wiseowl

what a brave man, having a go at a woman. Now I know who he is I`ll certainly be asking him to his face why he put it about I was a good friend of Corney's and that I even went on a sponsored walk with him.

Think you're right Glossop. I didn't go today (ST holder) - simply can't be arsed attending "the theatre of nightmares" at the moment.

In what way, BP? Let's say they tried to raise cash via some kind of share issue - and offered them at £100 each - let's say 2,000 fans would be interested at that price - you'd raise the princely sum of £200,000 - absolute peanuts in terms of the monies you will be looking at. It is to be hoped the Trust do have a very close handle on this "fan-led" buyout - we have no choice but to put our faith in them (the Trust). As I`ve saisd elsewhere, I suspect it will involve some kind of financing and, again, we have little choice but to let it run its course and hope for a positive outcome.

underdog - I may be mistaken but I think the point here is that insolvency (i.e. Administration in this scenario) would involve Oldham Athletic (2004) Association Football Club Limited - which doesn't own the ground, so the stadium etc. would not be available for purchase from the administrator. There is a distinct possibility of a simple liquidation of (2004) as that may be the only way to realise any return for its creditors i.e. a fire sale of players, equipment etc. - end of club.

Ah .. so that's who he is. Apparently, he's the one that was going around telling people that I was a good friend of Simon Corney's (and went on a sponsored walk with him) when I was setting up the fans' meeting with the chairman a couple of years ago. On that basis (i.e. he was telling blatant lies) he's worth jack shit. As regards the letter, I think the Trust have been caught between a rock and a hard place. There will be a lot of wasted energy around minutiae that doesn't really matter but I appreciate that when so many attended the meeting, they have to been seen to have had their say to a degree. Well done though, I can see the step change which was badly needed. My main worry is that, before we know it, the season will be over and momentum may then well and truly be lost. Still think we needed a protest of some kind organised by the Trust ASAP - by not doing so, you have effectively divided the fanbase (i.e. little pockets of protest will be made independently) - we simply don't have sufficient numbers of fans to be divided. AL will be mightily relieved that we have effectively "divided and ruled" ourselves as fans.

Mr K - think about it before firing from the hip. I am not renewing my season card - and season card money is often seen as vital to a club owner to tide them over the close season. I`ve said that is because I cannot support a regime until some semblance of order returns. When it does (and I am not bothered whether that is via the owner changing his ways, or a new owner - I just want some stability and common sense) then I will renew my unwavering support. So, I might not attend a single game next season - I might attend them all (and yes that will cost me far more than a season card). However, the way I see it, at least I am sending a message (I accept small in isolation) to the owner, whilst still leaving the door open to renew my support. Makes sense to me.

yes, yes we know ...... but this line gets trotted out far too regularly. If you can't dedicate the time, don't go on the Trust board - quite simple really. I've done voluntary work for years and don't bleat on every two minutes that I have a day job as well. I make it clear what time I can dedicate - and get on with it. The charity concerned manages their volunteers' time - and it runs like a well oiled machine - does somebody manage Trust volunteers' time or is it done on the back of a fag packet? Momentum has certainly been lost - as an observer, it does seem to take forever for the Trust to make decisions and take decisive action. Being consensual is fine - but not all the time - someone make a decision and let's have a meaningful protest please - these are extraordinary times. At the risk of sounding boring (because I`ve said it umpteen times) until it severs its umbilical chord to the club (via its much vaunted 3% shareholding) it will remain impotent. Just out of interest, can someone from the Trust tell me :- 1) How much did the purchase of the 3% shares cost? 2) How much could they be sold for now? P.S. I think I`m entitled to know as I did stand for hours with a bucket at Eastlands (City v Arsenal) and engaged with lots of City fans, to the extent that I couldn't carry my bucket because they had donated so much. Think it was around 12k in total that day - which is why I never slag City fans off - well not too much anyway

Not renewed and supported Latics since I was 4 years old (I`m now 8 ) - I will still go and watch and will pay on the gate as and when. My reasoning is to send a message to AL that I`m not at all happy with the shambles we continually find ourselves in. Unless I see some evidence of the shambles changing (in whatever form that may be) they have lost an exceedingly loyal supporter. At 8 years old I am now mature enough to realise that loyalty has its limits. There comes a point when I simply cannot accept being taken for a ride any longer.

Absolutely spot on. It drives my wife mad but, to this day, I refuse to subscribe to Sky in any form (always resisted). I made this decision when Sky first got involved with football screening rights. I said then that it would eventually see the ruin of lower league footbal - I don't think the day is far off when clubs will be going bust, left, right and centre. As you say, 1955, the root cause is the abhorrent greed of players (and their agents). There should be an absolute maximum salary cap of 20,000 pounds per week, in my opinion. Before anyone scoffs at that, it's over a million pounds per annum! The salaries being paid now are so unrealistic and I don't care if it makes foreign players stay on the continent etc. - let them stay there - and let our greedy bar stewards go there too if they like. It would bring back some realism to football and the plastic "Premiership fans" will still sit in the pubs and watch their little darlings on Sky. The net effect on teams like us is that strikers who very rarely score (AAH for example) are/were being paid around 2,500 pounds a week. You couldn't make it up.

