Failsworth Stadium Move Blocked

[danoafc]

 

 

[Lookers_Carl]

so have the council ballsed it up or not?

 

It would appear the balls up was two fold

 

1) When the council identified the site, they were obviously not aware of the charitable status of the land adjacent to the Lancaster club when agreeing to the long term lease of the land.

 

2) It would also appear they did not follow due process regarding the land swap as the MEN reports the charity commision said the council were 'not fully informed' in bringing the swap forward, slammed the consultation process for being 'weak' and said 'conflicts of interest were not properly managed'.

 

 

 

 

[razza699]

:lol:

 

have you actually done that or is it photoshopped?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

No i was just implying what would the reaction me if it was a mosque ,Mcdonalds or any other building instead of a football ground.

 

maybe the phrase could have been a bit better worded but as usual the PC brigade get on board.

 

the bottom line is the council are not interested in OAFC.

 

 

I agree with that bit. The rest of the stuff you've come out with is bigoted nonsense based on, well nothing really.

[HarryBosch]

:lol:

 

have you actually done that or is it photoshopped?

 

it's the work of TheRealAlanHardy on Twitter

[razza699]

it's the work of TheRealAlanHardy on Twitter

[oafcprozac]

It would appear the balls up was two fold

 

1) When the council identified the site, they were obviously not aware of the charitable status of the land adjacent to the Lancaster club when agreeing to the long term lease of the land.

 

2) It would also appear they did not follow due process regarding the land swap as the MEN reports the charity commision said the council were 'not fully informed' in bringing the swap forward, slammed the consultation process for being 'weak' and said 'conflicts of interest were not properly managed'.

 

They've also convinced the club to go down the Charity Commission route when the club simply wanted to go ahead with the consultation than planning process. There was nothing concrete to state that land had charitable status even the Charity Commission themselves in their earlier decision seemed to take a punt on registering it as charitable trust land. The main issues here are:-

 

1. The Council haven't satisfactory presented the CC with a robust valuation of the land

2. There's a conflict of interests that hasn't been declared/dealt with satisfactorily. One of the committee had to resign because of this can't remember her name, so there's been a cock up somewhere along the line.

3. The council has tried to be clever and cover its arse by going down the CC route and has failed miserably and won't be able to sit down for a week.

 

This will not be the end, just wrangling over who pays to extend the process, to ensure a final outcome of yay or nay...

Edited February 3, 2011 by oafcprozac

[oafc0000]

They've also convinced the club to go down the Charity Commission route when the club simply wanted to go ahead with the consultation than planning process. There was nothing concrete to state that land had charitable status even the Charity Commission themselves in their earlier decision seemed to take a punt on registering it as charitable trust land. The main issues here are:-

 

1. The Council haven't satisfactory presented the CC with a robust valuation of the land

2. There's a conflict of interests that hasn't been declared/dealt with satisfactorily. One of the committee had to resign because of this can't remember her name, so there's been a cock up somewhere along the line.

3. The council has tried to be clever and cover its arse by going down the CC route and has failed miserably and won't be able to sit down for a week.

 

This will not be the end, just wrangling over who pays to extend the process, to ensure a final outcome of yay or nay...

 

I hope we don't keep throwing money at it... then again, do we have much choice...

 

Ah who knows... Leave it in the clubs capable hands

[oafc0000]

 

*likes

[HarryBosch]

This will not be the end, just wrangling over who pays to extend the process,

 

i'm sure their new Fat Tax will cover it

[losesome]

the bottom line is the council are not interested in OAFC.

 

I agree with that bit. The rest of the stuff you've come out with is bigoted nonsense based on, well nothing really.

 

 

So then , why don't they care !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joe_lead]

Sorry Mr PC but people like you cause racism by even suggesting that mentioning a mosque is bordering on racism.

 

I suppose you would like to rename blackpool "anycolourpool"

 

It was a ligitimate comment and if you find that racist then you have a warped racist mind yourself.

