could sell players to raise cash if he is unable to sell the club for the right price. It seems to me that – unlike what he has suggested in numerous fans fora to date - this all suggests Eales can't continue to fund the club in its current situation much longer (as the statement hints) and there may well now be player sales to help him fund things. But if that is the case, none of this is OxVox's fault! They are doing a great job in being the only party capable of pushing this forwards at this point. The criticism they've received is grossly unfair and unhelpful by the club and in truth I have no idea how that statement could possible be considered helpful to things moving forwards. Sadly in my opinion this all feels like part of an exit strategy, which could have really damaging effects on the long term future of the club we all love. Some very interesting points there Mark. On the highlighted bits. Any heads of terms now would not or directly affect things right now as it's not a guaranteed sale. But it would be a great element of a sales story for an owner who is openly questioning his own continued involvement. and The Heads of Terms have (quite literally) nothing to do with the club.
If the heads of terms would have no effect on budgeting for next season (because as you rightly say it's not a guaranteed sale) why would it have an effect for the owner trying to sell the club (because any potential buyer would say the same - it's not a guaranteed sale). How can it be irrelevant for budgeting for the current owners and yet relevant for a potential sale of the club? If it's nothing to do with the club now, then surely that's the same for any potential new owner in the future?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Sennett on Jan 16, 2017 12:01:24 GMT
Mark, so if I've understood what you are saying, and please forgive me if I haven't, then this is basically DE wanting the club to look more attractive to a new buyer? I hope you are wrong as for the first time in years I actually like the chairman and I think we are on the brink of something special here. .... oh well it's never easy being an OUFC supporter That would be one explanation for today's statement
|
|
|
Post by lambchop on Jan 16, 2017 12:20:18 GMT
I really hope that DE and OxVox are students of Sun Tzu
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 16, 2017 12:20:28 GMT
Mark, so if I've understood what you are saying, and please forgive me if I haven't, then this is basically DE wanting the club to look more attractive to a new buyer? I hope you are wrong as for the first time in years I actually like the chairman and I think we are on the brink of something special here. .... oh well it's never easy being an OUFC supporter That would be one explanation for today's statement Or perhaps getting some certainty ironed out over the stadium situation for a potential buyer or the current owner. Is it ten years to go on the licence ? If the one signed by Nick Merry is still in place? Would you buy the club without the ground? or under the current license agreement? Or buy the club with a community owned ground? What if the corners are going to be filled in with flats for instance? Or if you would only get match day ancillary revenue? It's been said many times that the current club/ stadium isn't sustainable for Championship level football.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 16, 2017 12:30:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jan 16, 2017 13:11:12 GMT
What is the point of the heads of terms if it carries no legal weight? If its just an informal agreement to negotiate, what is that worth? Why lose time negotiating the heads of terms when you could move straight on to the sale agreement?
Im very disappointed with the club's statement and I feel for Oxvox who must feel like they are being scapegoated by the club which isn't helpful.
But in amongst the politics is a valid point. The timescales mooted do look painful. Another ~4 months for the heads of terms, then who knows how long until the actual sale...if the HoT takes 6 months then the sale agreement could take considerably longer...plenty of time for Firoz to change his mind. By which point we may not have the time to go elsewhere before the lease is up...and Firoz wins again.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 16, 2017 13:18:56 GMT
But we could have started looking to move elsewhere at any point? We still can. The club could be/should be looking at that anyway, with out trying to force though a deal, that when started they didn't think was necessary.
They might see it as a clever move trying to force fk's hand, but I would say there is more of a chance it will either make him string it out longer or pull out, meaning the club have just screwed the only real chance oufc has had of owing its stadium in 15years
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jan 16, 2017 13:28:14 GMT
Let's be clear. The Board released this statement. So while DE is the majority owner, clearly the board felt the need to say something as a group. I do wish that the vective was turned down a notch or two though as I can't see anything constructive coming out of it.
Perhaps the statement is a follow on from DEs lets all meet call?
An open question for my own ignorance. Is there a usual time for heads of terms to be agreed?
