Further info on winding up petition process

[View Of Golden Gate]

There is obviously issues at the club, and the lack of communication can kind of worrying. Let's not panic I don't think the club will be going under anytime soon, but whether we will be competitive next season is the question. For those questioning the Trust, get involved or stop complaining. I have to defend SC, though, there is no evidence other than hearsay that he is asking for an unrealistic price for the club. There is no doubt he has made mistakes, however, he is not in the realms of Charlton, who have an owner who just doesn't care. He also isn't Chris Moore, while worrying times, now is not the time the hound people out of their positions. We do that when we are in no danger of being wound up, then we urge SC to ask questions of those around him, as well as himself. 

[TheBigDog]

20 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

I have to defend SC, though, there is no evidence other than hearsay that he is asking for an unrealistic price for the club. 

If only we had the opportunity to put questions to him face to face....

[blueatheart]

30 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

If only we had the opportunity to put questions to him face to face....

Broadcast live, perhaps?

[Crusoe]

There's no chance in hell we will ever be told the real asking price for the club, or if we were whether it has or would change.

 

And, frankly, any number that was given would just lead to endless debates on what is "realistic" or not.

[Guest davidshaw]

3 hours ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

There is obviously issues at the club, and the lack of communication can kind of worrying. Let's not panic I don't think the club will be going under anytime soon, but whether we will be competitive next season is the question. For those questioning the Trust, get involved or stop complaining. I have to defend SC, though, there is no evidence other than hearsay that he is asking for an unrealistic price for the club. There is no doubt he has made mistakes, however, he is not in the realms of Charlton, who have an owner who just doesn't care. He also isn't Chris Moore, while worrying times, now is not the time the hound people out of their positions. We do that when we are in no danger of being wound up, then we urge SC to ask questions of those around him, as well as himself. 

 Agree with this Golden. Although I would just add that I have taken the time to read a lot of comments from those identifying themselves as Trust members on here. It's stated on some threads that the Trust is run by successful business people, experts in their field etc - which is all good. So, to those Trust members regularly having a pop at the board, Corney etc. just a suggestion. Why don't you use your influence to lobby the successful business people running your Trust for them to either 1) buy the club themselves or 2) put together a consortium of responsible buyers.

 

That way, the club will be in the hands of people who, without any doubt, genuinely care, we can stop arguing amongst ourselves, unite as a fan base and move forward to support the club.

[Scapegoat]

Done a bit of speed-reading through this thread and as is almost always the case, it's difficult to understand the reality of the situation.

 

From what is available it's seems to indicate that the financial situation of the club is delicate, which given we are a League One side with attendances in the bottom half of League One / Top half of League Two is not a surprise is it?  I should imagine that 50% of the bottom 2 divisions are routinely run in a precarious financial position i.e. just about keeping afloat.

 

And the notes from the meeting that took place a month or so ago, where financial information was shared, backed that up.  If I recall we had:

 

(1) A football club making losses, which was being kept going mainly by input from SC (I am guessing through a variety of ways - loans etc)

 

(2) A company that owns the ground that is receiving no rent from the football club

 

(3) A company that owns the OEC, that has a mortgage and cannot seemingly afford to finish its construction that would allow it to bring in more revenue.  Doesn't seem like a big money maker either.

 

 

So I don't think it's a surprise that given attendances this season - plus the fact that we had some long gaps without home games (income) and that all the big attendances were at the back end (Bradford/Sheffield/Bolton - plus local derbies against Bury and Dale) - that cash flow at this very least is an issue.

 

Is anyone surprised? I am not - it's clear to me that we are a club that is financially struggling.  We always have done - the occasional player sale and cup game have been a staple of this club trying to remain solvent in my lifetime.

 

I am sure that SC and the club has made mistakes, and many of them have been debated on here to the nth degree - but I do wonder what those that are particularly negative about the owner want?

 

We would all like new ownership, that could buy all the companies (club, ground, OEC) and invest to improve the facilities - finish the OEC, fix the pitch, improve the rest of the stadium, fund the playing squad.

 

But, based on the fact that even when we won the now Champiosnhip title we averaged less than 10,000 fans, there is no way that kind of investment would re-pay itself.

 

I don't think that SC is the greatest football club owner in the land, but I also think that he is not the devil incarnate that some portray him as either.

