latic12345 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I see but I don't know what I'm looking at. Help me out. Are there any risks associated with these business arrangements that I'm not gauging? Is there anything shady and/or unorthodox about those business arrangements? I'm really far behind on this because it's all a bit private sector for my tastes, with no trade union involvement. I'm not sure why we all get hung up on this. Not many retailers own their own shops. Not many businesses own their own offices. Not many factories are owned by the companies that operate in them. We're no different. There's a property company involved who own the land and the assets and there's an operating company involved who couldn't possibly afford to get the finance to acquire the land or build such assets. Hence someone else funds it and we lease it. It's a very normal arrangement these days. I'm not saying it's good or bad just no different to many other businesses out there, especially those who go through cash issues (as we did 10 years ago) where selling and leasing back assets to solve cash flow is commonplace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAFC_Ryan Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Someone had to say it. Oh no, actually they didn't. I've removed it, not that there's anything wrong with it. It's a joke.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 As most of you know I am not the biggest Simon Corney fan and I have spent some money getting my hands on a few reports that are in the public domain, I would appreciate your time in reading some interesting things I have found out..... This is all factual information from either purchasing detailed company information (www.companysearchesmadesimple.com) or oldham.gov.uk Firstly - Oldham Athletic 2004 Association Football Club Limited At present OAFC has liabilities of over £6m, this has riszzzzzzz..... Boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 TBF as Harry Bosch has pointed out there is previous to this on twitter, where Wizzo posts under his real name. Well TBF I really can't be arsed trying to find that out. Even though I am currently sitting at home with my foot on a stool after an operation there aren't enough hours in the day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamoafc Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Jesus wizzo or whatever you are called don't give up your day job pal. I honestly thought you were for the club! You are clearly just a really rubbish :censored: stirrer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Not saying this is the case here but maybe they have made the books look worse than they are for tax reasons , I know a lot of company's do it Have you reported to H.M. Revenue & Customs all those companies you know have cooked the books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Have you reported to H.M. Revenue & Customs all those companies you know have cooked the books? They know about Starbucks and Amazon already don't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 if God forbid, Latics did go into administration again, the assets, such as the land could not be taken and sold by creditors. I think you are missing the point here. The land is already in the hands of our major creditor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I think you are missing the point here. The land is already in the hands of our major creditor... So what? We've got grass that we play football on. We've got 3 and 1/8 stands to play in front of. We have no threat to be kicked out of the ground. We're in no immediate financial danger. But no, Blitz and Gazal of Brassbank are just going to tell us to :censored: off and they're going to demolish the ground and build 1000 houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I've removed it, not that there's anything wrong with it. It's a joke....I get it, but it's one that has been misused. Even before Simon called me an anti-Semitic :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I don't have prior experience of Wizzo, I'm just going off what's been posted in this thread. So many people are saying "we knew this" and then explaining the facts, but they all have different versions of these facts, which kind of suggests that a lot of people don't know the real facts. One poster says the £1m assets in PCW is to build the stand, but others say Brassbank is building the stand, and others say OAFC. These are pretty much mutually exclusive. The fact that the net assets of OAFC stand at -£5.4m at least tells me that with a £6m liability, there must be £600k of assets. That's something I didn't know. Also, if the lease exists as an actual guarantee, it should in theory have some value. That it appears not to have suggests that it has restrictive clauses that reduce its value to nil. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04989487/OLDHAM-ATHLETIC-2004-ASSOCIATION-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 People are delving into business that is quite frankly, none of their business. I think as fans, some demand too much. Ah :censored: that :censored:... There is either something to hide or nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide from the fans then there is little reason / justification for not having full transparency. The Trust / Fan on the board was meant to bring this. But we still find ourselves crawling around looking at the scraps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Ah :censored: that :censored:... There is either something to hide or nothing to hide. If there is nothing to hide from the fans then there is little reason / justification for not having full transparency. The Trust / Fan on the board was meant to bring this. But we still find ourselves crawling around looking at the scraps. As with any business, there isn't complete transparency. We don't even need to get into the issue of the Trust as that is a cyclical topic that will go on and on... I think it is well speculated that money goes back to Blitz and Gazal, who's shocked? Really. The land remains their property and to be fair, they used their own money to buy it from the council in 2004, so surely, it is their property. If we are paying rent to them then so be it. Everyone wanted football at Boundary Park so that's the price of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 As with any business, there isn't complete transparency. I see very little reason why there can't be almost complete transparency. Of course some things need to remain private for reasons of competing against the competition, Transfer fees etc. Very little comes under the too sensitive to know category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I think it is well speculated that money goes back to Blitz and Gazal, who's shocked? Really. What would be the problem with knowing the truth on the issue ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 The land remains their property and to