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Jan 16, 2017 13:44:28 GMT
Let's be clear. The Board released this statement. So while DE is the majority owner, clearly the board felt the need to say something as a group. I do wish that the vective was turned down a notch or two though as I can't see anything constructive coming out of it. Perhaps the statement is a follow on from DEs lets all meet call? An open question for my own ignorance. Is there a usual time for heads of terms to be agreed? Is this the same board who voted yes to the EPL fiasco despite DE apparently saying no. Who's wagging who? First flagate, then the steward situation, then the statement about the council which was vigorously rebuffed, then the statement about Oxvox again countered with facts, now this and the timing, it really doesn't add up where all this is going. Is it the board or DE that's driving these situations, because being a fan looking in it doesn't look like a healthy situation.
|
|
|
Post by oxvox on Jan 16, 2017 13:46:35 GMT
Just a note to say we appreciate the sensible, reasoned and kind comments offered on this forum and Twitter this morning. We'll try and refrain from making any comments until we've spoken as a committee in the coming day(s) and no doubt, will be in touch with members later this week.
Would like to add, we've only ever dealt in "factual information" and for anyone to elude to our statements of late as being untruthful or contradictory to what other stakeholders have said is highly disrespectful. We are an Independent Supporters Trust and we'll continue to act with dignity and professionalism.
Regards Simon & Jem (on behalf of the OxVox Committee)
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Jan 16, 2017 14:03:39 GMT
Let's be clear. The Board released this statement. So while DE is the majority owner, clearly the board felt the need to say something as a group. I do wish that the vective was turned down a notch or two though as I can't see anything constructive coming out of it. Perhaps the statement is a follow on from DEs lets all meet call? An open question for my own ignorance. Is there a usual time for heads of terms to be agreed? Is this the same board who voted yes to the EPL fiasco despite DE apparently saying no. Who's wagging who? First flagate, then the steward situation, then the statement about the council which was vigorously rebuffed, then the statement about Oxvox again countered with facts, now this and the timing, it really doesn't add up where all this is going. Is it the board or DE that's driving these situations, because being a fan looking in it doesn't look like a healthy situation. Same board with a different composition. It all depends on how they run the company - FK/IL style as a sole leader, or as a group. Can't say I entirely get the histrionics and perhaps a softer launch of the release may have gone over better. it just feels like the club need to take more time and take a less is more view of content on releases. Clearly people in the club are peed off with something. What we don't know is the private conversations and arbitration issues that are going on between FK and the club. That may well be the missing dot in the drawing for the sudden change in attitude and tone.
|
|
|
Post by Long John Silver on Jan 16, 2017 14:40:40 GMT
Is this the same board who voted yes to the EPL fiasco despite DE apparently saying no. Who's wagging who? First flagate, then the steward situation, then the statement about the council which was vigorously rebuffed, then the statement about Oxvox again countered with facts, now this and the timing, it really doesn't add up where all this is going. Is it the board or DE that's driving these situations, because being a fan looking in it doesn't look like a healthy situation. Same board with a different composition. It all depends on how they run the company - FK/IL style as a sole leader, or as a group. Can't say I entirely get the histrionics and perhaps a softer launch of the release may have gone over better. it just feels like the club need to take more time and take a less is more view of content on releases. Clearly people in the club are peed off with something. What we don't know is the private conversations and arbitration issues that are going on between FK and the club. That may well be the missing dot in the drawing for the sudden change in attitude and tone. I'm still not sure who this press release is actually aimed at, or what they hoped to achieve by it.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Jan 16, 2017 14:53:42 GMT
Yet again there is all the "need" for "instant answers". Whilst discussions etc can take place on Forums/Twitter/FB et al its not how business works. Folk need to take a step back, take a chill pill, and think before posting completely unsubstantiated bollox.
DE & FK are in a difficult situation re:arbitration and one will definitely not go out of his way to assist the other because of. I`ve said it before, talk to DE he listens, engages and understands but he can`t give answers to things that are at the behest of others. Neither can OxVox/FK/The Councils etc etc etc.