 

Bites lip

[joe_lead]

Has anyone got a link to the full findings of the Charity Commission?

[singe]

Sorry Mr PC but people like you cause racism by even suggesting that mentioning a mosque is bordering on racism.

 

I suppose you would like to rename blackpool "anycolourpool"

 

It was a ligitimate comment and if you find that racist then you have a warped racist mind yourself.

Nothing to see here, move along please rubbernecker.

Edited February 3, 2011 by singe

[Guest]

Now I have calmed down and stopped thinking of evil things I can do to Oldham Council. I have only one question -

 

What happens now?

 

Because I was under the impression that it was Failsworth or bust

[Takemeanywhere]

Has anyone got a link to the full findings of the Charity Commission?

 

I imagine it will go here but it takes a few days. The case showing as 'Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park' still takes you to the previous ruling, where they agreed that the land is held on charitable trust.

[Lukers1]

Now I have calmed down and stopped thinking of evil things I can do to Oldham Council. I have only one question -

 

What happens now?

 

Because I was under the impression that it was Failsworth or bust

 

I suspect the council will come good with this and it will be pushed through,

 

I feel it in my water.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I suspect the council will come good with this and it will be pushed through,

 

I feel it in my water.

 

Can the council ignore the Charity Commission though?

[oafcprozac]

Has anyone got a link to the full findings of the Charity Commission?

 

Initial findings:-

Land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

 

The Commission was asked to review its conclusions that land at Failsworth Lower Memorial Park is held by Oldham Metropolitan Council (the Council) as charity trustee and to enter the land in the register of charities.

 

The review considered whether the land is held on charitable trusts (and is therefore entitled to remain on the register of charities) or whether the Commission is obliged to removed it from the register under section 3(4) and 4(2) of the Charities Act 1993 (as amended by the Charities Act 2006).

 

Having examined the evidence before it, the Commission concluded that the land is held by the Council on trust to hold it as a public recreation ground for ever. It concluded that the decision is finely balanced, but the balance of probability points towards charity because the land was purchased with money raised by charitable appeal and the intention was clearly that it be held as a public recreation ground as a war memorial for generations to come.

 

In consequence, subject to the income qualification, it is entitled to remain on the register of charities. As the Commission has exercised its discretion to waive the income requirement, the application that it be removed from the register should be refused.

 

Charity Commission

 

Not sure whether this is simply relating to the land's Charitable Trust or the proposed land swap? Seemingly refers to Charitable Trust, can't find anything on the swap itself...

Edited February 3, 2011 by oafcprozac

[losesome]

Nothing to see here, move along please rubbernecker.

 

 

oops sorry my presence upsets you !!

[Lookers_Carl]

Can the council ignore the Charity Commission though?

 

Could we have a scaled down development which will see the stadium built on the patch of land that is now the lancaster club, leaving the adjacent land at the centre of the dispute as it is? Chesterfields b2net stadium cost about 13 million?

 

Anyone know how many acres the boundary park patch is in acres? Is it 16?

[Ackey]

To all of you having a childish bickering match on what could prove to be the most decisive day in the clubs history: Stop it.

 

If not you'll get 24hr bans, I can't be arsed dealing with your :censored: today. Bigger things are at stake right now than who won a petty argument on a website no one cares about!

[losesome]

To all of you having a childish bickering match on what could prove to be the most decisive day in the clubs history: Stop it.

 

If not you'll get 24hr bans, I can't be arsed dealing with your :censored: today. Bigger things are at stake right now than who won a petty argument on a website no one cares about!

 

 

Very true ,

 

What i worry about most is the council ,

As far as i can see Latics will have to go it alone and find and investor to develop BP.

 

Rely on the council and we will be playing local league football soon !!!

[oafcprozac]

To all of you having a childish bickering match on what could prove to be the most decisive day in the clubs history: Stop it.

 

If not you'll get 24hr bans, I can't be arsed dealing with your :censored: today. Bigger things are at stake right now than who won a petty argument on a website no one cares about!