be fair, they used their own money to buy it from the council in 2004, so surely, it is their property. There is so much written... No doubt some factual and some opinions which people think are facts.... I never truly know who owns what... I thought the land was owned by Blitz and the club buildings where owned by the club... I believe we have a 20 year lease on the land... Not sure where the truth lies though... Again though... You say you can't have complete transparency but do you see a problem in use knowing the facts on this one ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 If we are paying rent to them then so be it. Everyone wanted football at Boundary Park so that's the price of it. Would be nice to know how much we are paying them ? What sort of lease we have and the conditions attached... Again, where do you see the problem in us knowing that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KusungaIsGod Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) My problem is why is everything shrouded in secrecy. I mean nations won't fall and riots will happen in the streets if they tell us how much eg Jose Baxter went for. Like last year with Dickov an the backroom staff being fired everyone running round in circle to what was going on. James Tarkowski again there is only 3k who turn up every week would it kill us just to tell us. If SC told us yes i take all the profits home i have put x amount in through the years and i want some frigging back. Fair dues i know i would. My problem is why all the information behind the scenes is treated as if it's mi6. NEVER TELL THEM HOW MUCH BAXTER WENT FOR they will never know.... Edited April 1, 2014 by OAFC_33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 My problem is why is everything shrouded in secrecy. I mean nations won't falll and riots will happen in the streets if they tell us how much eg Jose Baxter went for. Like last year with Dickov an the backroom staff being fired everyone running round in circle to what was going on. James Tarkowski again there is only 3k who turn up every week would it kill us just to tell us. If SC told us yes i take all the profits home i have x in and i want some back. Fair dues i know i would. My problem is why all the information behind the scenes is treated as if it's mi6. NEVER TELL THEM HOW MUCH BAXTER WENT FOR they will never know.... And Barry says 'Baxter who?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 My problem is why is everything shrouded in secrecy. I mean nations won't fall and riots will happen in the streets if they tell us how much eg Jose Baxter went for. Like last year with Dickov an the backroom staff being fired everyone running round in circle to what was going on. James Tarkowski again there is only 3k who turn up every week would it kill us just to tell us. If SC told us yes i take all the profits home i have x amount in through the yes i want some frigging back. Fair dues i know i would. My problem is why all the information behind the scenes is treated as if it's mi6. NEVER TELL THEM HOW MUCH BAXTER WENT FOR they will never know.... You don't want to let the other clubs know just how desperate you are / how cheaply you will sell.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 My problem is why is everything shrouded in secrecy. I mean nations won't fall and riots will happen in the streets if they tell us how much eg Jose Baxter went for. Like last year with Dickov an the backroom staff being fired everyone running round in circle to what was going on. James Tarkowski again there is only 3k who turn up every week would it kill us just to tell us. If SC told us yes i take all the profits home i have x amount in through the yes i want some frigging back. Fair dues i know i would. My problem is why all the information behind the scenes is treated as if it's mi6. NEVER TELL THEM HOW MUCH BAXTER WENT FOR they will never know.... Could well be Sheffield United that blocked the revealing of the transfer fee. Fact is though, if we knew Baxter had gone for say, 500k, how much uproar would there be that nothing had been put into the playing budget from this (although it probably had, towards some wages) There's obviously short-fallings and holes that have to be plugged at the club, hence the player sales. Maybe the financial situation is worse or better than we think? Who knows. I'd wager that our club is more transparent than others when it comes to the wire. I do question why some fans think they have some innate right to know EVERYTHING about what happens in the club. Unfortunately, whilst paying good money to watch Latics, you don't gain access to the boardroom and all it's dealings for £300 and odd, maybe a bit more, a season. What happens are board level, generally stays at board level, unless it is of vital importance to us fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) . Unfortunately, whilst paying good money to watch Latics, you don't gain access to the boardroom and all it's dealings for £300 and odd, maybe a bit more, a season. No, that cost us £200,000... Keep up! Edited April 1, 2014 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) What happens are board level, generally stays at board level, unless it is of vital importance to us fans. ....well the whole idea was for that not to be the case... The whole idea was we put up £200k for 3% of the shares and get that access to the board level.... Edited April 1, 2014 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 No, that cost us £250,000... Keep up! Yes, it did 10 years ago. Again, we're getting into the Trust debate, something which I don't want to get into, however, changing roles of the "Fans Representative" and the demise of the Trust since it's inception means we don't get that information. Plus, I guess to be part of that 3% stakeholding you have to actually be a part of the trust. I don't know anyone that actually is... I'm not supportive of that idea, but that's the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 (edited) Yes, it did 10 years ago. Again, we're getting into the Trust debate, something which I don't want to get into, however, changing roles of the "Fans Representative" and the demise of the Trust since it's inception means we don't get that information. Plus, I guess to be part of that 3% stakeholding you have to actually be a part of the trust. I don't know anyone that actually is... I'm not supportive of that idea, but that's the way it is. Just ignoring the inconvenient failures of your point though doesn't change the reality You might like to ignore history to give your opinion weight but its not inline with the reality of today. You said we shouldn't expect information... Yet... The Trust (FECKING US - MEMBERS OR NOT IT WAS OUR MONEY) own 3%... It cost us £200k to buy it... We have board room access... For reasons unknown though certain people won't share the information we paid for.... Edited April 1, 2014 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.