HOME   ARCHIVE   GALLERY   SHOP   ABOUT US      
 

 
SALFORD CITY COUNCIL 25 YEAR WAIT FOR £1.5M SALFORD REDS LOAN PAYBACK
 

Star date: 19th March 2013

SALFORD REDS DEBT WON'T BE REPAID UNTIL 2038!

Salford Council's £1.5million loan to Salford City Reds won't be paid off in full by new owner Marwan Koukash until 2038, according to a report today.

Over the next five years, the Koukash company Salford City Reds (2013) will pay back £240,000, but the remaining £1.26million will be spread over the following 20 years.

Full details here…


Yesterday, the Salford Star reported that, under the terms of the Marwan Koukash takeover of Salford City Reds, loans totalling £1.5million would be paid off `on the never, never' (click here).

Today The Business Desk is further reporting just how long the `never, never' will be – 25 years, until 2038.

Over the next five years, the Reds will pay back £240,000, 16% of the loan, and the rest - £1.26million - will be spread until 2038. According to the report, the former directors will still remain ultimately liable for the debt, and there's a tie in agreement for payments from developments on the site of the Reds former ground, The Willows.

Changing the repayment schedule of the debt - £1million of which was originally due to be paid off by 2017 – to 2038, was a deal done to allow Marwan Koukash financial space to invest in the Salford City Reds, according to the CVA's supervisor Andrew Rosler from Ideal Corporate Solutions.


20th March 2013 - UPDATE - click here

not a brain dead labour voter wrote
at 07:48:32 on 23 March 2013
@Advertiser-less. thanks, I to use to get the advertiser, found one lying around on Thursday at work. now they cost 50p each. Now I have had to return to buying proper toilet paper, suppose on the good side, I don't get black ink on my bum now.
 
Advertiser-less wrote
at 21:40:06 on 21 March 2013
@not a brain dead labour voter, don't feel bad about it half of salford will not know for a few months, of the 9 people i asked today only 1 still gets the advertiser.
 
not a brain dead labour voter wrote
at 17:35:54 on 21 March 2013
just read in advertiser, story on councillor Jan Roachford. no mention on the Salford council web site on the news. wrote previous comment before knowing of her passing ( comment sounds crass after learning what has happened)R.I.P and apologies to her family.
 
not a brain dead labour voter wrote
at 15:50:53 on 21 March 2013
@marry ferrer,is jan rochford still a councillor as she is no longer on the councils list of councillor? if so when is her seat up for grabs.
 