People need to understand that Administration is a form of insolvency; you can't just "go into Administration" - the company has to be insolvent. The Administrator/s' fees are paid for out of company assets (they come first, even ahead of a floating charge holder). Now think about this for a minute when casually talking about Administration as some kind of possible "good thing"; the "owner" owns very little (think North Stand, other land etc. which he doesn't own) - there is essentially very little of value in Oldham Athletic (2004) AFC Ltd - can't think any of our players would fetch very much in a "forced sale" environment. In my opinion, Administration (unless there was what is known as a pre pack Administration i.e. pre-arranged sale to a new company - same owner - or 3rd party) would be the end of our football club. Fans need to understand AL owns very little - Administration would be the end, the rest of the assets at BP (i.e. those currently owned by Blitz etc) would be sold off and you would either have "Boundary Park Retail Centre" or "Boundary Park Housing Estate" instead of a football club. I am sure that there are people within the Trust who understand the complexities of what we are talking about here - this wouldn't be a normal Administration scenario as ownership of various bits of BP is fragmented. Until fans get their heads around this and understand it, we are in danger of sleepwalking into oblivion.

Harry makes a very good point. Never underestimate the cultural differences either. The way we conduct, and expect business to be conducted by others, can be distinctly different to the way it is done in North Africa or the Middle East.

Most talented player we've had in quite a long time. Just needed somebody to manage him properly in my opinion. I know a lot thought he was just self-destructive but who knows? Infinitely better then anything we've got now.

In our hearts, I think most of us feel like that 1955 but we do have to tread carefully. It's alright aiming to get the owner out but without someone ready and able to step in, it's also very risky for the future of Latics. We have a largely creaky old stadium that costs a fortune just to maintain - I would hate us to cut our nose off to spite our face - all options have to be considered very carefully.

underdog, sound advice for sure but just to put things in perspective most circumstances of directors becoming personally liable revolve around wrongful or fraudulent trading i.e. there has to be a conviction in court for these offences before a director can become personally liable. There are literally thousands of company frauds that have been committed (never mind just wrongful trading), sometimes involving tens of millions of pounds - and still there is often no conviction for wrongful/fraudulent trading. I won't bore you with the reasons why that's the case but what usually happens is directors are simply disqualified (i.e. from being directors again) for a period of time. Director disqualification does not make someone personally liable per se but, thereafter, acting in breach of disqualification does. Director's Liability Insurance wouldn't be worth a fig in the event of wrongful/fraudulent trading as it's an automatic "get out clause" for the insurer. So, (in essence) the Trust rep's position on the board (or indeed a non exec position) should be pretty safe providing they personally exercise due care etc. etc. Don't forget either that Latics isn't a PLC with lots of shareholders - it's a private limited company and 97% of the shares are owned by one man from memory - and the majority of fiduciary duties of a director are to the company's shareholders. This is an important factor when considering fiduciary duites. Duties are also owed to creditors, HMRC etc. but I don't think this is as big an issue as is being made out providing the indivdual exercises good morals and due diligence (I know, I know!). This isn't designed to discount you - it's designed to give you "the other side of the coin".

Aside from everything else, a few observations:- 1) As others have said, it does appear to be a snub in the direction of the Trust. 2) A genuine question for the Trust. Communications broke down irrevocably with Simon Corney; do you think you are at the same stage with Abdallah Lemsagam? (and I realise the Trust position has not yet been taken up on the board and the given reasons for that). 3) IF this position/s had been offered immediately, or shortly after, commencement of Mr L's ownership then it may have had merit. In light of recent events and reaction, it would appear to be a desperate measure to placate fans.

Look forward to this - see you there. P.S the link isn't working on my PC - is it ok to just turn up please?

I was out for a few beers in Marsden one day and bumped into an elderly chap who told me his name - but I can only remember his surname as "Sivright" from memory. He said he used to play for us "back in the day" and gave an account of why we changed to a tangerine strip. He said it was because the manager at the time was a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland. I can't remember the name of the manager he quoted (perhaps Mcilroy - I did have a few that day!) but anyone know if there's any truth in what he said? He seemed genuine about the account.

