Robbing the blind to pay for PVFC.

[Ted]

The loan from the council was due to a bunch of councillorswho are vale fans trying to redress the community stadium fiasco for the lards and who votes in their constituency. Nick Salih, Neil Dawson, etc. with. Joan walley steering it.

 

vale in the council are hugely unrepresented. It was hard work that achieved it

[valiantms]

Surprising the council now get stick after all the **** they've done in recent years. It hardly takes a genius to find where the council have wasted money. Didn't they spend something like £300k making people redundant then re-hiring them a couple of months ago? Maybe Mike Barnes would like to bring that to peoples attention? Or is just that Vale are too big of an easy target for him to miss?

[Valiant in Brum]

I agree about services at risk and a badly run club. But there are many things that the port vale brand achieve. This is why i was worried in the financial climate that they could easily have pulled it. But in relation to stoke- think about the millions the council lost through the brit stadium.

 

Well you have think, it cost £15 millin to build and I am sure would have been worth a hell of alot more than the £6 million scfc paid for it pre-recession too.

[Warren]

There is some political language in there, but essentially the guy has a reasonable argument. Giving a loan to Port Vale was going to the edges of the Council's powers. A football club is just a private business and a Council is not empowered to lend to businesses - at that time. The loan may be justified on other grounds such as the fact that Port Vale is an important part of the community from a social and economic perspective, but that is a stretch.

 

Observations about the terms and conditions of the loan are also fair to make. I do find it incredible that loss after loss has allowed to be racked up at Port Vale and the loan did not have stringent contract terms about that issue or things have not been enforced.

 

As for giving more money, well he is potentially right again. I think it is pushing ultra vires (outside the Council's statutory powers) again and requires the most careful justification including consideration of the best way to get the original loan repaid in the circumstances. The social and economic interest argument is getting a bit thin, especially with significant budget cuts elsewhere.

 

I'm afraid supporting Port Vale doesn't alter the facts of the situation and the Council has to be objective in what it does. Residents are owed a duty of best value.

[BIRCHES HEAD WHITES]

if the council want to put 300 people on the dole, lose the majority of their 1.8 million , see a club with over 130 years of history fold, the destruction of burslem as a town and alienate thousands of port vale fans (taxpayers also) then go ahead and listen to this prat

 

just a sad lardie beating his chest , its just a pity he wasn't beating his chest when the community stadium was thrown up at our expense:rolleyes:

[Jacko51]

Mr Barnes claims that the loan was "hard earned taxpayers money". I believe the loan was actually money which the Council borrowed at one rate of interest and then passed on to Vale at a higher rate of interest. It was sensible business deal. The only problem was it was lent to blokes who are to financial management what Hitler was to world peace.

[Warren]

Well you have think, it cost £15 millin to build and I am sure would have been worth a hell of alot more than the £6 million scfc paid for it pre-recession too.

 

I don't live in the area and didn't pay attention to this. But to reach a view on the regeneration of a former coal field including that stadium requires a complete analysis of all the funding for that regeneration scheme including Objective 1 - European Regional Development Fund Grant, its matched funding arrangements in the UK including the Council and the intended private sector leverage. The idea that Stoke City just got a bung from the Council is likely to not take account of a much more complex financial situation.

[Jacko51]

 

Observations about the terms and conditions of the loan are also fair to make. I do find it incredible that loss after loss has allowed to be racked up at Port Vale and the loan did not have stringent contract terms about that issue or things have not been enforced.

 

The loan had a number of terms which have been ignored by the club and not enforced by the Council. The Gibraltar loan was not the first breach of the condition which said that the club should incur no further indebtedness. This was breached ages ago when the Harlequin loan was taken on and the Council chose to say nothing. It was breached again last year when Mr Bratt said he had secured a loan from the Carbon Trust but the Council chose to say nothing. Has the Council imposed the default interest rate on the recent late payments or not?

 

The Council is in the situation now of having the remainder of the loan at severe risk because they were negligent in monitoring the financial dealings of the club previously.

 

Mr Barnes was, I believe, a member of the Council. Did he know the terms of the loan and if not why not because I got them easily enough? Did he ask questions about how it was monitored? Did he view the annual accounts which the club had to present to the Council each year? Did he not realise that the club's finances have been in a parlous state for ages? If he did why did he not ask question previously? If he didn't pay attention to what was happening, why is he making such a fuss now?