OxVox are doing a great job and are as close to the "top table" as they have ever been which people seem to forget. Imagine having a fans representative(s) on the board utilising the financial "weight" and business acumen of the fanbase?
|
|
|
Post by mdh on Jan 16, 2017 15:03:38 GMT
How long is left on the lease with Kassam, this must have a bearing on discussions ? Does anyone know ?
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Jan 16, 2017 15:07:05 GMT
Yet again there is all the "need" for "instant answers". Whilst discussions etc can take place on Forums/Twitter/FB et al its not how business works. Folk need to take a step back, take a chill pill, and think before posting completely unsubstantiated bollox. DE & FK are in a difficult situation re:arbitration and one will definitely not go out of his way to assist the other because of. I`ve said it before, talk to DE he listens, engages and understands but he can`t give answers to things that are at the behest of others. Neither can OxVox/FK/The Councils etc etc etc. OxVox are doing a great job and are as close to the "top table" as they have ever been which people seem to forget. Imagine having a fans representative(s) on the board utilising the financial "weight" and business acumen of the fanbase? Isn't that what the club have done releasing this statement though ? Need for instant answers, not how business works ?
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jan 16, 2017 15:18:49 GMT
There should be no reason why a Heads of Terms cannot be agreed within a couple of weeks, so this should have been completed months ago.
The Heads is only an outline agreement and statement of intent, so does not require much in the way of detail. What is being sold, sale price, parties to the agreement and possibly outline timescales and finance. Anything beyond that is for the final contract. It is very rare for Heads to take this long and for Jem to say he wants Heads by the end of the season is well beyond a reasonable timeframe. If he was saying final contracts by the end of the season, that would make sense, but not Heads.
So there has to be a fair bit of sympathy for the board of directors on this.
As regards impact on investment by DE, knowing whether the club has a sustainable finance framework for Championship (or even continued League 1) football, through access to non footballing revenues is clearly going to be very important to know whether and how much to invest in this transfer window, and indeed in the summer. These are decisions whether to push the club forwards or to settle for mediocrity and if I were investing my millions (haha) I would want to know that it was sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by headingtonutd on Jan 16, 2017 15:35:13 GMT
Same board with a different composition. It all depends on how they run the company - FK/IL style as a sole leader, or as a group. Can't say I entirely get the histrionics and perhaps a softer launch of the release may have gone over better. it just feels like the club need to take more time and take a less is more view of content on releases. Clearly people in the club are peed off with something. What we don't know is the private conversations and arbitration issues that are going on between FK and the club. That may well be the missing dot in the drawing for the sudden change in attitude and tone. I'm still not sure who this press release is actually aimed at, or what they hoped to achieve by it. Join the club!
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Jan 16, 2017 17:18:51 GMT
There should be no reason why a Heads of Terms cannot be agreed within a couple of weeks, so this should have been completed months ago. The Heads is only an outline agreement and statement of intent, so does not require much in the way of detail. What is being sold, sale price, parties to the agreement and possibly outline timescales and finance. Anything beyond that is for the final contract. It is very rare for Heads to take this long and for Jem to say he wants Heads by the end of the season is well beyond a reasonable timeframe. If he was saying final contracts by the end of the season, that would make sense, but not Heads. So there has to be a fair bit of sympathy for the board of directors on this. As regards impact on investment by DE, knowing whether the club has a sustainable finance framework for Championship (or even continued League 1) football, through access to non footballing revenues is clearly going to be very important to know whether and how much to invest in this transfer window, and indeed in the summer. These are decisions whether to push the club forwards or to settle for mediocrity and if I were investing my millions (haha) I would want to know that it was sustainable. That is a quite ludicrous thing to say, Terry. Some HoT would take a decade or so to get to (Irish Peace process!) and others could be done over a lunch!!! Given who the parties involved here are EXTRA OxVox, we simply cannot know how long it 'should' take. But let us remember that the OC is a public body. Once it signs up to something, even in non-legal terms, t opens itself straight up to public criticism and possible defenestration. As for FK, he has his complex tax web to consider, inheritance tax, the planning process with and without RTB, and whether he might be better to sit still and wait. In short, this is complex stuff. Just imagine, for a moment, that this is a deal whose moving parts include the OCC both dealing with FK on a planning issue, SODC on a parking issue, OxVox on a funding issue and local residents on amenities for increased housing. Imagine, in these circs, that the OCC says to OxVox, 'I'm sorry, but we are not going to get all the necessary Buy-In for this before the summer, but we are moving forwards with it. In he meantime, you cannot say a word about any of it, because we do not want to answer various vested interests before we have all our ducks in a row." Is that then a HoT which OxVox can force thru in a few days, or even two months? All they would be able to do is sit tight, and ask people for patience. Patience, by the way, which - after all these years - is hardly indefinite, but a few months. Just imagine how excited we'd all have been last year if someone - anyone! - had said, out of the blue, "Oh by the way, we should get the stadium situation sorted by June 2017". We'd have been jumping up and down in glee and crossing our fingers that the dream didn't suddenly end.