not a brain dead labour voter wrote
at 09:03:42 on 21 March 2013
couldn't below apply to the above. this is not in tax payers interest............. Homes for votes scandal From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Homes for votes scandal was a political scandal in the United Kingdom which involved the selling off of council housing to potential Conservative voters by Westminster City Council.[1] Contents 1 Background 2 Implementation of the policy 3 Investigation 3.1 Legal action 3.2 Reaction from Westminster City Council 4 Cultural references 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links Background The Conservatives were narrowly re-elected to Westminster City Council in the 1986 local council elections, with their majority reduced from 26 to just a majority of 4. The Conservatives in total only held onto control of the council by 106 votes after Labour failed to gain the marginal Cavendish Ward which was needed to give Labour the majority to take control of the council. Following the election and fearing that they would eventually lose control unless there was a permanent change in the social composition of the borough, council leader Shirley Porter instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities', focusing on eight marginal wards where the Conservatives wished to gain votes at the 1990 local council elections.[2] Implementation of the policy Eight wards were selected as 'key wards' - in public it was claimed that these wards were subject to particular 'stress factors' leading to a decline in the population of Westminster. In reality, secret documents showed that the wards most subject to these stress factors were rather different, and that the eight wards chosen had been the most marginal in the City Council elections of 1986. Three—Bayswater, Maida Vale and Millbank—had been narrowly won by Labour. A further three, St. James's, Victoria and Cavendish had been narrowly won by the Conservatives, in West End ward an Independent had split the two seats with the Conservatives while in Hamilton Terrace the Conservatives were threatened by the SDP. An important part of this policy was the designation of much of Westminster's council housing for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections. Much of this designated housing lay vacant for months or even years before it could be sold. To prevent its occupation by squatters or drug dealers, these flats were fitted with security doors provided by the company Sitex at a cost to local tax payers of £50 per week per door. Other council services were subverted to ensure the re-election of the majority party in the 1990 elections. In services as disparate as street cleaning, pavement repair and environmental improvements, marginal wards were given priority while safely Labour and safely Conservative parts of the city were neglected. Another vital part of 'Building Stable Communities' was the removal of homeless voters and others who lived in hostels and were perceived less likely to vote Conservative, such as students and nurses, from Westminster. While this initially proved successful, other councils in London and the Home Counties soon became aware of homeless individuals and families from Westminster, many with complex mental health and addiction problems, being dumped in their area.[citation needed] As Westminster City Council found it more difficult to move homeless people outside Westminster, increasingly the logic of the 'Building Stable Communities' programme required the concentration of homeless people within safe wards in Westminster. In 1989 over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road.[3] These blocks were "riddled" with asbestos, and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had somehow remained in place due to funding disputes between Westminster City Council and the former Greater London Council.[4] Many of the flats had had their heating and sanitation systems destroyed by the council to prevent their use as drug dens, others had indeed been taken over by heroin users and still others had pigeons making nests out of asbestos.[5] Investigation “ Both the decision to increase the number of designated sales and the selection of the properties designated for sale were influenced by an irrelevant consideration, namely the electoral advantage of the majority party. I have found that the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy of increased designated sales and that that consideration was the predominant consideration which influenced both the decision to increase designated sales by 500 per annum and the selection of properties designated for sale. My view is that the Council was engaged in gerrymandering, which I have found is a disgraceful and improper purpose, and not a purpose for which a local authority may act. ” —John Magill, District Auditor in his 1996 report, [6] ((((((((((Labour councillors and members of the public referred this policy to John Magill (the Audit Commission's District Auditor) to check on its legality,)))))) and as a result it was ordered to be halted in 1989 whilst investigations continued. In 1990, the Conservatives were re-elected by a landslide victory in Westminster, increasing their majority from 4 to 38. They won all but one of the wards targeted by Building Stable Communities policy.[citation needed] Porter stood down as Leader of the Council in 1991, and served as Lord Mayor of Westminster in 1991-2. She resigned from the council in 1993, and retired to live in Israel with her husband. On 26 January 1994 Dr. Michael Dutt, joint chairman of Westminster's housing committee between 1988-1990 and one of ten councillors facing the surcharge, was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in his St Albans home, with papers from the investigation by his side.[7] Legal action Main article: Porter v Magill In May 1996, after much complicated legal investigation work, the District Auditor finally concluded that the 'Building Stable Communities' policy had been illegal, finding Council leader Dame Shirley Porter guilty of "wilful misconduct" and "disgraceful and improper gerrymandering", He ordered Porter, her deputy David Weeks, one other councillor and three council officials "jointly and severally" liable for repaying £36.1m, lost in the attempts to fix the election.[1] The District Auditor's judgement was upheld by the High Court in 1997 with liability reduced solely to Porter and Weeks. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement in 1999, but the House of Lords reinstated it in 2001 (see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357[8]). In Israel, Porter transferred substantial parts of her great wealth to other members of her family and into secret trusts in an effort to avoid the charge, and subsequently claimed e to have only £300,000 of assets.[9] On 24 April 2004, the (still Conservative controlled) Westminster City Council and the Audit Commission announced that an agreement had been reached for a payment of £12.3 million in settlement of the debt. The council declared that the cost of legal action would be far greater than the amount to be recovered, while Porter still maintained her innocence. The decision was appealed by Labour members on the Council and the District Auditor began another investigation. The ensuing report, issued on 15 March 2007, accepted the position of the council that further action would not be cost effective.[citation needed] The Auditor further stated that Westminster had recovered substantially all of Dame Shirley's personal wealth and had acted at all times in the best interests of the taxpayers of the City.[citation needed] The Labour Party in London continued its pursuit of Porter and following the settlement, Porter returned to Westminster to live, buying a £1.5m flat with family money (her husband and son are independently wealthy).[10][11] The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, subsequently requested that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, commence an investigation as to whether or not Porter committed perjury or other offences, during the conduct of the 'homes for votes' case.[12] Reaction from Westminster City Council “ What she did was wrong, illegal, and we are unreservedly sorry. I personally want to make it absolutely clear I believe Shirley Porter and her policies did significant damage and it is a legacy I want to bury once and for all. Our policies today bear no relation to her regime. These are not just words, we are acting on this and I want people to judge us by our deeds, not history. ” —Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster City Council, 27 November 2009, [13] After publication of the District Auditor's final report in 2004, the then leader of Westminster City Council, Simon Milton, apologised for the council's past mistakes.[14] Whilst council chief executive Peter Rogers said it "draws a line under the past".[14] In 2009, then council leader Colin Barrow apologised unreservedly to all those affected by the gerrymandering policy. He criticised Shirley Porter by name for the first time and added that her actions were "the opposite of the council's policies today".[13] Cultural references
 
