[Dawson]

Itonironiron wrote:

He has sent receipts for HMRC, official club matchday breakdowns, internal club email correspondence and with HMRC, a copy of Januarys and Aprils payroll. Plus other things I’m happy to share. He has blanked out individual staff wages though so we cannot see what players are on individually.
Jan payroll £180,000
Apr payroll £213,000
My god

Get sharing it on here then Herbert stop beating around the bush.

[Dawson]

Deereyme66 wrote:

People with agendas moaning about people with agendas is the new ‘people moaning about moaning’. Oops, ‘jumpers for goalposts’, ‘at the end of the day…’

I wonder what agenda you have moaning and causing arguments with fans who are trying to find things out in relation to the club and Hilton.

[Dawson]

CMC wrote:

BurringhamIron wrote:

Iron-awe wrote:

So are you on the Southend forum posting about their owner or not Andy, straightforward enough question, it’s either yes or no?, don’t be shy now you aren’t usually.

Of course he is’t on there, because he’s not intrested in Southend, nor is he intrested in Scunthorpe United, his instrest lies with Hilton and anyone that has shown him support rather than chase him from the club. (This isn’t me saying I support Hilton, like every fan on this forum I’m very wary of him. Just calling out IB for what he really is)

Talk about having an agenda, the biggest pile of bullshit I’ve read on here in a while.

Do you contribute anything positive on here? Or just like to go around calling everyone else’s comments bullshit and wrong because they don’t agree with whatever agenda you’ve got.

[Dawson]

CMC wrote:

Going by where IB posts their stuff… a lot of clubs are covered. Not just us.

Typical Scunny: someone goes out of their way to find something in the public domain and they’re accused of a fake, a liar or a shit stirrer.

If you think/know it is the same person as me, you’ll clearly know there is a larger amount published about Scunthorpe than anyone else, which directly translates to all the time and effort he puts into posting on here.

I have no qualms about him posting about stuff, I merely would like to know what has drove him to do so.

[Dawson]

Siderite wrote:

I think there would be concern if he is going to link him to a name he might not necessarily go by it could be linked to something defamatory (remember, we have absolutely zero evidence of IB’s name or background). I suspect that the question was not an issue.

I am now in no doubt of his name however, I really do not care what he is called.

As Burringham Iron mentioned, I was hoping by putting the name, it would be a prompt for him to reveal the context as to why he has such an interest in David Hilton.

[Dawson]

Iron-awe wrote:

Apathetic Apologists wrote:

Interested Bystander wrote:

Do you check the CCJ site daily?

Good point AA, come on Andy have you a site monitoring fetish

I couldn’t confirm he was called Andy before but given my comment has been deleted, that confirms it is to me.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Dawson]

Does anyone know why Habib Mankanjuola who was signed as a dual registration between ourselves and Ilkeston was playing for Gainsborough trinity tonight?

[Dawson]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Cliff Byrne’s Right Peg wrote:

For balance: you are omitting Hilton’s claim on the ransom strip, the land valuation difference, the planning permission expiration and alleged farmers access issues.

I didn’t purposely omit them.
Could you expand on the three points please?
The three points that Hilton says exist but only he knows about, the planning permission was granted years ago but has now expired because the work wasn’t started, the ransom strip that nobody has ever proved the existence of, the farmers access that no farmer has ever claimed, it didn’t stop the planning permission for housing years ago so why should it now?
As for the land valuation, Hilton agreed on the price.

Most people know about these issues, and know of the validity of them. You can easily do this research for yourself but just to spell it out for you:

-Swann applied for a continuance of the planning based on him moving some soil around and this got rejected by N lincs council. You can check this on the N lincs council planning portal as it is in the public domain.
-I paid for the land registry plans for Glanford Park and the training ground and you can clearly see there is a strip in the middle which has now become unregistered after the land has been split into parcels. Happy to send you the title plan numbers if you wish to purchase and check this out for yourself.
-The summary on the title plan for Glandford Park also shows that a farmer has got access. Just because you are saying that they do not use this, does not mean that they cannot legally use it in future.
-The valuation Hilton originally agreed upon was based upon the land value with planning permission which it does not have anymore significantly reducing the valuation of the land. The article states that Hilton is still going to pay 3 million though.

[Dawson]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Dawson wrote:

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

I’m certainly no financial expert but I do have an ability to read and understand English.
I suggest you read the article again, come back to me and point out where it says “ Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues”.
I’ll wait!