 

We may be edging ever nearer to another financial disaster (as we were when Chris Moore "saved us", and then when TTA "saved us"), but I think that is the nature of lower league football.

 

If it does occur, then we have to hope that we will be saved again, but I am not convinced it's any more desperate that it's been previously.

 

 

[singe]

Trying to be objective about this, and not saying I  support the view at all, but if the worst was to happen what are the various outcomes.

Could I  clarify these points?

OAFC Football

OA 2004 AFC would not really go bust because it is a tiny co with small income other thanks season tickets and FL income but precious little assets but little debt to be called in, 

It could retain the licence to operate in the FL or if kicked out apply to the Norh West counties or weherever.

They could be homeless.

 

BOUNDARY PARK

This is where the debt is approx £6m, and two further debts secured either against income or the value of the ground, with a Solicitors company in Liverpool.

3/4 of Boundary Park  as a stadium is owned by Brass Bank. As with Coventry the Stadium is not worth much on it's own, but the land could be sold for housing. Brass Banks ace up it's sleeve.

Permission as a Sporting venue runs out in ? years
As seen with ORLFC, the OMBC is not going to be in much of a position to help.

 

FACILITIES

1/4 of BP, the North Stand is part owned by Brass Bank, but would not be able to operate on it's own very well technically it could operate as a venue but would be significantly less sucessful without OAFC. That would be gone if sold for housing, but kncking the North Stand that is a significant hit.

OEC would not be worth anywhere near as much as a standalone venue, with possible boycotts, but could just be knocked down if the debt is called in. As with North stand it would go if knocked down ,but not much debt is tied in with it either.

 

The LED signs media revenue is owned by SC, that would be gone, but he would have the equipment to sell elsewhere, but the depreciation will be significant, so will take something of a hit on that

 

So OA 2014 AFC would be homeless but relatively debt free. It could therefore possibly retain it's FL licence

But it would have no debt, that is held elsewhere.

Is that in a nutshell? I am not playing the situation favourably or unfavourably, or downplaying the emtion of it, just trying to be objective for this purpose only.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by singe

[ChaddySmoker]

15 minutes ago, singe said:

Trying to be objective about this, and not saying I  support the view at all, but if the worst was to happen what are the various outcomes.

Could I  clarify these points?

OAFC Football

OA 2004 AFC would not really go bust because it is a tiny co with small income other thanks season tickets and FL income but precious little assets but little debt to be called in, 

It could retain the licence to operate in the FL or if kicked out apply to the Norh West counties or weherever.

They could be homeless.

So OA 2014 AFC would be homeless but relatively debt free. It could therefore possibly retain it's FL licence

But it would have no debt, that is held elsewhere.

Is that in a nutshell? I am not playing the situation favourably or unfavourably, or downplaying the emtion of it, just trying to be objective for this purpose only.

 

There are 2 debts secured against the football club being the dodgy debt plus a charge from Brassbank in relation to finance covering previous losses. We are stuck.

 

[leeslover]

1 hour ago, davidshaw said:

 Agree with this Golden. Although I would just add that I have taken the time to read a lot of comments from those identifying themselves as Trust members on here. It's stated on some threads that the Trust is run by successful business people, experts in their field etc - which is all good. So, to those Trust members regularly having a pop at the board, Corney etc. just a suggestion. Why don't you use your influence to lobby the successful business people running your Trust for them to either 1) buy the club themselves or 2) put together a consortium of responsible buyers.

 

That way, the club will be in the hands of people who, without any doubt, genuinely care, we can stop arguing amongst ourselves, unite as a fan base and move forward to support the club.

Taking the, "Put up or shut up," defence to a new level 

[Scapegoat]

I am sure that we are in a bad position.

 

I wonder what the net position of SC (plus the the other 2 Amigos) is at the moment, and what potential returns people think that they could get if the conspiracy theories that he/they are out to screw the club and all associated businesses for all the cash they can.

