kentblues
Director⭐
Your post gives the perfect sense of why agreeing this "out of profits" is something I would firmly have resisted. But maybe this "out of profits" phrase is used loosely. And hence its not so complex after all (even if many weeks pass and it apparently is the issue...).If the payment was an amount due to the Council, then technically the planning permission would be invalid and no properties could be sold, or leased before the S106 payments had been satisfied as there is a need to discharge the s106.
The trouble with the profit share arrangement, as has been muted is that unless you have a waterfall agreed and all the costs bottomed out, what actually is the profit on the scheme and what can be deducted as costs before the profit is determined.
For example if they can deduct management costs as a legitimate cost - who determines what is a reasonable amount to deduct?
If I was in the consortium, I would want my position secured by way of a second charge over the land and to have my own cost consultants on the scheme to make sure it is being built in accordance with the cost schedule.
However, there would be so many ways to manipulate the costs - this could end up being the square root of 10% of 20% of naff all.
The building of the FF stadium was an enabling event and an up front cost. Just like the land for example. The concession should have been no more than the fact that the £20m was paid to a schedule relating to the progress of the build (i.e. over time rather than all up front with the stadium). There are times when this whole saga seems to be a case of the partially sighted leading the blind.
I must be missing something..