The Poolie Bunker

I think now might be a good time for genuine fans to act "as one voice". I have spoken to moderators on the other boards and await their reaction
I see the council have set up another working party (that's English for delaying tactics) to discuss the application by Pools to buy back the ground. The council won't sell the ground because they feel the land is too valuable or they will put such a figure on the sale it will frighten off even OIR.
I was talking with some people who use "other boards" - Into the Blue and HUFC2005 about "corporate action" not associated with the club.
It is my opinion that a "working party" thats football speak for a meeting needs to be called with reps from the THREE boards to look at how we can assist the club without hampering their dealings with the council.
I have mentioned this previously - if there are 15 seats up for re-election in May on Hartlepool Council - a group of like minded people - could stand with its main priority - once elected to vote to sell the ground to the club.
A few years ago I thought this might be impossible but people are dissallusioned with both lab and cons and it might be the only opportunity genuine fans have to register their views.
Imagine the impact if 15 Hartlepool United fans standing in a council election would have - it would attract national media attention.
Your views would be appreciated and if there are any people over the age of 18 years (which is the legal mimimum age I think) who would be interested in standing - well thats a start.
I am sure that if we work together - well maybe common sense will prevail
There are 1,074 people registered as members of the three Hartlepool boards I have mentioned.
How many people support H'Angus for Mayor and re-elected him?
How many "Pools fans" went to Sunderland for the FA Cup game = 10,000 plus
How many went to Cardiff = 17,000.
I think you underestimate the "political clout" you have being a Pools fan.

I'd rather have a goat represent us than someone from the other two boards to be honest.

We've talked about this before, and it's all very well and good.

BUT anybody elected under that remit or holding a "vested interest" (season ticket holders, regular supporters etc) would not be able to have any say in the ground sale decision anyway.

The subject of vested interest is not as straight forward as it may seem. People who are season ticket holders or indeed regular supporters would NOT be exempt from voting on the issue because they would not have a vested interest. Only the shareholders of the club would seemingly benefit from any transaction. But I take on board your comments and will seek guidance from the Electoral Officials.

In principle we're with you but I'm sure that the Mayor said in his Mail column that several he and several councillors were barred from voting because they were season ticket holders. Ironically this means that a raving skunk fan is heading the committee.

I think guidance from the officials needs to be your first port of call.

Have sent an email asking about vested interest to John Anthony Brown who is the returning officer for Hartlepool asking numerous questions about "vested interest". I await his reply.
If you shop at Tesco do you have to declare an interest if they are applying for planning permission to build an extension? I don't think so. As for having raving monster looney whatever heading up the committee the guidelines are reasonably clear:
How to become a councillor
Legal requirements to be a councillor
To stand for election, on the day of nomination, you must be :
18 or over,
and a UK, EU or Commonwealth Citizen,
and
either be registered to vote on the current register with the local council
or have either worked or lived in the council's area for one year
been an owner or tenant of any land or premises in the council's area for one year
You cannot stand if
you work for your local council
or you hold a politically restricted post for another authority,
or you are subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order or interim order,
or you have served a prison sentence (including suspended sentences) of three months or more within five years prior to the election,
or you have been disqualified under any legislation relating to corrupt or illegal practices.
You do not need any formal qualifications to become a councillor. (well I think we all knew that).

Would you fancy the position of councillor tjr.

Anyone else sick of people banging on about the council selling the ground?

don't think encouraging debate about something as important as the ground is "banging on about it". No I don't fancy being a councillor - been there done that!

If you get voted in after stating in your election platform that you're going to sell the ground back to Pools then I don't see how anyone can touch you. You have sought and received the explicit approval of the electorate.

I agree RH - but if you think its as easy as that - well how come the legal people were able to convince ther Mayor and presumably the season ticket holding councillors from Seaton and the Manor that they could not vote because of "vested" interest. However the definative answer will come from the Electoral Commission. I await their reply.

how does anybody therefore know, whether or not these councillors have a vested political interest in NOT selling the ground? That's dead easy to declare, but a lot harder to prove than having a vested interest in HUFC's fortunes.
I believe this decision should be removed from the council's hands to start with, and passed on to a higher Government authority, based on their dealings with the club in the past. I don't trust councillors, they are self-interested egomaniacs.

Because they never announced their colours before being elected.

If you stand for election with privatisation as a key issue, get elected, pass a privatisation act, then once it's done buy a shitload of shares, you certainly have a vested interest but because you never made a secret of your intentions it can be considered in the public interest too or else you'd never have been voted in.

Disclaimer: that's my take on it and will remain so until someone comes up with examples proving it wrong!

