edgeog wrote:Norfolkbee wrote:Hiveoccupier wrote:rudebwoyben wrote:Hang on, the club didn't own the freehold to Underhill until 2002 so this was hardly a long-standing situation we were in. Moreover, it's all very well owning the freehold but with the club unable to upgrade Underhill to the necessary standard and to be a venue capable of supporting a Football League club it was better to sell the site and use the monies to build a stadium on a site where this was possible.
I’m not sure what this has got to do with the basic point I was making which is that the way things are structured the Club (as opposed to its owner) has no assets and trades at a loss so it can hardly be described as financially secure.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always understood that when TK took over, he agreed to leave the club debt free if and when he relinquished control.
TK also agreed to hand over the Club debt free to the Supporters Association if the referendum(which we never had as promised) voted to stay at Underhill.
I was there when TK made the promise. He said he would hold a vote in the event that the options were to leave or stay in Barnet and he would hand over the club, debt free, to the supporters if a majority decided to stay.
In reality it was probably a fairly hollow offer because he was offering the club without any assets and it would have been incredibly difficult for supporters to get organised and financed at short notice to take it up.
If he had followed through on the offer and held the vote I am very confident a clear majority of those voting would have supported the move to the Hive, and it would have saved us a lot of pain.
TK's failure to honour his promise to hold the vote was, and still is, seen as a huge breach of trust for some people who were among the club's most dedicated supporters. Having been there when he made the promise it is difficult to understand why he doesn't get this.