|
|
|
Post by godalmingyellow on Jan 16, 2017 17:57:15 GMT
There should be no reason why a Heads of Terms cannot be agreed within a couple of weeks, so this should have been completed months ago. The Heads is only an outline agreement and statement of intent, so does not require much in the way of detail. What is being sold, sale price, parties to the agreement and possibly outline timescales and finance. Anything beyond that is for the final contract. It is very rare for Heads to take this long and for Jem to say he wants Heads by the end of the season is well beyond a reasonable timeframe. If he was saying final contracts by the end of the season, that would make sense, but not Heads. So there has to be a fair bit of sympathy for the board of directors on this. As regards impact on investment by DE, knowing whether the club has a sustainable finance framework for Championship (or even continued League 1) football, through access to non footballing revenues is clearly going to be very important to know whether and how much to invest in this transfer window, and indeed in the summer. These are decisions whether to push the club forwards or to settle for mediocrity and if I were investing my millions (haha) I would want to know that it was sustainable. That is a quite ludicrous thing to say, Terry. Some HoT would take a decade or so to get to (Irish Peace process!) and others could be done over a lunch!!! Given who the parties involved here are EXTRA OxVox, we simply cannot know how long it 'should' take. But let us remember that the OC is a public body. Once it signs up to something, even in non-legal terms, t opens itself straight up to public criticism and possible defenestration. As for FK, he has his complex tax web to consider, inheritance tax, the planning process with and without RTB, and whether he might be better to sit still and wait. In short, this is complex stuff. Just imagine, for a moment, that this is a deal whose moving parts include the OCC both dealing with FK on a planning issue, SODC on a parking issue, OxVox on a funding issue and local residents on amenities for increased housing. Imagine, in these circs, that the OCC says to OxVox, 'I'm sorry, but we are not going to get all the necessary Buy-In for this before the summer, but we are moving forwards with it. In he meantime, you cannot say a word about any of it, because we do not want to answer various vested interests before we have all our ducks in a row." Is that then a HoT which OxVox can force thru in a few days, or even two months? All they would be able to do is sit tight, and ask people for patience. Patience, by the way, which - after all these years - is hardly indefinite, but a few months. Just imagine how excited we'd all have been last year if someone - anyone! - had said, out of the blue, "Oh by the way, we should get the stadium situation sorted by June 2017". We'd have been jumping up and down in glee and crossing our fingers that the dream didn't suddenly end. Its not ludicrous at all, and comparison of purchase of KasStad to the Irish Peace Process is bizarre if I'm being polite. All we are talking about here is a property deal. Its really not that complicated. OCC would only be party to a HoT if they were purchasing an interest in the stadium, otherwise the HoT is none of their business. Any grants or government funds would not be party to the HoT either, nor would any of Kassam's tax affairs (especially not inheritance tax). Those are all outwith any contract. I don't want to sound patronising at all, but by your response, I'm not sure you understand what a Heads of Terms is. An HoT is only a statement of intent. It is not legally binding, and there is no requirement for exchange of funds. It is only a formal expression of outline basic intent and agreement between parties to a potential contract. It would be OxVox, and whatever Community Trust vehicle that was set up, and Firoka, stating in writing that in principle one party wishes to buy and one wishes to sell, and OxVox agreeing to release the ACV if a deal is agreed, together with very basic outline of terms. It is nothing more than that. It does not require OCC approval. It does not require OCC permission. It does not require planning permission. It does not require details of funding sources. All those elements are for final contracts, which as a result take much longer to achieve. An HoT doesn't even have to be published, so confidentiality is not remotely an issue. No party can force anything through, but if there is serious agreement to move forwards on all sides, there is nothing to prevent what has already taken longer than it needed to and any delays must raise questions as to the seriousness of one or more of the parties to complete. Then you have to ask who benefits from a deal resulting in a perpetually shrinking license, and who is at risk from that.