emporor's new clothes wrote
at 13:18:32 on 20 March 2013
IF (VERY BIG IF) Merry replies on here Mary, he will give it some real Bull shit along the lines of "Well they were going to default on the loan but the council have worked hard with the club and its directors, bringing about a repayment plan that enables the club to survive and also means that we will get our money back. The alternative is that we would not get any money back and the club would go into liquidation. SURELY YOU DONT WANT THAT MARY? it is important to us that the club survives and that the council gets a return on its money. This way we have managed to do both. We are brilliant!" What he means is this "They have promised to pay us the money back at some point. We will renegotiate in a few years and let them extend the loan period. We will receive the £1,500,000 back at some point hopefully but in effect it will have been an interest free loan and we will have lost out in real terms.We are working up a repayment package, where we give them the loan( or some land, a carpark etc) and then lease it back off them. We will not pay them anything until the value off the original loan has been repaid in full. This way, it is costing us nothing. At the end of this period, we will start to pay them for the loan,land,carpark and the people of Salford will pick up the tab. This is our creativve way of managing the situation." BULLSHIT ALERT!
 
MARY FERRER wrote
at 06:23:25 on 20 March 2013
Few question to John Merry. Can you remember a story in the M.E.N on the 2nd February 2011 and a quote from yourself "THE LOANS WE HAVE GIVEN ARE SECURED AND WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO ENSURE THEY ARE REPAID AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE" I think 25 years is pushing it a wee bit,don't you. I would also like to know what has happened to the Clubs Directors being personally liable for the Rugby Clubs debts. This is stated in a document I have in front of me dated 24January 2011. The document is Titled + Willows Road Car Park Redevelopment,Willows Road,Weaste,Salford. Just in case you had forgot. Just one more question. A few months ago when the Council were thinking of giving another load (thank God they did not) At that meeting, both Cllr Lancaster and The Mayor were advised not to take part because of a conflict of interest.If this is the case, WHY was Councillor Lancaster the person who has signed off loans to The Reds in the past. The plot gets thicker and thicker. Look forward to your response Mr Merry.
 
not happy wrote
at 06:23:21 on 20 March 2013
Money for nothing gets your loans for free. Isn’t funny how Salford council let millionaires get away with not paying there depts. Yet let this con/lib government walk all over them by not lifting a finger to help vulnerable Over the next five years, the Reds will pay back £240,000, 16% of the loan, and the rest - £1.26million - will be spread until 2038. Are they taking the Mick? Or what? Who the hell as authorized this. Can you imagine going to the bank and asking for this, don’t think so; what would happen Mr. Mayor to you and all your asst/dept Mayors running a Ltd company like this, instead of trying to run a council; you’d be SACKED
 
Bernard Brough wrote
at 21:53:57 on 19 March 2013
Are there really so many dim wits in this city that think that lending tax payers money to a private business & then waiting what will be over 40 years to get it back is a good thing? They also object to it being reported, I'll retire to Bedlam.
 
not a brain dead labour voter wrote
at 17:53:42 on 19 March 2013
what a farce, seems like the Mr Salford fiasco all over again. all the Salford fans crowing we've got a multi millionaire owner were going to win the league crap. if he can't afford to pay back what the club owes the Salford tax payer ie £1.5 million, how's he going to build a team, or is this going to be on the nether nether, how long before he asks our brain dead labour party councillors for more of Salford tax payers money again, sad over the next 12 months or so, valuable workers in the council are going to lose their jobs and the parasites at swine-town are pouring our money down the drain on this white elephant, lets send in the bailiffs that's what this council would do if was a little old lady owing council tax money or for not paying a parking fine. ps what's the betting that the old club and it's debt file for bankruptcy and then it's by by to our money. hope this rugby club turns out a dam site better than this new owners hotel did.
 
Interest free? wrote
at 16:23:13 on 19 March 2013
So is this an interest free loan or what? If it is, can I also borrow £1,500,000 from Salford council please? Even if I stuck it in a bank at 2%, I could get £15,000 a year back for doing nothing :D
 
Red Army wrote
at 16:22:47 on 19 March 2013
Good news all round. Looks like you're gonna have to find something else to 'report' on now though.
 