 

Since they came in we have (and please add or correct errors / add values if known or estimated):

 

(1) Bought the ground back from the council

(2) Invested in a pitch (due again)

(3) Sold land for housing at the back of the Chaddy

(4) Sold land for hospital car-parking

(5) Knocked down the Lookers and eventually built a new stand (not quite complete)

(6) Partially re-done the carpark

(7) Maintained a passable football stadium in terms of the theee remaining stands through basic ongoing maintenance as needed

(8) Sold a few players

(9) Paid the occasional transfer fee

(10) Funded a League One playing squad and manager for the duration of TTA ownership- mostly one at the wrong end of the table, but some OK seasons

(11) Had a couple of good cup runs

(12) Paid off more managers for being crap than we'd like, and got some cash for one that was half-decent

 

And the big opportunity left? Close the whole thing down, clear the remaining land and sell to investors / invest in it themselves in terms of residential and commercial.

 

I have no idea what the net position of 1-12 is, and what realistically the "nuclear" option is worth, but struggle to see a group of people walking off into the sunset making a huge return on their investment over the whole timescale if they took it.  It might be that it helps recover some of the losses sustained - and that is what they want, but I suppose I personally don't see people working towards that aim.

 

The North Stand would have been a waste of cash; the annual moderate injection of cash in January into the team to halt the slide; recent 2 year plus contracts; etc.

 

 

[Worcester Owl]

2 hours ago, singe said:

Trying to be objective about this, and not saying I  support the view at all, but if the worst was to happen what are the various outcomes.

Could I  clarify these points?

OAFC Football

OA 2004 AFC would not really go bust because it is a tiny co with small income other thanks season tickets and FL income but precious little assets but little debt to be called in, 

It could retain the licence to operate in the FL or if kicked out apply to the Norh West counties or weherever.

They could be homeless.

 

BOUNDARY PARK

This is where the debt is, and the dodgy debts are secured against

3/4 of Boundary Park  as a stadium is owned by Brass Bank. As with Coventry the Stadium is not worth much on it's own, but the land could be sold for housing. Brass Banks ace up it's sleeve.

Permission as a Sporting venue runs out in ? years
As seen with ORLFC, the OMBC is not going to be in much of a position to help.

 

FACILITIES

1/4 of BP, the North Stand is part owned by Brass Bank, but would not be able to operate on it's own very well technically it could operate as a venue but would be significantly less sucessful without OAFC. That would be gone if sold for housing, but kncking the North Stand that is a significant hit.

OEC would not be worth anywhere near as much as a standalone venue, with possible boycotts, but could just be knocked down if the debt is called in. As with North stand it would go if knocked down ,but not much debt is tied in with it either.

 

The LED signs media revenue is owned by SC, that would be gone, but he would have the equipment to sell elsewhere, but the depreciation will be significant, so will take something of a hit on that

 

So OA 2014 AFC would be homeless but relatively debt free. It could therefore possibly retain it's FL licence

But it would have no debt, that is held elsewhere.

Is that in a nutshell? I am not playing the situation favourably or unfavourably, or downplaying the emtion of it, just trying to be objective for this purpose only.

 

I seem to remember guaranteed use of Boundary Park as a football ground runs out in around 2032, is that about right? Not that far off really.

 

Isn't there also the small matter of c.£6m owed to TTA, or is that covered by your BP debt? Which they said would only be called in if we reach the Premiership? Is that promise in writing?

[kowenicki]

55 minutes ago, Worcester Owl said:

I seem to remember guaranteed use of Boundary Park as a football ground runs out in around 2032, is that about right? Not that far off really.

 

Isn't there also the small matter of c.£6m owed to TTA, or is that covered by your BP debt? Which they said would only be called in if we reach the Premiership? Is that promise in writing?

 

Not sure what the relevance of the first sentence is?  Do you think they are going to close it down and build houses?  Why and how would they do that?

[Worcester Owl]

No I don't think that, and certainly don't hope so! I was just trying to answer Singe's question. I remember during a phone-in last season the club rep (Mark Moisley?) saying the ground was leased until (?) 2032 and presenting this as great news. It is, but 15 years soon passes as we all know!

[kowenicki]

5 minutes ago, Worcester Owl said:

No I don't think that, and certainly don't hope so! I was just trying to answer Singe's question. I remember during a phone-in last season the club rep (Mark Moisley?) saying the ground was leased until (?) 2032 and presenting this as great news. It is, but 15 years soon passes as we all know!

 

It sure does! 

[pk200]

 

 

 

How many houses are there on the land already? At say 40k ? per plot cost to builder. Who has pocketed money from these land sales?         How much did NHS pay for Sheepfoot Lane site?      

