mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 Just now, deyres42 said: Moving your customers from a modern purpose built facility to a portakabin shouldn't be applauded no matter how much money it is saving you. But if that's what helps the club then it should be the FLG crucified, not AL, if theirs is a shitty deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, nzlatic said: Eh? Your question was vague. But to clarify, if whatever he chooses to do benefits the club in the short, medium and long term and that in turn benefits the playing budget and brings an upturn in form and maybe even a small bit of success, then I’d absolutely support it. But I’ve not seen anything in the last year and half to suggest this might happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 7 hours ago, tGWB said: On the video posted earlier, the Club spokesman specifically states there is no change to the relationship regarding the North Stand. However, I would suggest there is, as previously under the Corney regime is was rent free to the Club. This dispute could simply be down to Brassbank (Blitz & Gazal) wanting to charge a commercial rent for the use of the North Stand as they pay £300k annually in mortgage payments alone Understandable, but a shock to the Club if it hasn't taken this cost into their budgeting. Fans’ Meeting Notes 24/01/2017 5:00PM – 6:30PM Club Attendees: Simon Corney, Mark Moisley and Anthony Gee Fan Attendees: Nonaenever, kusungaisGod, Adamoafc, Danbright12, DPWild and Laticsmarra · Brass Bank Limited (BBL) - UK Registered Built the stand at a cost of £6.2m (so far) received £1.7m grant from the council (effectively compensation for the aborted Failsworth move) and has taken a £4m mortgage against the stand. Also owns the Renal Centre on which there is security (we didn’t discuss that). BBL’s repayments on the mortgage are £300k each year. The club has a 40 year contract, which is 20 years plus a club option for a further 20 (anyone free to examine) to rent the land & buildings from BBL @ £100K per annum (recently reduced from £150k). The club has paid no rent to BBL for 4 years and there is no intention to claw back the rent i.e. it will be written-off. They will want to start collecting rent one day. Good reimder. I've fought the argument that there was only £700k grant from OMBC. Which was in the Council minutes. So I think this section is contentious, but looks like £1m compensation for Failsworth + £700k grant. Only the £700k grant asmdescried or mentioned in the decision. At best it is part of the restricted information, which gives significant credence to the fact it was compensation and described above for ease. The people present will best describe what they were told. Now certain posters claim this was a straight grant to OAFC, but if you read the minutes, it more related to the Community Trust work. 01/08/11 Approved grant £700k.https://committees.oldham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=144&MId=2469&Ver=4 "Pay a capital grant of £700,000 as a contribution to the redevelopment of Boundary Park based on the community work which the club carry out in the Borough" "In the Borough" not "at Boundary Park". http://committees.oldham.gov.uk/documents/s7266/acquisition of lancaster club FINAL HM 27.7.11.pdf Whole sections on OACT: http://committees.oldham.gov.uk/documents/s7266/acquisition of lancaster club FINAL HM 27.7.11.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: But if that's what helps the club then it should be the FLG crucified, not AL, if theirs is a shitty deal Sometimes in life you have do things you might not like for the greater good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 18 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: So if the original deal wasn't profitable for the club and let's say the new deal is, then AL should be crucified for not negotiating? What new deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: But if that's what helps the club then it should be the FLG crucified, not AL, if theirs is a shitty deal But why is the new deal shitty? When the club says in the leaked letter that “the net effect of last year’s agreement that was made with the OEC, resulted in the club losing money” what does that mean? Are they including the rent? Or is that just the hospitality costs>revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: What new deal? I'm talking if the new catering deal is better for the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, nzlatic said: But why is the new deal shitty? When the club says in the leaked letter that “the net effect of last year’s agreement that was made with the OEC, resulted in the club losing money” what does that mean? Are they including the rent? Or is that just the hospitality costs>revenue? If the FLG have offered a shitty deal so AL took his business elsewhere then should it not be the FLG at fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 1 minute ago, mcfluff1985 said: I'm talking if the new catering deal is better for the club It doesn't utilise the best facility that the club has access to do no, it's not a good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseowl Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 I think mediation is the way forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Dave_Og said: It doesn't utilise the best facility that the club has access to do no, it's not a good deal. So it would still be AL's fault if the FLG deal was a shit one for the club. Proves my point that he gets the blame regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: If the FLG have offered a shitty deal so AL took his business elsewhere then should it not be the FLG at fault? That's the most desperate clutch of a straw. £5 per head difference Less VAT = £4.17. Normal catering is 65-70% margin. LEts be generous at 70%. 