| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MikeH
Occasional Contributor
44 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 16:05:11
|
Can someone explain where the figure of £10,000 came from, I have heard from what i believe to be a good source that the figure which was offered and turned down was £300,000, so what are we to believe.
(Politicians and nappies have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.) |
 |
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 16:43:03
|
Steve, that is my point, no matter what, we are in serious debt with massive cuts to be implemented very soon, right or wrong?
So no matter what Pools have or have not done, to sell seriously low is a total neglect of duty with anyone making that decision breaching what their role is about; getting the best value for the town and securing services needed for local people.
I agree the grounds need to be used for other activities to drive income up and get benefits such as reduced match tickets to encourage further support for HUFC.
Yet, I agree that HTH announced months ago that HBC were offering a sale of the land at £10,000 for one buyer. If this is untrue, please post it on here as I would love to believe it was not. If it is £300,000 again, please state this so the people of Hartlepool can consider whether it is a good price and should go ahead or not.
MikeH is spot on by saying that HTH or others need to let us know what the truth is. They all read HTH so why can they not block rumours by presenting the information on here?
Then we will know that Officers and councillors involved are considering options and decisions professionally to benefit all of Hartlepool and not just a few people in cahoots to get personal benefits!
|
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 19:02:38
|
Thanks for that JB. That may explain why there is a low sale price. I am sure HBC will want to at least use the land for football purposes rather than nothing at all?
What figure do you feel we are looking at JB as it seems you have a more in-depth knowledge that will help me to understand this more? |
|
|
|
steveL
Frequent Contributor
564 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 19:08:30
|
Covenants present no obstacle to solicitors as was demonstrated by Jomast's plan to develop Trincomalee Wharf. In any case, current proposals for the land include plans to build a hotel, apartments and retail units as I'm sure you know. Stuart Drummond and all of his Cabinet were and still are aware that IOR offerd the Council £10,000 for the land. HTH is in possession of solid evidence from a senior member of the Council that proves that offer was made.
That offer was under discussion when it appeared on HTH. It was then quickly rejected and Drummond denied all knowledge.
The Council is under a legal obligation to obtain the best return for any assets that it sells. |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 19:12:22
|
Thanks Steve, although that is worrying, I am pleased you have evidence. Maybe JB can see this evidence as I do remember the offer of £10,000 which really did seem to present that the sale was being kept low despite the need for best value with a deficit in play too.
I also remember we had concerns regarding the sale of other buildings at that time and they have gone through so this could easily happen here despite the knowledge that it could be gross misconduct? |
|
|
|
mk1
Frequent Contributor
365 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 20:16:26
|
yeah go on and post it so the source can be identified and thus no longer a good source.
Only a fool would expect the source to be given in an open forum. |
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2010 : 21:04:41
|
JB behave you nutter lol lol
Come on you know better I know that!! lol |
|
|
|
steveL
Frequent Contributor
564 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2010 : 01:14:02
|
| . . . and would that e-mail address also self-destruct in 10 minutes like the one you used to register? |
|
|
|
Christine Blakey
Frequent Contributor
1206 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2010 : 12:11:46
|
I understand mk1 highlighting that then source should be protected. After all, it was probably the public notice on HTH that has prevented the sale for £10,000.
JB, I cannot believe it either but that said, I feel that the sale of Rock Haven for £60,000 was a joke but that has actually gone through now hasn't it?
Does anybody think this was justified or not when other buildings in the row were over £100,000 more from what I was told and seen on HTH? |
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2010 : 12:20:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jovial Butcher
Do you want me to send you my personal email address?
Otherwise I totally don't believe you that the council were prepared to sell the ground for 10k.
I don't think anyone is bothered if you believe or don't believe.
You simply just want to out the source I think.
Nothing personal but that's my opinion. |
|
|
|
mk1
Frequent Contributor
365 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2010 : 23:27:38
|
I will try and make it really simple.
If the source is outed then steps will be taken to ensure said source can no longer function.
That will be the end of the leaks and probably the career of the leaker.
I refuse to believe you do not know this and am at a loss as to why you even ask for the source to be revealed to you.
One could be forgiven for thinking you have an interest in stopping further leaks because for sure if your request is granted that is what will happen. |
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 00:41:17
|
[quote]Originally posted by Jovial Butcher
So what is the point in anyone contributing to this website if a select few say that have certain knowledge but don't tell anyone or allow it to be verified in any way?
I couldn't care less about your "source", I'm sure if you had such solid evidence it could be presented in a way which didn't out your source.
Excuse me it's not my source
I don't give a toss either way but the person who will lose their job does.
And for the third time this week I find myself totally agree with MK1
|
Edited by - HeirHunter on 18 Aug 2010 00:42:42 |
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 00:58:43
|
If I am being honest with you JB
I try not to read your posts unless I have too and I recon others do the same. |
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 01:03:30
|
Does it
OK.
|
|
|
|
HeirHunter
Frequent Contributor
251 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2010 : 01:13:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jovial Butcher
Why do you have such a problem with me HH?
I don't have a problem with you, although I am feeling like prehaps I have now got a new stutter as I keep repeating myself for you.
Is it because I ask questions and challenge people's opinions rather than agreeing with the usual topics of conversation on here which tend to be along the lines of "council is ****" "mayor is ****" "town is ****" "tall ships are ****" which a lot of posters seem to?
Listen you crack on mate as I am a supporter of freedom of speech.
Would you like it better if everyone just agreed with your opinion and every post just said everything was ****?
That might be handy but it would become even more boring than replying to your posts.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hartlepool set for new mystery owners