 

[Diego_Sideburns]

I really feel for Simon Corney, especially as he has put so much personal time and money into it.

From my untrainined and far away eye, it does seem like yet another Council cock up, very amateurish.

Clearly the devil is in the detail of the report.

I just hope there is a silver lining to this cloud.

 

I'd really like Deigo's view on this.

 

OWTB Members may remember that during all the discussion surrounding the Club’s application for planning permission to redevelop BP, I pointed out what I considered to be discrepancies in Councillors’ conduct and procedure, based on my lifetime’s experience in local government committee administration.

 

The rarely-wrong Chron reported on 26th August that the Failsworth Trust Committee, a Council cabinet sub-committee, which approved the land swap, was urged in the Officer’s Report to visit the sites before making a decision. In my opinion these site visits were a must to avoid justified criticism by objectors.

 

The Trust Committee comprised three members, none of whom represented the Failsworth area, all of whom had been on cabinets that previously approved the proposed stadium development, and one of whom left after declaring an interest as she had taken part in a cabinet meeting on the subject earlier this year.

 

In my opinion, in order to be seen to be considering the matter properly, the Trust Committee should have not been a cabinet sub-committee and should have comprised at least five members, none of whom had been on cabinets that approved the proposed stadium development, and one of whom should have been a Failsworth councillor.

 

At the meeting concerns were raised by Failsworth residents and councillors about whether the Trust Committee’s actions would stand up to scrutiny.

 

The Committee chairman said: “The decision made tonight is going to be transparent, impartial and independent. You can’t make 100 per cent of people happy. They were consulted.”

 

Councillor Butterworth said: “The decision was made by two Trust Committee members who haven’t visited the site. This leaves it all totally open to challenge. Where is the transparency?”

 

Peter Batty, head of the Failsworth Residents’ Action Group (FRAG) who are opposing development, said: “Now they’ve made a decision to swap, they’ve got to go to the Charity Commission and explain the process and consultation.”

 

Obviously the FRAG’s points of concern have been put to the Charity Commission, and I would be surprised if the Commission does not say it is not convinced that the Trust Committee is beyond justified criticism in its handling of the matter, leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if information can be supplied to convince the Commission:

 

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

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

 

 

The CC has already said it needs to consider whether the decision taken by the Failsworth Trust Committee is a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

From what I've read, these boxes have not been ticked…

 

The Manc Evening News says the Charity Commission says the council were 'not fully informed' in bringing the swap forward, slammed the consultation process for being 'weak' and said 'conflicts of interest were not properly managed'.

 

I’ve been dreading the day when what I have kept saying has been proved to be correct, and it gives me no satisfaction whatsoever.

 

Oldham M.B.C. (Major Balls-up Council) has been guilty of maladministration consistently throughout the saga over the planning applications and now this charitable land status catastrophe.

 

In July 2009 The Council’s Cabinet Cabinet approved the recommendations in a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Places and Skills to enter into a conditional agreement with the club for the transfer of an area of Council owned land in support of the Club's ground redevelopment proposals. It was reported at the time that the condition was subject to the question of the possible charitable status of the Lower Memorial Park land being clarified by the Charity Commission. Based on the evidence submitted to it, the Charity Commission said it was not charitable land and the Council gave the go ahead to OAFC, which purchased the Lancaster Club in good faith.

 

Then it was found that the Council had not submitted all the evidence to the Commission, when a local resident pointed out that the submitted evidence did not include the records of the old Failsworth Council. When the full evidence was submitted to the CC, it ruled that it was charitable land.

 

In the circumstances, the Club has been misled by the Council, which in turn misled the Charity Commission, and therefore the Council must pay for its mistakes, which have led to OAFC owning the Lancaster Club, without being able to redevelop the remainder of the site viably.

 

No matter what costs/compensation/damages are paid eventually by the Council, it will not help the Club to get out of the financial quicksand into which it has sunk.