jorvik_latic Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 56 minutes ago, mad4it said: Yes they did knock down the Clayton arms , lees brewery owned the pouring rights, so the only money the club made from it was from hiring out the 5 aside pitch ... regardless of that build of a couple dozen houses built on the site I’ll hardly have raked in a fortune Changing the argument, nice try. Adam said they sold off land, you said he was wrong. I just proved he was right, you should just admit you were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 hour ago, mad4it said: Yes they did knock down the Clayton arms , lees brewery owned the pouring rights, so the only money the club made from it was from hiring out the 5 aside pitch ... regardless of that build of a couple dozen houses built on the site I’ll hardly have raked in a fortune But...matchday experience... The loss of the only social establishment near the ground regardless of whether it actually made money for the club certainly had a negative effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said: Changing the argument, nice try. Adam said they sold off land, you said he was wrong. I just proved he was right, you should just admit you were wrong. They didn’t sell off the land , when they took over the club, the land was owned by the council and they bought it back, they made several attempts to build a new ground, but their plans wer scuppered by the nimby and local dog walking brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: But...matchday experience... The loss of the only social establishment near the ground regardless of whether it actually made money for the club certainly had a negative effect. Yes it did but thanks to Ian Stott, Lees Brewery were given the pouring rights to all the bars owned by the club, so earned very little was earned from beer sales . the Clayton arms was (or should have been) a gold mine for the club , had the pouring rights not been sold off so cheaply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 19 minutes ago, mad4it said: They didn’t sell off the land , when they took over the club, the land was owned by the council and they bought it back, they made several attempts to build a new ground, but their plans wer scuppered by the nimby and local dog walking brigade They sold off land. For the houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 hour ago, mad4it said: If you really think I’m Simon Corney, then I can recommend a good psychiatrist I'd say the same if you thought they were funding us for 14 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 hour ago, mad4it said: I’ll hardly have raked in a fortune 1 hour ago, mad4it said: If you really think I’m Simon Corney, then I can recommend a good psychiatrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, mad4it said: Yes it did but thanks to Ian Stott, Lees Brewery were given the pouring rights to all the bars owned by the club, so earned very little was earned from beer sales . the Clayton arms was (or should have been) a gold mine for the club , had the pouring rights not been sold off so cheaply Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Given Lees effectively owned the club I doubt it was just a deal done on the whom of MrStott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Given Lees effectively owned the club I doubt it was just a deal done on the whom of MrStott. The deal was done because JW Lees loaned the some money and the condition (along with repayment) making the loan was to takeover the pouring rights at all the clubs bars . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, mad4it said: The deal was done because JW Lees loaned the some money and the condition (along with repayment) making the loan was to takeover the pouring rights at all the clubs bars . Well yes, so little choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: Well yes, so little choice in the matter. Of course there was a choice, just a poor business decision by Ian stott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 27 minutes ago, mad4it said: The deal was done because JW Lees loaned the some money and the condition (along with repayment) making the loan was to takeover the pouring rights at all the clubs bars . Still stands to this day doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 minute ago, mad4it said: Of course there was a choice, just a poor business decision by Ian stott You seem to want be argumentative for the sake of it (not just this thread). What was the choice then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Just now, Dave_Og said: You seem to want be argumentative for the sake of it (not just this thread). What was the choice then? Argumentative , it called having an opinion? There are 100 of breweries out there that would have given us a better. The loan was paid off decades , but JW Lees have the pouring rights (and profits made from beer sales ) for as long as Oldham Athletic play their home games at boundary park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 26 minutes ago, mad4it said: Argumentative , it called having an opinion? There are 100 of breweries out there that would have given us a better. The loan was paid off decades , but JW Lees have the pouring rights (and profits made from beer sales ) for as long as Oldham Athletic play their home games at boundary park Mad4it, one of a few people who will benefit from no more downboats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick1979 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 48 minutes ago, yarddog73 said: Still stands to this day doesn't it? Could it not be declared null and void after we went into administration as it's not the same company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: Mad4it, one of a few people who will benefit from no more downboats. That maybe so , but I’m sorry my life doesn’t revolve around whether or not I get downboats ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, mad4it said: That maybe so , but I’m sorry my life doesn’t revolve around whether or not I get downboats ! Just revolves around chatting balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Just now, mcfluff1985 said: Just revolves around chatting balls? It just revolves around raising concerns about how the club is being run, but hey if you’re more concerned with whether or not you can give some a down vote or not , then carry on regardless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 hour ago, GlossopLatic said: I'd say the same if you thought they were funding us for 14 years So who funded the club then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, nick1979 said: Could it not be declared null and void after we went into administration as it's not the same company? To be honest them holding the pouring rights was something I'd heard at the time the North Stand was fitted out as I was told the bars in there were fitted out at their expense. It's not totally inconceivable that this is the reason a fans bar has been looked into on matchdays and deemed not to be worth it as the only real beneficiaries would be the brewery. If true it could go some way to explaining the phrase 'being had over a barrel'. It may be something worth bringing up when the trust have their meeting with Simon Blitz and Danny Gazal this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 53 minutes ago, mad4it said: Argumentative , it called having an opinion? There are 100 of breweries out there that would have given us a better. The loan was paid off decades , but JW Lees have the pouring rights (and profits made from beer sales ) for as long as Oldham Athletic play their home games at boundary park Why don’t we sell at cost price then if Lees make all the profits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, mad4it said: So who funded the club then ? Blitz and Gazal to start with. Then when they left we got lucky for a few years with cup runs and the year when Lee Johnson sold on the likes of Korey Smith, Tarky, Clarke Harris and Baxter all at a tidy profit. From 2015 onwards unpaid bills, late payment of wages, transfer embargos and winding up petitions became a regular occurrence it was clear knowone was funding the club. So they did at the start But by the end of their tenure they left the club in a total shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4it Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 1 minute ago, GlossopLatic said: Blitz and Gazal to start with. Then when they left we got lucky for a few years with cup runs and the year when Lee Johnson sold on the likes of Korey Smith, Tarky, Clarke Harris and Baxter all at a tidy profit. From 2015 onwards unpaid bills, late payment of wages, transfer embargos and winding up petitions became a regular occurrence it was clear knowone was funding the club. So they did at the start But by the club was a total shambles. Wages paid late, winding up orders , bills paid late , doesn’t look like a lots changed then. As far selling on players, Oldham has always been (and will probably always be) a selling club ...Denis Irwin, Earl Barrett, Mickey Quinn to name just a few all sold on for a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsrblue Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 After re-reading this article from the official back in 2015 it appears Lees renewed their pouring rights back then. (or maybe extended them to the OEC). "Commenting on the partnership, Mark (Moisley) said: “We are delighted that JW Lees are once again our brewing partner. " Full article: https://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/search/?q=lees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.