30% cost. That's £3 per head extra. At best. Most catering companies also charge operational fee, and it depends on the type of deal. Could be even less. Given our £3.3m turnover, it is a pittance. And less people will use the box (not going to insult Gordon by calling it by that name) rather than the OEC. He's pissed plenty of customers off in his handling it too. There is no credible level he is making more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 1 minute ago, mcfluff1985 said: So it would still be AL's fault if the FLG deal was a shit one for the club. Proves my point that he gets the blame regardless You're a lost cause. Instead of negotiating he has gone off to get a deal that absolutely definitively results in a worse experience for punters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: You're a lost cause. Instead of negotiating he has gone off to get a deal that absolutely definitively results in a worse experience for punters. He seems to think they're trying to shaft him with a shit deal. Why would any sane person give them the time of day if that's his genuine belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, singe said: That's the most desperate clutch of a straw. £5 per head difference Less VAT = £4.17. Normal catering is 65-70% margin. LEts be generous at 70%. 30% cost. That's £3 per head extra. At best. Most catering companies also charge operational fee, and it depends on the type of deal. Could be even less. Given our £3.3m turnover, it is a pittance. And less people will use the box (not going to insult Gordon by calling it by that name) rather than the OEC. He's pissed plenty of customers off in his handling it too. There is no credible level he is making more money. We don't know do we but if, as ive said previously, he thinks they are trying to have him over a barrel, anyone in that situation would think F you, I'll go elsewhere and who could blame him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: He seems to think they're trying to shaft him with a shit deal. Why would any sane person give them the time of day if that's his genuine belief? Lots of nutcases have beliefs which they consider to be sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 58 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: Still waiting for any logical reason why some of FLG won't say who they are as well.. No you’re not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 39 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Can someone clarify.... It’s the OEC, not the FLG isn’t it? Have they actually bought the OEC shares or not? They said they had, but companies house says otherwise. This again? No. No they haven’t bought them. They haven’t said they have either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said: This again? No. No they haven’t bought them. They haven’t said they have either. So the OEC directors and shareholders are unchanged. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 32 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: If the FLG have offered a shitty deal so AL took his business elsewhere then should it not be the FLG at fault? If I was the owner and I thought a deal offered was shitty I would 100% want fans and sponsors in the north stand. So I’d try to negotiate. And if that failed I might be open with the fans and say “look I want you in there but the deal on the table is bad for the club because xyz. I have tried to do a deal for abc as this will benefit the club but we can’t reach an agreement. The only option left is to do this in the main stand instead. As it’s a lower standard product I’ll reflect that in the pricing.” Hes not specified why the OEC deal is detrimental to the club. He’s refused to negotiate for unspecified reasons and has done a new unspecified deal with another company, offering a shitter experience for fans/sponsors for more money. But you’re arguing this is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, nzlatic said: If I was the owner and I thought a deal offered was shitty I would 100% want fans and sponsors in the north stand. So I’d try to negotiate. And if that failed I might be open with the fans and say “look I want you in there but the deal on the table is bad for the club because xyz. I have tried to do a deal for abc as this will benefit the club but we can’t reach an agreement. The only option left is to do this in the main stand instead. As it’s a lower standard product I’ll reflect that in the pricing.” Hes not specified why the OEC deal is detrimental to the club. He’s refused to negotiate for unspecified reasons and has done a new unspecified deal with another company, offering a shitter experience for fans/sponsors for more money. But you’re arguing this is a good thing? He's definitely already done a few of those things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 20 minutes ago, jorvik_latic said: No you’re not. I actually am. Can't think of why these 2 or 3 won't come forward. Makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzlatic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: He's definitely already done a few of those things Which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, kowenicki said: So the OEC directors and shareholders are unchanged. Thanks. Same as last time. You’re welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said: I actually am. Can't think of why these 2 or 3 won't come forward. Makes no sense I’ve given you reasons. Why you choose to ignore them is your issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.