 

I agree with Warren that there are valid arguments against funding the Vale any further. I do not accept, however, that the likes of Mr Barnes have the right to call foul now when they have been partly responsible for allowing this situation to arise by the lack of rigour in their monitoring. If, as he claimed, he was bounced into making the loan, why was he not more assiduous in keeping an eye on things during the previous five years?

[GrattyVale]

Goes to show any muppet can have a blog these days. Sad little deluded man!

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Sadly if I wasn't a vale fan is agree with every word. Hence why V2001 were never going to work and should never have been anything but a 6 month stop gap.

 

Absolutely spot on. If my local council did this for one of it's clubs as they were hacking back key services I would quite rightly be up in arms.

 

I'm amazed the council are seemingly so keen to help by lending us further money when they could simply take the ground to cover what is owed and walk away. We owe them massively.

[Warren]

The loan had a number of terms which have been ignored by the club and not enforced by the Council. The Gibraltar loan was not the first breach of the condition which said that the club should incur no further indebtedness. This was breached ages ago when the Harlequin loan was taken on and the Council chose to say nothing. It was breached again last year when Mr Bratt said he had secured a loan from the Carbon Trust but the Council chose to say nothing. Has the Council imposed the default interest rate on the recent late payments or not?

 

The Council is in the situation now of having the remainder of the loan at severe risk because they were negligent in monitoring the financial dealings of the club previously.

 

Mr Barnes was, I believe, a member of the Council. Did he know the terms of the loan and if not why not because I got them easily enough? Did he ask questions about how it was monitored? Did he view the annual accounts which the club had to present to the Council each year? Did he not realise that the club's finances have been in a parlous state for ages? If he did why did he not ask question previously? If he didn't pay attention to what was happening, why is he making such a fuss now?

 

I agree with Warren that there are valid arguments against funding the Vale any further. I do not accept, however, that the likes of Mr Barnes have the right to call foul now when they have been partly responsible for allowing this situation to arise by the lack of rigour in their monitoring. If, as he claimed, he was bounced into making the loan, why was he not more assiduous in keeping an eye on things during the previous five years?

 

I agree with the above. The loan would not have been made without a report on the matter from the Section 151 Officer (Director of Finance / Resources) and Monitoring Officer (Head of Legal). He would therefore have been given the facts and the final decision making was political. So any bouncing was at a politcal level.

 

I am concerned with the monitoring of the loan. I would expect the Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer to be well on top of this and to report events such as breaches and holiday requests to Members and periodically to report repayment performance to Members. If that has not happened I would be unhappy professionally. I guess Councillors can then ignore the officers's advice and the profile of Port Vale may have caused them to be too soft with the club. I suspect a bank would have given the board a much harder time and maybe required immediate repayment.

[Barcroft]

A very short-sighted account, as it fails to even consider the economic impacts to the City of losing the Vale.

[Burslem Academicals]

Well you have think, it cost £15 millin to build and I am sure would have been worth a hell of alot more than the £6 million scfc paid for it pre-recession too.

 

Also the land as real estate which with the car parks is a big plot for retail and housing was thought to be worth worth over 30 million...as

pointed out by some such as the former Mayor Mike Wolfe....so what's that then 15 million for a stadium and a 30 million site.....45 million and

then give 'em the "community stadium" for 6 million...many from the council said at the time they were proud to help Stoke City and gift them the money....and that 39 million helped Stoke get into the Premiership basically.....somehow puts a 1.8 million loan into perpective.

[Valiant Rising]

Sadly if I wasn't a vale fan is agree with every word. Hence why V2001 were never going to work and should never have been anything but a 6 month stop gap.

I can't see how you can agree with every word. Just taking the favourable treatment of Stoke with their stadium - which he fails to mention, along with the 'political suicide' quote,which shows him up for the typical, clinging coward that he is, for two examples.

Then again, hindsights a wonderful thing!

[Andyregs]

I can't see how you can agree with every word. Just taking the favourable treatment of Stoke with their stadium - which he fails to mention, along with the 'political suicide' quote,which shows him up for the typical, clinging coward that he is, for two examples.

Then again, hindsights a wonderful thing!

 

They shouldn't have done that either. What I'm saying is, if I wasn't a fan, I would be questioning the use if taxes to fund a football club. It's obviously biased, which makes his argument a bit half hearted, as this loan was possibly to make up for their previous bias towards stoke, however I bet they regret ever getting into bed with Bill and his mates.