Please enter your comment below:
 
 
 
Salford Star Hoodies
Salford Star contact
Deli Lama
advertisement
 
Contact us
phone: 07957 982960
Facebook       Twitter
 
 
Recent comments
article: SALFORD PEOPLE TO JUDGE WHETHER PLANNING COUNCILLOR BROKE RULES
charity begins at home, I an not right "in a way". I am right full stop. Salix is a not for profit charitable trust. They do not m... [more]
article: SALFORD PEOPLE TO JUDGE WHETHER PLANNING COUNCILLOR BROKE RULES
@Joey, Actually Salix have set up two profit making subsidiaries. They're all about making money, nothing wrong with that, but the... [more]
article: SALFORD TOWERBLOCK CLADDING RESIDENTS UNITE TO TACKLE PENDLETON TOGETHER
The complaints about the 2 inch fire door gaps are fully justified. I just can't believe it. What worries me though is the report ... [more]
article: A YEAR AFTER SALFORD CLADDING SCANDAL INDEPENDENT TENANTS MEETING TO BE HELD
Regards to wrote about Albion. I am well aware of the co-op at Albion, but I was under the impression it was a full TMO. If its no... [more]
article: SALFORD PEOPLE TO JUDGE WHETHER PLANNING COUNCILLOR BROKE RULES
The development is an over development .too many people on the site. Salix got them for nothing. They get £90 a week each fat £450... [more]
 
 
 
 
 
Days
Hours
Minutes
Seconds
 
 
 

Donate

Help the Salford Star...

all donations welcome

 
 

More articles...

PEPPA PIG COMMUNISM GRAFFITI GOES SUBVERSIVE IN SALFORD

Star date: 18th July 2018

'COMMUNISM IS FOR THE CHILDREN' SAYS SUBVERSIVE PEPPA PIG

Bizarre graffiti art has appeared near Salford Central Station depicting two delighted looking Peppa Pigs by the slogan 'Communism is for the children'. The art has led to much amusement and bemusement but is probably related to China banning the popular kids' cartoon.

Full details here...

SALFORD TOWERBLOCK CLADDING RESIDENTS UNITE TO TACKLE PENDLETON TOGETHER

Star date: 18th July 2018

SPRUCE COURT AND THORN COURT TENANTS GET ORGANISED TO FIGHT BACK

"We're sick to death of being treated like dirt..."

Last night, tenants from Spruce Court and Thorn Court met to share concerns over dangerous cladding, fire safety, security and other issues, as they united to take on towerblock manager Pendleton Together and Salford City Council, which owns the blocks.

"They try to ignore what we're saying" insisted one tenant "They're complacent... we're sick to death of being treated like dirt...".

Full details here...

SALFORD QUAYS DEVELOPER TO AVOID £1MILLION PAYMENT WHILE NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED

Star date: 17th July 2018

FURNESS QUAY DEVELOPER PROVIDES NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON HUGE APARTMENT SCHEME

Salford's planning scandal is to go up another gear this week when an application by developer De Trafford for 421 apartments in blocks up to 27 storeys high on the site of Furness Quay is considered by councillors. Thanks to Salford City Council policies, the developer will be providing no affordable properties, while, through 'viability' assessments it is set to avoid over £1million in planning fees.

Meanwhile, the English Cities Fund (ECf) is continuing its secrecy in relation to new apartments and an office development around Chapel Street and New Bailey.

Full details here...

A YEAR AFTER SALFORD CLADDING SCANDAL INDEPENDENT TENANTS MEETING TO BE HELD

Star date: 16th July 2018

CLADDING, SECURITY, FIRE SAFETY AND MORE TO BE DISCUSSED AT PENDLEON TENANTS MEETING

As the Grenfell Tower victims said, before the tragic fire their warnings were not listened to by the authorities. Now tenants in Spruce Court, Pendleton, who are still living with the dangerous cladding, have called an independent meeting for tomorrow, Tuesday, 17th July, to discuss cladding, security and more, while Thorn Court residents are also complaining about the same issues.

Full details here...

PETITION AND PROTEST PLANNED OVER SALFORD SCHOOL HEAD TEACHER SUSPENSION

Star date: 15th July 2018

SCHOOL PROTEST PLANNED OVER HARROP FOLD HEAD AND STAFF SUSPENSION

After Salford City Council suspended Harrop Fold School Head, Drew Povey, and three other staff members last week, supporters have launched a petition to reinstate them, while pupils and parents are planning a protest at the school this Thursday.

Full details here...

 



written and produced by Salfordians for Salfordians
with attitude and love xxx