Acres & Hectares of confusion.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

5.33 Hectares is equivalent to 13.17 acres

7 Acres is equivalent to 2.83 hectares

Its a strange place to start an article such as this, but it’s importance and relevance will become eminently clear in due course.

Many of you will be aware of PZJ – he is the bear who has been particularly busy on the football tax havens website investigating allegations of State Aid by Glasgow City Council. His investigations and findings proved to be the catalyst to the launch of the EU investigation into allegations of State Aid to Celtic FC.

During the course of this investigation he has been tenacious. Freedom of Information Requests, letters, e-mails and phone calls, as well as hours of internet searching and obtaining copies of records (often at his own expense)

On the 28th August, 2013, PZJ wrote to Glasgow City Council with yet another Freedom of Information Request pertaining to the following :-

“what i am requesting for the avoidance of doubt, and that the public can have confidence in the land transactions conducted by glasgow council and celtic fc, is that a full copy of the independent surveyor’s report and the district valuer, be released immediately, and that the glasgow public can judge for themselves, if glasgow council in reality realised full market value for the lands. transparency is the key, and without the reports this cannot be established “

On the 11th September 2013, Glasgow City Council duly responded. It is a lengthy response, the relevant and pertinent extract of which is quoted verbatim below :-

© Westthorn Recreational Park

Following negotiations, the DV, the Council’s and Celtic’s Chartered Surveyors agreed a valuation for the site, based on:

A density of 160 units agreed with the Council’s planning department.

The units were agreed at £26,187.50 (based on comparable evidence available at the time of the transaction)

The Council’s Geotechnical Team investigated the site to determine the extent of the abnormal ground conditions.

Abnormal ground conditions were agreed at £3,515,000 (Appendix 1 describes abnormal ground conditions)

The original area for the site was 13.5 acres. After a previously unknown blast zone was identified, this was

subsequently reduced to 7 acres.

160 units @ £26,187.50 = £4,190,000

Less abnormals £3,515,000

Resultant land value £675.000

I would draw your attention to the assertion – “The original area for the site was 13,5 acres. After a previously unknown blast zone was identified this was subsequently reduced to 7 acres”

However PZJ was not satisfied with the information provided and subsequently obtained, from Companies House, a copy of the mortgage charge document relating to this property. It can be viewed here :-

https://www.companie…cument/17642527

As you can see from the document the area of land referred to is 5.33 Hectares (13.17 acres) at Westhorn, which appears to be at odds with the Council assertion of 11th September, 2013, where they asserted that :-

“The original area for the site was 13.5 acres. After a previously unknown blast zone was identified, this was subsequently reduced to 7 acres.”

Perhaps someone at Glasgow City Council or Celtic FC would be kind enough to explain to us these apparent anomalies.

[coatbrigpirate 23]

No read it yit but hope this is it!

[gogzy 31,195]

right, dumb it down for me.

[rangersfc77 170]

Well that is interesting and it is now most definitely some form of deception and those minutes should be released. D'art is your friend going to write back to GCC for an explanation?

[EatDolphins 5,358]

What land is this we are talking about? Just 've be clear, as I understand they have made several purchases.

Also, as I admit I'm not particularly smart, does this suggest that the land, after being "downgraded" , was immediately reinstated to its former value after the purchase was complete?

[Malvern 11,329]

right, dumb it down for me.

Got almost 50% of the acreage for nothing Gogzy. Not sure what the 160 units is though to be fair, but it is early in the morning.

Edit: also the "abnormal ground condition" issue is still clouded in mystery for now but is a hell of a lot off the land price.

[EatDolphins 5,358]

Got almost 50% of the acreage for nothing Gogzy. Not sure what the 160 units is though to be fair, but it is early in the morning.

Edit: also the "abnormal group condition" issue is still clouded in mystery for now but is a hell of a lot off the land price.

Is it not more like %70?

[obiwan72 28]

Is this thing d'art was talking about posting tomorrow? The only problem I n this is what does the 160 units actually mean. From how I read it was originally 160 units. It was then halfed due to the blast zone, but it says they paid for 160 at that reduced rate. So does that mean they got all of the land at that price? And if only half the land is abnormal then why dies the valuation drop so much! Surely it wouldbe 50 percent value...

[Malvern 11,329]

Is it not more like %70?

5.33 Hectares is equivalent to 13.17 acres

7 Acres is equivalent to 2.83 hectares

The council say they sold 7 Acres (2.83 hectares) but Celtic PLC lodged documents for 5.33 or 13.17 Acres. Less than 50% but still a bit of a jump in land in possesion.

Edit: If I am reading it about right

[Frank Reynolds 3,359]

Is this thing d'art was talking about posting tomorrow? The only problem I n this is what does the 160 units actually mean. From how I read it was originally 160 units. It was then halfed due to the blast zone, but it says they paid for 160 at that reduced rate. So does that mean they got all of the land at that price? And if only half the land is abnormal then why dies the valuation drop so much! Surely it wouldbe 50 percent value...

All valid questions, hopefully we will find out in due course

Brilliant work D'art

[EatDolphins 5,358]

5.33 Hectares is equivalent to 13.17 acres

7 Acres is equivalent to 2.83 hectares

The council say they sold 7 Acres (2.83 hectares) but Celtic PLC lodged documents for 5.33 or 13.17 Acres. Less than 50% but still a bit of a jump in land in possesion.

Edit: If I am reading it about right

Yeah so they got 50 percent more land than should have existed but the price was cut by far more than 50 percent. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's how it reads to me.

[Malvern 11,329]

Yeah so they got 50 percent more land than should have existed but the price was cut by far more than 50 percent. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's how it reads to me.

