Jump to content

Takeover / New Investment - What Rumours Have You Heard?


Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 8.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...