Jump to content

Provisional Meeting Date with Chairman/Chief Exec - 24th Jan


Guest nonaenever

Recommended Posts

Not quite true. The money was in lieu of being sued by TTA, which would have almost certainly won on the OMBC Advice given, and the money was a negotiated settlement. A win win as quicker recoup for TTA, and less outlay for OMBC, and therefore taxpayer.

Im just stating it was a redevelopment fund, which is on the internet to see, thats all im saying. The money was to fund the new stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You've come on the scene telling us stuff that we either already know or is bollocks, up your game man.

You're entitled to your opinion, i havent got any more time to waste replying in a dead-end argument

On a further point, its all well and good being 'fly' behind an account name (no disrespect to anyone else that hasn't used their actual name), but I am stating things that I have read on the internet, papers and heard and my take on the matter which I'm entitled to do, as it is a forum. I'm not ashamed to say what my take on the club is using my real name (in which I am mistaken from time to time on facts), yet you can very easily give grief sat behind an account and from the looks of it, are being a passive member in the crisis that are club is in. At least I'm actually trying to do something.

Edited by Danbright12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just stating it was a redevelopment fund, which is on the internet to see, thats all im saying. The money was to fund the new stand.

I've lost what your point was.

 

The deal was £5.0m for the Lancaster Club, + 700k grant, use not specified and re-negotiate the lease at Chapel Rd. The stipulation was "some" money be spent on the new stand, but it was not specified how much it was to be.

 

It was not 5.7m + 700k on Chapel Road though.

 

Considering the cost of the stand, and over run, it's not a great leap of faith to assume some of the money was used, but on the other hand, not unreasonable to assume much of the £700k was to cover fees purchasing. Either way, we got a new stand, and the relative sums are small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us hope he presents himself for questioning, and , that those who question, ask what we all need to know. I wonder if anyone has asked a representative of the local authority to attend, I'd be fascinated to hear what the council has to say about its investment, it is after all public money . Is Jim McMahon MP available? Maybe he's too busy ? ?

 

You've been reading this forum for a long time and you only ask these questions after the meeting has been set up??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost what your point was.

 

The deal was £5.0m for the Lancaster Club, + 700k grant, use not specified and re-negotiate the lease at Chapel Rd. The stipulation was "some" money be spent on the new stand, but it was not specified how much it was to be.

 

It was not 5.7m + 700k on Chapel Road though.

 

Considering the cost of the stand, and over run, it's not a great leap of faith to assume some of the money was used, but on the other hand, not unreasonable to assume much of the £700k was to cover fees purchasing. Either way, we got a new stand, and the relative sums are small.

My bad, i read it as 5.7 + 700k. Apologies. Everythings become very off the point, my point was, although they may have owed us the money as a technicality (which i concede now after comments) the money was intended to be used as an investment for re-development of Boundary Park for a new North Stand.

I was disputing the comment about it wasnt an investment but that it was owed.

Edited by Danbright12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad, i read it as 5.7 + 700k. Apologies. Everythings become very off the point, my point was, although they may have owed us the money as a technicality (which i concede now after comments) the money was intended to be used as an investment for re-development of Boundary Park for a new North Stand.

I was disputing the comment about it wasnt an investment but that it was owed.

Fair enough Dan. I think there is still much to bring up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, too far for me.

Which is why I am not demanding for questions to be asked a certain way, steaming in months after it started and assuming those that are attending are clueless, praising those that have the balls to do it.

Even Dan has set out his plan, I might not agree with some of his gung ho comments on here, but he is fronting up and has a reasonable approach.

It's those that are sniping at everything and that have already written it off that I particularly have a problem with. I'm not including you in that by the way.

You could be Skyped in Singe, it works well on Newsnight.

Edited by BP1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost what your point was.

 

The deal was £5.0m for the Lancaster Club, + 700k grant, use not specified and re-negotiate the lease at Chapel Rd. The stipulation was "some" money be spent on the new stand, but it was not specified how much it was to be.

 

It was not 5.7m + 700k on Chapel Road though.

 

Considering the cost of the stand, and over run, it's not a great leap of faith to assume some of the money was used, but on the other hand, not unreasonable to assume much of the £700k was to cover fees purchasing. Either way, we got a new stand, and the relative sums are small.

Who owns the Chapel Road complex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad, i read it as 5.7 + 700k. Apologies. Everythings become very off the point, my point was, although they may have owed us the money as a technicality (which i concede now after comments) the money was intended to be used as an investment for re-development of Boundary Park for a new North Stand.

I was disputing the comment about it wasnt an investment but that it was owed.

Well done in coming so far. Hopefully, eventually you will make it all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nonaenever

Update:

 

Pleased to report the "dirty (half) dozen" of us are having a pre-meet before this Saturday's game. Still one or two to maybe hear from out of the original volunteer list (and one reserve) but noting recent comments, and as mentioned previously, had to draw a line under any more volunteers.

 

We'll sort the fine detail this Saturday and then all systems go for the interview on the 24th Jan - cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nonaenever

Just a reminder for the 7 of us that are getting together for a pre-meet tomorrow before the game - 1pm

 

In view of the very rapid recent developments at BP, I have emailed SC and MM to ask if the date for the interview (24/1) still suits - or if they wish to postpone it for a little while as they may be very busy on bigger priority issues. MM has replied and says he will leave that decision to SC.

 

In the meantime, though, we can crack on as planned and I really look forward to meeting 6 OWTB members tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder for the 7 of us that are getting together for a pre-meet tomorrow before the game - 1pm

 

In view of the very rapid recent developments at BP, I have emailed SC and MM to ask if the date for the interview (24/1) still suits - or if they wish to postpone it for a little while as they may be very busy on bigger priority issues. MM has replied and says he will leave that decision to SC.

 

In the meantime, though, we can crack on as planned and I really look forward to meeting 6 OWTB members tomorrow.

NNN, who is filming/recording the meeting and how will it be broadcast? Apologies if I've missed this posted elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nonaenever

NNN, who is filming/recording the meeting and how will it be broadcast? Apologies if I've missed this posted elsewhere.

 

Stevie - probably via the club's filming facilities and be on "freeview" (similar to Shez's interview). The 7 of us pre-meeting tomorrow can chat this through - both Simon Corney and Mark Moisley have got back to us - the 24th is still looking favourable for this - the Chairman will confirm for definite shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...