That was the cost of the land cleanup that the club would have to pay to make it usable...

The Council’s Geotechnical Team investigated the site to determine the extent of the abnormal ground conditions.

Abnormal ground conditions were agreed at £3,515,000

The point made by Obiwan was also something that is intriging me as if the original land (all of it) was this 160Units, does that mean the 160Units becomes 80 units (ish) and a reduction in the "abnormal ground conditions" after it was re-evaluated to the new 7 acre site? Would be a hell of a co-incidence if the cost for 160Units minus the cleanup reduction is the same as 80 units minus a reduced value of the cleanup for the 7 acres.

Bloody hell I am going to bed now...

[EatDolphins 5,358]

That was the cost of the land cleanup that the club would have to pay to make it usable...

The Council’s Geotechnical Team investigated the site to determine the extent of the abnormal ground conditions.

Abnormal ground conditions were agreed at £3,515,000

The point made by Obiwan was also something that is intriging me as if the original land (all of it) was this 160Units, does that mean the 160Units becomes 80 units (ish) and a reduction in the "abnormal ground conditions" after it was re-evaluated to the new 7 acre site? Would be a hell of a co-incidence if the cost for 160Units minus the cleanup reduction is the same as 80 units minus a reduced value of the cleanup for the 7 acres.

Bloody hell I am going to bed now...

Well that's me out

Way over my head.

[Thewhitesettler 2,712]

The more I read it, the more confused I get.

Let's see if I've got anywhere close yet. Them (CFC) &gcc, agreed a fee for land, the gcc decided that some of the land had "abnormalities" (what they are? I dunno) so they reduced the agreed fee, to take into account these "abnormalities" However the amount of reduction is HUGE (Even DFS don't offer those kind of reductions in their many, many, many sales) There is also this "blast zone" land, which should, in my mind anyway, have reduced the size of land Them received from the gcc. from 13.5 acres to 7 acres. However, somehow them (CFC) have taken 5.33 Hectares = 13.17 Acres of land from gcc.

So them (CFC)have 6.17 acres more of this land, than they should have, if my arithmetic is correct. Does gcc know about this? Did them (CFC) just steal the land? (This is a common practice among the RC community, "No one else was using it, so we just took it, and it's ours now") What the fuck are these "Abnormalities" in the ground that makes it so, almost, worthless? Did gcc offer this land, with abnormalities, on the open market? (As I'm pretty sure it should do) What is this "Blast Zone" and did them (CFC) get this "Blast Zone" for nothing?

There are more questions than answers Bears, & I'm just not clever enough to work them all out. I just know that something stinks, & it's not the abnormal ground...

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Is this thing d'art was talking about posting tomorrow? The only problem I n this is what does the 160 units actually mean. From how I read it was originally 160 units. It was then halfed due to the blast zone, but it says they paid for 160 at that reduced rate. So does that mean they got all of the land at that price? And if only half the land is abnormal then why dies the valuation drop so much! Surely it wouldbe 50 percent value...

160 units is the number of houses (plots) that the planning department agreed could be built on the land and that gives the original valuation.of £4.19 million.

[obiwan72 28]

160 units is the number of houses (plots) that the planning department agreed could be built on the land and that gives the original valuation.of £4.19 million.

ah I see. Still leaves the question of how the hell could they fit 160 units (which from my reading, is what they paid for) but only on apparently half the size of land. And... A fuck it, just ma earlier point but I know what units are now.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

The question is why GCC said...

“The original area for the site was 13.5 acres. After a previously unknown blast zone was identified, this was subsequently reduced to 7 acres.”

But yet on the mortgage charge document at Companies House the area of land referred to is not 7 acres, but 13.1 acres (5.33 Hectares)

Is this thing d'art was talking about posting tomorrow?

Yes.

[crabbit bear 139]

Does this mean the acreage went back up but the price did not?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Does this mean the acreage went back up but the price did not?

CB

The acreage GCC claim to have sold is 7 acres. The amount of acreage listed at Companies House appear to be 5.33 hectares which is equivalent to 13.17 acres and not 7 acres.

[crabbit bear 139]

Cheers D'art, that is very interesting, it's got my spidey senses tingling.

That is some great digging by PZJ and great work as usual by yourself sir.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

ah I see. Still leaves the question of how the hell could they fit 160 units (which from my reading, is what they paid for) but only on apparently half the size of land. And... A fuck it, just ma earlier point but I know what units are now.

I think the whole point of their response is to cause confusion. If it was as above board as they are suggesting then they would have little problem releasing the information.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Is this thing d'art was talking about posting tomorrow? The only problem I n this is what does the 160 units actually mean. From how I read it was originally 160 units. It was then halfed due to the blast zone, but it says they paid for 160 at that reduced rate. So does that mean they got all of the land at that price? And if only half the land is abnormal then why dies the valuation drop so much! Surely it wouldbe 50 percent value...

The reference to Units bud is totally incidental.

It's the relevance of the acreage which is the key,

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Surely the media can't ignore this any longer?

This is basically dipping cash out of the pockets of every taxpayer in Glasgow and handing it to Bheast FC

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,281]

What size is the land actually obtained?

Is there not the chance the mhanks have obtained a mortgage for land value that is not theirs which puts them further in the shit than even gcc?

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Forget the units and don't be bogged down by it. They sold acreage and lied about the coverage of the area. They also sold at greatly discounted rates.

I think they will bring the units into play and say they meant only 7 acres was suitable to build on thus a factor in the massive discount. They wouldn't have used it in the calculation otherwise. The main point is valid but the details could become a major point in their 'justification'. There is no reason not to release a copy of the geotechnical report they can redact any genuinely sensitive information. That's if it really is that legitimate!