Edited April 19, 2017 by pk200

[Guest davidshaw]

Sometimes, in situations like this, you just have to step back and default to common sense and see what it tells you:-

 

New stand built

"New" manager hired to try and keep us in the division (on a decent contract)

Six figure sum spent on a striker - on good wages too - with a decent length contract

Key players signed up on longer term contracts

Ground continues to be developed e.g. perimeter advertising

Everyone within the club pulling together and focussing energy to avoid the drop

 

Does common sense tell you that the above are actions indicative of a club about to pull the plug, be wound up, wanting to shaft everybody in sight etc. or does it tell you it's a club that has an eye on the future, has been through some very tough times and has managed to turn the corner?

 

An expert "in the know" (aren't they always) in one pub on Saturday was telling some people that the master plan had always been to build houses on BP and it was imminent; "Imminent I tell you!" - I simply replied, "Oh right, so which genius in the master plan spent millions on a new stand/facility knowing full well it would have to be demolished - imminently - to make way for houses in the close season".

 

Some will be pleased to know that this will be my last comment on the matter - and when the usual miscreants continue to create fog around our future, please just remember to revert to common sense. It will serve you well.

 

Some of us will remember the curious types who used to carry billboards around footy grounds proclaiming - "The end is nigh". Ermmm... no it wasn't.

 

Similarities with some of our supposed fans constantly harping on about the end being nigh for Latics. No it's not and I am not alone in really look forward to next season.

[jorvik_latic]

Who did we spend 6 figures on and where did that info come from? 

[kowenicki]

58 minutes ago, pk200 said:

 

 

 

How many houses are there on the land already? At say 40k ? per plot cost to builder. Who has pocketed money from these land sales?         How much did NHS pay for Sheepfoot Lane site?      

 

Presumably the person that owners the land pocketed it?  Who else? 

[pk200]

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Presumably the person that owners the land pocketed it?  Who else? 

WHO IS THAT CLEVER DICK?

[yarddog73]

34 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said:

Who did we spend 6 figures on and where did that info come from? 

We spent six figures on Kelly, I heard that directly from Lee Johnson.

[mcfluff1985]

26 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

We spent six figures on Kelly, I heard that directly from Lee Johnson.

Did we? Or did we just take 100k less for Korey Smith?

Edited April 19, 2017 by mcfluff1985

[adamoafc]

32 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

We spent six figures on Kelly, I heard that directly from Lee Johnson.

We spent close to 100k for Holloway. That direct from a player I know who plays for fleetwood. That's what the holdup was with getting him in their chairman wasn't happy with no payment. Maybe why the ticket money to pay other clubs went walkies and the new loan was generated to fund that? 

Edited April 19, 2017 by adamoafc

[leeslover]

7 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

We spent 100k for Holloway. That direct from a player I know who plays for fleetwood. That's what the holdup was with getting him in their chairman wasn't happy with no payment. Maybe why the ticket money to pay other clubs went walkies and the new loan was generated to fund that? 

That's extremely unlikely. Holloway signed for Fleetwood on far more than we were offering him. Fleetwood will have paid a lot of his wages off to come to us, they will have let him go to the club who were willing to take on the larger share of his contract. If there was a fee it's only accounting shenanigans.

[adamoafc]

6 minutes ago, leeslover said:

That's extremely unlikely. Holloway signed for Fleetwood on far more than we were offering him. Fleetwood will have paid a lot of his wages off to come to us, they will have let him go to the club who were willing to take on the larger share of his contract. If there was a fee it's only accounting shenanigans.

Yeah because a fleetwood town player is going to cover up for Oldhams mismanagement / accounting shenanigans aren't they...... ?

 

We have paid money before and will do again. Poleon another example 75k after a 'tip off' from a certain ex assistant manager who's name rhymes with might 'allegedly!' 

Edited April 19, 2017 by adamoafc

[leeslover]

9 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

Yeah because a fleetwood town player is going to cover up for Oldhams mismanagement / accounting shenanigans aren't they...... ?

 

We have paid money before and will do again. Poleon another example 75k after a 'tip off' from a certain ex assistant manager who's name rhymes with might 'allegedly!' 

I wasn't suggesting it was some particular scam. I doubt we paid money (like really paid money) for a player whose contracted salary reduction coming to us would have amounted to more than the reduction in his salary he had to take to come.