I believe that the "vested interest" is a precedent from case law about some similar decision over scouseland way.

This is what Stuart said in The Mail
MOST people will have probably read in yesterday's Mail that Hartlepool United have approached the council with a view to purchasing that land on which the ground stands.
This is the second approach by th

This is the second approach by the club and its owners to buy the land, after the original request was turned down about 18 months ago.
I have read and heard a lot of comment over this issue and a lot of the talk has been based on assumptions, many of which have been way off the mark. Therefore, I will try and refresh people's memories and put a few facts straight.
Firstly, I need to make the decision process quite clear. The decision whether or not to sell a council asset is an executive one, i.e. it rests with the Cabinet.
Three of the Cabinet, Cath Hill, Ged Hall and myself are all season ticket holders and, as has been deemed by the courts in a case involving season ticket holders for Liverpool FC being involved in a council decision affecting the football club, it would be perceived as a personal therefore prejudicial interest.
I have had to therefore set up a committee of the Cabinet to deal with the request. Robbie Payne will chair it as asset management comes under his finance portfolio and the other members are Pam Hargreaves, Vic Tumilty and Peter Jackson.
There were three reasons for refusal last time around. One was concern around the exacerbation of the parking problems around the ground on matchdays should the capacity of the ground be increased.
Another was an issue over access and right of way across a piece of public land to the north of the ground.
And the third reason was that the council was unsure of what the long-term plans were for the Mill House site.
From recent correspondence, it appears that IOR and the club can propose solutions to these issues and talks can reopen.
The future of the Mill House site is very important and the council needs to form a view as to what they wish to see there in the future.
The leisure centre will eventually close when the H2O centre is up and running and of course there is the indoor bowls club to be considered as well as the skatepark and the car park.
Personally, I would love to see a sports and leisure quarter in that area, maybe even run by Hartlepool United. It will be interesting to hear what interest the club might have in future development, although it will be impossible for them to make any solid commitments at this stage and this shouldn't detract from the main issue of the ground sale.
Last time, there were extremely detailed discussions held around the conditions of any sale and the council would have to insist that the land only be used for the purposes of a sports stadium or words to that effect. They would then have to ensure that the covenants and agreements were water-tight to prevent the current or more likely, any future owners from being able to quickly sell on the land and make a quick profit.
If a new stadium ever came on the agenda, some kind of agreement needs to be reached as to what would happen to the land then.
Of course, all these covenants affect the value of the land. If it were to be sold for a supermarket or housing, it would be worth much more than if it were to be sold as a football stadium. The negotiations will be reopened on the price, but in all honesty, that is not a main concern. The council is bound by rules saying that they must take best consideration and I can't foresee any problems once the figures have been updated.
Despite being knocked back in 2005, IOR have continued to invest in Hartlepool United and this investment has seen continued success on and off the pitch. They have recently celebrated 10 years of being in charge at Hartlepool United and have constantly proved that they are committed to Hartlepool and have been a great asset to the town as a whole.
The council continues to support the football club and should be encouraging its development.
The councillors involved have a difficult job in balancing this support with holding the purse strings of the public and protecting and getting the best out of our assets.
No one at all (except maybe a few Darlo fans) wants to hold the football club or its owner back and everyone wants to see continued success.
On the other hand, no one wants to see a Wimbledon situation where the club relocated a hundred miles away, making a tidy profit for the owners.
Now, I'm not saying IOR ever plan to do this, quite the opposite in fact, but maybe in 2005, it was the first time this multi-million pound oil company has had to deal with a local council about the sale of an asset. There are procedures that need to be followed, consultation that needs to happen and protocol to adhere to.
I'm sure many lessons have been learnt which will play a major factor in discussions and negotiations this time around. I know the Cabinet members are ready to approach talks with an open mind and I know the club are determined to work closely with the council to get over any obstacles. Everyone is looking forward to a fruitful debate.

Spot any of the new members of the committee with a vested interest?

The Liverpool decision was looked at by Lord Wool who tended to suggest it amounted to maladministration that the Liverpool Councillors who were either regular attendees or season ticket holders should have declared that before they voted on the planning application. However I think he goes on to suggest that provided you keep an "open mind" and deal with the matter fairly their should be no conflict. Most of our councillors have an "open mind".
But if you look at the committee the Mayor has asked to meet with the club I am sure you will see one councillor who I have seen at both home and away matches - maybe they will tell us how many matches they go to and how you define regular.
two of the others will have views on the parking issue.
But Stuart wants an open and frank debate.
Cut the crap - sell the ground to the Football Club.