Monday, 13 October 2014
Questions nothing but questions
A meeting was arranged today the 13th to discuss the following questions.
1.1. Q&A put out as part of press release:
1.1.1.Point 3: How do you know if Hill & Keegan have a hold over Cardy Construction Ltd if your due diligence is only done on the new entity? You cannot ignore the rest of the company nor can you exclude other access to finance. For instance the deal where Cardy front Colin Hill in Lowestoft.
1.1.2.Point 4: leases can be done back to back, for example the Pavilion
1.1.3.Point 6: DA is being rewritten so yes you could change things and can someone explain why leases were sold on non-existent assets.
1.1.4.Point 7: Why should anyone trust this “due diligence any more than previous occasions? It would be better paying an external Forensic Accountant to answer all our questions surely.
1.1.5.Point 9: The cliff facade questions.
126.96.36.199. What is the anticipated life of the columns?
188.8.131.52. And the facade?
184.108.40.206. How much do you anticipate spending on maintenance over the next 30 years?
220.127.116.11. You talk about maintenance how much has been spent since January 2010 when one panel cost £20K.
18.104.22.168. In 2012 the Facade was inspected what money has been spent and how many of the recommendations have been started and/or completed.
22.214.171.124. What problems and additional expense would occur if the only access for maintenance work was a 13 foot access road?
126.96.36.199. When was the last time anyone saw behind the facade?
188.8.131.52. Point 10: Why doesn’t TDC work with Cardy and resolve the cliff facade by removing it completely?
1.1.6.Point 12: Is the EA being consulted as to whether an FRA and its recommendations is necessary rather than a cost to avoid?
1.1.7.Point 13: very nice statement but ignores the fact that they have been sitting exposed to the elements for 4 years, something reinforcing bars are not made for.
1.1.9.Please explain point 3.7
The DA will include a restriction in favour of TDC not to use the hotel site part of the property other than for a hotel.
1.1.10. Part 5 “due diligence” questions
184.108.40.206. How can you guarantee information given to officers re: funding is 1) not forged 2) not linked to previous developer i.e. Keegan and Hill and how can you ensure no other funding hold is made on another Cardy company?
220.127.116.11. Who “owns” the £1M surety on completion and as proper checks were never carried out by TDC on receipt, how can you ensure you aren’t “laundering” the funds when it is returned?
18.104.22.168. Why aren’t checks being made by a neutral 3rd party to ensure complete clarity?
1.1.11. Part 7 Cliff Maintenance
1.1.12. How can you have an ongoing contract with Cardy for the maintenance if they sell the freehold on and/or go bankrupt?
After spending an hour discussing these and having some questions referred back for answer later the over riding feeling is Officers are trying to do a much better job that in the last 12 years. That is to be applauded.
Should they not be pressured into making a decision due to the political needs of the members then maybe the correct decision be made. Whatever that is??