Failsworth Land Status Ruling

[razza699]

Decision Friday

 

http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsU...2244230,00.html

[RobOAFC]

Decision Friday

 

http://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/page/NewsU...2244230,00.html

Will it be an early xmas pressie for Latics this year then..?

[oafcprozac]

Will it be an early xmas pressie for Latics this year then..?

 

I'm worried about the delay, the council delayed us in 2007 only to refuse planning permission. These other pen pushing bureaucrats are bound to disappoint! I'm getting a sense of de ja vu, like when you're left waiting for your meal in a restaurant and when it finally arrives it's crap or when you're waiting for a bus or a train, it's late and when it does arrive it's packed and takes forever.

 

I hope i'm wrong...

[garcon]

Don't forget, the council is now a ConLib coalition and they're dead evil apparently, break every promise ever.

 

Expect doom and gloom.

 

 

[Zorrro]

They'll be asking us to pay for it next 'n' all. Bastards.

[singe]

My email chasing them must have done the trick

[oldham59]

i think its dead in the water but then again i dont want the move

[fryatt]

then so are we"

[oldham59]

then so are we"

 

i think the move will be the end our owners are not interested in oldham athletic playing football only the move

[lancy lad]

i think the move will be the end our owners are not interested in oldham athletic playing football only the move

If we dont move its the end anyway! Not that I want to............

[Delfer]

My email chasing them must have done the trick

 

 

The worrying thing is that is probably true!!!

[razza699]

My email chasing them must have done the trick

probably , they must have forgot about iccle oafc

[Diego_Sideburns]

I've just received the following email in response to the one I sent to the Charity Commission.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

There is presently no "outcome" to the Commission's consideration of the Council's request to swap part of the Lower Memorial Park at Failsworth for land elsewhere in Failsworth. The Commission is currently considering the very substantial amount of material submitted by the Council and other parties, in order to form a view on whether to give authorisation. The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options available to the Council as trustee.

 

Instead the Commission's role is:

•to establish whether the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

•to consider whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

 

Although we are trying to complete consideration quickly, we want to ensure we have taken into account all relevant information to achieve a proper decision. On that basis I cannot indicate a specific date on which we anticipate communicating our decision to the Council.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alex Young

(Specialist Casework Division)

 

[Takemeanywhere]

I've just received the following email in response to the one I sent to the Charity Commission.

 

I'm glad we're not relying on them for owt important.

[steveoafc]

It's getting bloody ludicrous now!

Oh to just re-develop BP ..................If i worked as slow in my job i'd be out on my ear!

[singe]

I've just received the following email in response to the one I sent to the Charity Commission.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

There is presently no "outcome" to the Commission's consideration of the Council's request to swap part of the Lower Memorial Park at Failsworth for land elsewhere in Failsworth. The Commission is currently considering the very substantial amount of material submitted by the Council and other parties, in order to form a view on whether to give authorisation. The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options available to the Council as trustee.

 

Instead the Commission's role is:

•to establish whether the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

•to consider whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

 

Although we are trying to complete consideration quickly, we want to ensure we have taken into account all relevant information to achieve a proper decision. On that basis I cannot indicate a specific date on which we anticipate communicating our decision to the Council.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alex Young

(Specialist Casework Division)

It's taken them a very long time to read the submission and say it's not our problem...

[oafcprozac]

I've just received the following email in response to the one I sent to the Charity Commission.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

There is presently no "outcome" to the Commission's consideration of the Council's request to swap part of the Lower Memorial Park at Failsworth for land elsewhere in Failsworth. The Commission is currently considering the very substantial amount of material submitted by the Council and other parties, in order to form a view on whether to give authorisation. The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options available to the Council as trustee.

 

Instead the Commission's role is:

•to establish whether the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

•to consider whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied)or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

 

Although we are trying to complete consideration quickly, we want to ensure we have taken into account all relevant information to achieve a proper decision. On that basis I cannot indicate a specific date on which we anticipate communicating our decision to the Council.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alex Young

(Specialist Casework Division)

 

Nailed on

[Alec1954]

Why would the Charity Commission reply to an email from a non-stakeholder - surely the reply has to be direct to one person only and that is the person who submitted the application.

 

I cannot believe it is true because if it is, the sender has just lost his/her job.

 

Hold on, surely this is a general holding response that coujld have been drafted weeks or months ago.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Alec1954

[leeslover]

Why would the Charity Commission reply to an email from a non-stakeholder - surely the reply has to be direct to one person only and that is the person who submitted the application.

 

I cannot believe it is true because if it is, the sender has just lost his/her job.

 

Hold on, surely this is a general holding response that coujld have been drafted weeks or months ago.

It will all be subject to FOI in any case.

[Snookmeister]

I say f@ck em and move out of the town. Tameside or somewhere. They obviously don't want pro sport in the town.

 

I'll support my team wherever it plays.

[leeslover]

I say f@ck em and move out of the town. Tameside or somewhere. They obviously don't want pro sport in the town.

 

I'll support my team wherever it plays.

The Charities Commission isn't based in Oldham is it? The Council are (at last) on side with the process.

[RobOAFC]

Why would the Charity Commission reply to an email from a non-stakeholder - surely the reply has to be direct to one person only and that is the person who submitted the application.

 

I cannot believe it is true because if it is, the sender has just lost his/her job.

 

Hold on, surely this is a general holding response that coujld have been drafted weeks or months ago.

 

Diego is a stakeholder though..

 

But they are starting to take the piss now, what will tomorrows excuse be for them not sending their decision?

[beag_teeets]

Diego is a stakeholder though..

 

But they are starting to take the piss now, what will tomorrows excuse be for them not sending their decision?

 

 

Snow on teh interwebz?

[jimsleftfoot]

This is a holding email which explains the procedure involved with swapping a plot of land that is held in Charitable trust to another plot of land, it doesn’t give any particular details about the actual case and so there would be no issue with them sending this out.

 

Interpreting it, the decision on the land swap is down the council not the charity commission. The charity commissions job is to ensure that the council have followed the correct process for making the decision. Therefore, as long as the council have made a “fully informed decision”, the land swap should go ahead. Obviously as there are conflicting interest though, there could be the potential that they do not consider the decision to be so.

 

As for them acting slow/not doing there job. I would be interested to know in how people would qualify that????

 

[stevesidg]

I don't think the Football League (with the exception of MK Franchise) don't let clubs play outside of their metropolitan/council area.

I was at one of the meetings at Chadderton school with some of the directors taking questions, and this was one of the responses, as to why couldn't we build a ground on available land in Tameside or Rochdale, of which there seems to be more available of the size we're looking for. Can't remember the exact size now, but it was either 30 acres or 30,000 square metres.