I apologise if my response has come across wrong, I will explain where I am coming from based upon what I have read.

Based upon the article it stated Hilton had offered 3 million ‘I will give you the £3 million and 10k a month rent when it goes through the lawyers’. To me this means Hilton is going to pay 3 mil on completion and 10k per month in rent until it is legally complete. Underneath Swann had rejected this stating he wanted 1.5 million up front. Based purely on the article it never states that Hilton was offering less than 1.5 million up front only that he was not willing to pay the amount until completion.

[Dawson]

Interested Bystander wrote:

Dawson wrote:

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

I think you’ve got a bit carried away there.

Swann wants £1.5M upfront (on completion) so that he can satisfy the charge on the freehold. The balance can be on the drip.

I potentially am, as I am not sure on property law. How would Hilton be able to purchase the property without paying the full amount upon completion? My assumption was if Hilton doesn’t have the 3 mil cash, he would have to take out a loan/mortgage for the rest to complete?

[Dawson]

sufc_not_on_tour wrote:

Out of all the articles from different “experts” released in recent days this one appears the most concise and informative.
Different people will read it and form different views.
My take on it is that Hilton doesn’t and never had the funds to complete the sale, he changed the goalposts and came up with stalling tactics as the deadline approached.
I suspect his plan from the beginning was to raise the funds via his rushed and ill thought out 1899 scheme that failed spectacularly, I’m baffled that he thought any other outcome was a possibility.

He claims Swann must wait for the “legals”to be completed and they may take 3 to 6 months, 6 months have already lapsed since he claimed he’d bought the club, why haven’t the “legals” already been completed?
I suspect it’s just another stalling tactic.
As for his claim of moving into a new stadium in another 22 months, that is never going to happen and anybody who believes that is as daft as the man who made the claim.
No planning permission has even been applied for never mind granted on land Hilton doesn’t and I very much doubt ever will own.

I’m not sure if he does or doesn’t have the money, but if you read the article fully, Swann wants the 1.5 million pounds before dealing with the legal issues highlighted in the article. No one in the right mind would ever put that money forward.

To put that into context it’s like you paying half of the house you’re buying off, before even owning it. It just wouldn’t happen.

[Dawson]

I’m not defending Hilton saying that this is the only reason he’s not buying the land.

As I’ve mentioned, it would be easily solvable for the land to be registered but no one whose is buying the land, is going to take the risk of buying the surrounding land. Then for someone else to potentially stake a claim on the land in between the other two parcels of land.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Dawson]

Having bought the title plans for the stadium and the training pitch, I can confirm that there is in fact a section separating the two which is unregistered.

Happy to provide the references of the two plans in case anyone else is wanting to do the same.

1 user thanked author for this post.

cassidystash

[Dawson]

ironfromafar wrote:

As with so many other aspects combined to make this mess ..no one actually has proof any such ransom strip exists ..its DH word against PS and that seems to be the case for just about everything associated with all this debacle

It’s quite easy to prove if you willing to part with a few quid, just get yourself on Land Registry and pay for a plan. I am assuming it will show up as unregistered on there.

[Dawson]

Siderite wrote:

I think the unregistered strip of land is a thing, but I have seen lawyers say that it shouldn’t be a big deal to solve. Though, I am not a legal bod.

Yeah, I have been told the same. Although, it needs to be registered by the current landowner which, I believe is where the problem lies.

[Dawson]

Ferrite wrote:

Dawson wrote:

I am not sure who to believe at the moment however, one thing I will mention is that everyone keeps thinking buying the stadium and land is just about money.

The reality of the situation is, no one in the right mind would buy the stadium and land when, there is an unregistered strip in the middle between the ground and training pitch which, could be used in future to hold the club to ransom.

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times but have we seen any evidence to support these claims?

I’ve heard from a reliable source that it it is correct, but I have not seen it for myself.

I assume a simple Land registry plan would be enough to prove it but, I haven’t seen that anyone has done one.

[Dawson]

I am not sure who to believe at the moment however, one thing I will mention is that everyone keeps thinking buying the stadium and land is just about money.

The reality of the situation is, no one in the right mind would buy the stadium and land when, there is an unregistered strip in the middle between the ground and training pitch which, could be used in future to hold the club to ransom.

[Dawson]

Just paid my £15. First time playing so would be good to get an idea of the rules. Thanks Matt.

[Dawson]

Keith Hill and Tony McMahon both now gone!

[Author]

Posts