|
|
|
Post by backonthecoupon on Jan 16, 2017 18:33:36 GMT
There should be no reason why a Heads of Terms cannot be agreed within a couple of weeks, so this should have been completed months ago. The Heads is only an outline agreement and statement of intent, so does not require much in the way of detail. What is being sold, sale price, parties to the agreement and possibly outline timescales and finance. Anything beyond that is for the final contract. It is very rare for Heads to take this long and for Jem to say he wants Heads by the end of the season is well beyond a reasonable timeframe. If he was saying final contracts by the end of the season, that would make sense, but not Heads. So there has to be a fair bit of sympathy for the board of directors on this. As regards impact on investment by DE, knowing whether the club has a sustainable finance framework for Championship (or even continued League 1) football, through access to non footballing revenues is clearly going to be very important to know whether and how much to invest in this transfer window, and indeed in the summer. These are decisions whether to push the club forwards or to settle for mediocrity and if I were investing my millions (haha) I would want to know that it was sustainable. That is a quite ludicrous thing to say, Terry. Some HoT would take a decade or so to get to (Irish Peace process!) and others could be done over a lunch!!! Given who the parties involved here are EXTRA OxVox, we simply cannot know how long it 'should' take. But let us remember that the OC is a public body. Once it signs up to something, even in non-legal terms, t opens itself straight up to public criticism and possible defenestration. As for FK, he has his complex tax web to consider, inheritance tax, the planning process with and without RTB, and whether he might be better to sit still and wait. In short, this is complex stuff. Just imagine, for a moment, that this is a deal whose moving parts include the OCC both dealing with FK on a planning issue, SODC on a parking issue, OxVox on a funding issue and local residents on amenities for increased housing. Imagine, in these circs, that the OCC says to OxVox, 'I'm sorry, but we are not going to get all the necessary Buy-In for this before the summer, but we are moving forwards with it. In he meantime, you cannot say a word about any of it, because we do not want to answer various vested interests before we have all our ducks in a row." Is that then a HoT which OxVox can force thru in a few days, or even two months? All they would be able to do is sit tight, and ask people for patience. Patience, by the way, which - after all these years - is hardly indefinite, but a few months. Just imagine how excited we'd all have been last year if someone - anyone! - had said, out of the blue, "Oh by the way, we should get the stadium situation sorted by June 2017". We'd have been jumping up and down in glee and crossing our fingers that the dream didn't suddenly end. It's not going to be sorted by June 2017. The heads of terms is promised first June 2017. But that's just stage 1. Then comes the difficult stuff - the purchase agreement!
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Jan 16, 2017 19:02:34 GMT
Ermmmmm I hate to say it but HoT are not just a briefing note of what all parties are planning to do. From an easily accessible legal guidance website:
"Heads of terms are a set of agreed principles which precede the signing of a negotiated contract, and which the parties intend to be reflected in the written contract. They set out the basis of the deal in broad terms. It is important to record the contract discussions so that there are minimal surprises when the first draft of the contract is produced. There is no universal practice on whether or not heads of terms are legally binding - some are and some aren’t. However, care is needed to make sure that the parties do not inadvertently drift into a binding contract on the basis of the heads of terms alone, when initially they were not intended to be legally binding. This situation sometimes occurs where the parties by their conduct show a mutual intention to be bound by the heads of terms without having signed the written contract. This is a fertile ground for disputes."
There are several aspects in that that make me think it would be better to take some time rather than rush.................
|
|