Wasting Our Money

I recommend that you read the Croydon Guardian story about how Croydon Council have wasted our money on their unloved arena plan.

"The council reached an agreement with Arrowcroft in May 2006 that it would cover the costs of a compulsory purchase order for the Croydon Gateway site and then claim the money back from the company at a later date.

A Croydon Guardian investigation can reveal that the council has issued Arrowcroft with six invoices from September 2007 to July 2008, totalling £168,727.30 in legal fees and advice from its own chartered surveyors. £78,000 remains unpaid.

Under the agreement, Arrowcroft promised to pay the council 'all CPO costs incurred by the Council. . . within 20 working days of receiving a fully itemised invoice'.

Despite this, Arrowcroft took 305 and 171 days respectively to pay two of the bills.

Croydon Council does not appear to have charged the company any interest for the late payments."

The council state:

"In line with other local authorities, the council does not charge interest on sundry debtors."

Why do they not charge interest on late debts?

That is normal commercial practice, given that the council is verging on bankruptcy it needs every penny it can make.

Why are the terms of credit so lax?

Is the relationship between the council and Arrowcroft a little too close for comfort?

Albert Dock Not Yet Profitable

One of Arrowcroft's other ventures, the Albert Dock in Liverpool has a long way to go before it will become profitable.

That at least is the view of its new director, Joe Edge.

Albert Dock is owned by Arrowcroft, and shows losses in excess of £1M and debts of £24M in the company accounts.

Given the financial difficulties of another Arrowcroft "prestige project", why are Croydon Council so sure that the Arrowcroft plans for the Gateway are financially viable?