I don't know whether I'm a bit psychic (!) and had a premonition of doom, but this is the email I sent the day before PS quit! I just sent it to the email address featuring on the club website and put "FAO Abdallah Lemsagam" in the heading. I`ve not had a reply as yet; I eagerly await one Dear Mr Lemsagam, I hope you are enjoying spending some time in our lovely town of Oldham and that the weather is not upsetting you too much! I have been a Latics' supporter for many years and I really do appreciate the situation you inherited on purchasing the club. I am, however, for the first time in many years, considering not renewing my season ticket. My reasons are:- 1) The standard of football is currently poor i.e. our own performances and in this division generally. 2) The matchday experience at Boundary Park is poor - I could list many reasons why. 3) Most importantly, I have no idea what our plans are. The fans are the lifeblood of the club and good communication is vital. I was pleased with the appointment of Paul Scholes but he has inherited a very poor squad indeed and we all know a mass clearout of players is required at the end of this season. IF an announcement were to be made regarding, for example, the fact we intend to invest heavily in the summer in recruiting players, sorting the pitch out etc. I would have no hesitation in renewing my season ticket. In the absence of any communication, we just seem to be drifting into football obscurity. I am not a fan to heckle or moan but there really does need to be some channel of communication in order that the fans can see a bright future. If not, I fear that fans will desert the club in their droves. "New manager bounce" should have seen us on the fringes of the playoffs - for whatever reason, the positive response from the team to our new manager has not happened and we look awful at present. I really hope you do take these comments on board; you need the support of the fans and communication is vital. Yours sincerely

Well....... from my perspective (and the others involved as far as I know) it was never an "investigation into Corney" but, yes I/we did meet with him, Mark Moisley, a fellow called Mr Gee from memory and the company accountant in order to put some questions from the fans. He was very open and honest in his answers - and we get a good insight, even so much as to see evidence of what players were being paid per week (to quash the rumours we were paying peanuts - we definitely weren't). There was a full report of the meeting posted on here by another user. Anyhow all that's history now, those wanting Corney out got their wish and he's gone................ and doesn't our future look so much rosier

Hi Dave - I worked many years in finance and dealt with insolvencies and subsequent claims for prior credit card purchases under S.75 Consumer Credit Act. Basically, if someone buys a season ticket (or even just paid a "deposit" on one and paid the rest by another means) costing over 100 pounds then they are protected by the credit card company (actually the merchant acquirer underneath but that's all a bit technical) if the supplying company becomes insolvent and fails to supply the services paid for (in this case football matches). I can't see why Latics would not allow credit card purchases - if they don't it's likely because they don't want to pay the commission due to the credit card company (although they could easily pass that onto the purchaser). If they won't take credit card payments any more (as you've stated), that's a worry because it means merchant acquirers think there is too much risk associated with the retailer (i.e. Latics). Another interesting one - particularly as tramfixer says he purchased by credit card 2 weeks ago. The protection afforded by credit cards only applies in the event of failing to supply product/services, faulty goods etc. - now you could argue we've not had any decent product for years!! - in all seriousness though, to clarify, paying on credit card doesn't give you an automatic right to a refund simply if you change your mind. That depends on several factors, terms and conditions of sale etc. Hope that makes sense - I`m just in from the pub! Goodnight

Corney Kept us in League 1 Had an "open-door" policy (certainly with fans) Treated staff well by all accounts Lemsagam Presided over our relegation to League 2 Will he have an "open-door" policy - apparently not if what we hear from the Trust is right (though they did say the same about Corney) Anecdotal evidence suggests some staff may not have been well treated

I never said that. I said, "Am presuming that most of the time Trust board members attend home games". A perfectly valid assumption of a person who wants to be on the board of a fans' group i.e. he/she are a fan themselves. Of course I realise they can't be at every home game but, for sure, if they are not a regular fan, they should not be able to represent fans. Let's leave that point, otherwise we'll be getting into statistics for Trust Board attendance at matches. Thanks for the welcome back. It's not been for the want of trying but every time I have tried to join the site, it's been knocked back - until the recent PS saga when my attempt was finally accepted - for which I am grateful. Don't take anything personal, underdog, I`m sure you are a lovely person. All I`m doing is challenging - something the Trust should have been doing a lot more of (in my opinion) over the years. When things are fine and dandy, it should be a supporting organisation. When things aren't, it has to be a challenging one. It can only do both when it is truly independent. I`ll comment no more - good luck with organising the troops.

Bloody hell! It is beginning to look something like the biblical flood out there at the moment - even the river Tame looks like it might burst its banks - incessant and very heavy rain all day today

Come on please! Barring holidays/illness etc. I think most fans would think all members of Trust Oldham board would have been in attendance at BP today - either for the match or the protest (endorsed by the Trust) or both. That being the case, a Trust meeting of some kind would have been very easy to arrange. You were all going to BP, so either sit around a table in one of the local Latics' supporting pubs (would have accommodated you gladly), get into an office at BP or use my living room! The fact that hasn't happened and you are referring to people living in different places, logistics etc. makes me realise that several/many of you were not in fact going to today's game - as I said, that tells me all I need to know - it's the nuclear option for me now and you may begin to understand why Trust Oldham is considered impotent by many supporters.