#ReclaimTheFaith

[the_mighty_bosh]

1 hour ago, whittles left foot said:

Lifted from PTB website.

Mr Lemsagam to show us this club can change under his leadership and commit to tangible steps to achieve that or alternatively dispose of his interest Oldham Athletic.

 

Sorry but that doesn't say that they are trying to oust the owner.  It's asking him to truly show that he's good enough to make the club a success, or allow somebody better to do it.  I'd expect that of every owner of the club.

[mcfluff1985]

@adamoafc Quick question. What's the POA if you get answers that you want to hear? eg things will change etc. How long do you give?

[Dave_Og]

1 minute ago, mcfluff1985 said:

@adamoafc Quick question. What's the POA if you get answers that you want to hear? eg things will change etc. How long do you give?

Surely that depends on what is said. No point having a plan now

 

[mcfluff1985]

2 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Surely that depends on what is said. No point having a plan now

 

I imagine most answers will be what they think PTB want to hear so I'd imagine must be some thoughts about what happens next

[unsworth blue]

I have so many questions I would like to ask but will obviously try and limit them 

 

I would hope that there will be a sufficient number of questions that may have a defined answer, a definite timescale to achieve and some reasonable milestones to achieve. 

 

There really is so much that appears ineffective at best at the club - on-the-field the results and league position speak for themselves, the club is not in a false position. Off-the-field there needs to be much more detailed responses about progress and strategies and plans that the club have developed to seek to generate improvements   

[Dave_Og]

32 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

I imagine most answers will be what they think PTB want to hear so I'd imagine must be some thoughts about what happens next

There's no point in publicising a plan before the meeting whatsoever.

[al_bro]

7 hours ago, nzlatic said:

A special resolution dated November 8th regarding this (4 weeks after the FLG declared they were buying shares) has been filed with companies house. Does this suggest a board vote? Was the trust rep involved in this?

Seems to me AL was miffed that Corney was able to clawback 22% of the shares when he had aid for 97%. He therefore decided to make sure he kept what he paid for, making Corney's 22 shares worthless. Saying he was converting his loan into shares is probably a good smokescreen.

[mcfluff1985]

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

There's no point in publicising a plan before the meeting whatsoever.

Not so bothered about it being publicised more the fact there is one

[Theoutsider]

1 hour ago, al_bro said:

Seems to me AL was miffed that Corney was able to clawback 22% of the shares when he had aid for 97%. He therefore decided to make sure he kept what he paid for, making Corney's 22 shares worthless. Saying he was converting his loan into shares is probably a good smokescreen.

See what you are saying.

 

Presumably he didn’t pay for the shares though, or otherwise Corney wouldn’t have got them back? 
 

[wiseowl]

4 hours ago, whittles left foot said:

I presume you mean the one poster who said he had rcvd a free ticket for the game. No mention on here before the game about free tickets being issued. Aside from this if I normally have no queue to pay cash when you enter and on this occasion there was a queue to pay cash.

The fact that it was a holiday period game with not much else on and a tiny bit of form from the team may have contributed-or perhaps it was the prospect of cheap pies at the end after the boycott had bitten(get it?)

Just an example of "if you build it they will come"

So from someone who wasn't even there I will take your comments to be your usual bollocks.

sigh...

 

The number of "home" fans for the Salford game was 4,506

Just 3 days later "home" fans numbered 2,594 (for the scunny game)

 

So, according to your logic, 1,912 Latics fans just disappeared into the ether virtually overnight!

 

I can only give you a little anecdotal evidence whittles but, for example, 4 Man U supporters from a pub near me went to the Salford game. First time ever to BP. Their logic - they had affinity to their former heroes running Salford and also wanted to get away from the family (during the long festive break) and have a good old lads' day out with some footy in the mix. I suspect that anecdotal scenario was repeated many times for either, or both, of the reasons they quoted.

 

That would make a lot more sense than your argument that nearly 2,000 Latics fans mysteriously returned - and then mysteriously disappeared again very quickly.

 

I accept quite a few previously dissenting "true" Latics fans will have attended (with family members who perhaps don't normally go) because that always happens for a festive period home game.

 

 

[Pidge]

12 hours ago, al_bro said:

Seems to me AL was miffed that Corney was able to clawback 22% of the shares when he had aid for 97%. He therefore decided to make sure he kept what he paid for, making Corney's 22 shares worthless. Saying he was converting his loan into shares is probably a good smokescreen.

I Agree with this.

 

Darren from the trust quoted the shares as being of nominal value. Then said AL had put money into the club, and this directors loan had been converted into shares. Surely that doesn’t make sense. So I’m wondering how the discussion in the board meeting went.

 

AL says, I have put £200,000 per month into the club, ie £5million. I want 19,300 shares for this directors loan at £260 per share. And Darren I will just give you 597 shares for the trust at a value of about £155,000 just for free. (Obviously B shares are worth a bit less). Darren just says, thank you Mr AL, you didn’t have to do that. You have my vote, that will take you over 75% of directors votes.

[Dave_Og]

1 hour ago, Pidge said:

I Agree with this.

 

Darren from the trust quoted the shares as being of nominal value. Then said AL had put money into the club, and this directors loan had been converted into shares. Surely that doesn’t make sense. So I’m wondering how the discussion in the board meeting went.

 

AL says, I have put £200,000 per month into the club, ie £5million. I want 19,300 shares for this directors loan at £260 per share. And Darren I will just give you 597 shares for the trust at a value of about £155,000 just for free. (Obviously B shares are worth a bit less). Darren just says, thank you Mr AL, you didn’t have to do that. You have my vote, that will take you over 75% of directors votes.

It's in the articles that the B shares can't be diluted.  Best to read them before speculating. Converting any loan to equity is generally an acknowledgement that the loan is unlikely to be repaid while protecting the former lender's position. It happens with a lot of distressed companies (not just for directors' loans) and I don't think anyone would dispute our distressed condition.

[al_bro]

9 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

It's in the articles that the B shares can't be diluted.  Best to read them before speculating. Converting any loan to equity is generally an acknowledgement that the loan is unlikely to be repaid while protecting the former lender's position. It happens with a lot of distressed companies (not just for directors' loans) and I don't think anyone would dispute our distressed condition.

I wonder how much the loan he converted was.

[Dave_Og]

1 hour ago, al_bro said:

I wonder how much the loan he converted was.

No idea but it's not really relevant as clearly the shares have minimal if any value 

[adamoafc]

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to tweet, email, send us a message on Facebook or OWTB  for questions we can take into our meeting with the owner on Thursday. We received well in excess of 200 questions. We hope we can get as many answers as possible for you! #oafc #ReclaimTheFaith

[adamoafc]

Following our meeting last night. Please read our brief summary and full details will follow as soon as we have written everything up. Thanks for your patience #oafc #ReclaimTheFaith  

 

http://Pushtheboundary.co.uk/meeting-with-mr-lemsagam-update-17-01-2020

•  

[rudemedic]

For those unaware the club have posted much the same as the PTB gang. 

https://www.oldhamathletic.co.uk/news/2020/january/17012020-ptb-statement/ 

[Bristolatic]

43 minutes ago, adamoafc said:

Following our meeting last night. Please read our brief summary and full details will follow as soon as we have written everything up. Thanks for your patience #oafc #ReclaimTheFaith  

 

http://Pushtheboundary.co.uk/meeting-with-mr-lemsagam-update-17-01-2020

•  

Again, well done. At last, the fans' voices and their concerns are beginning to be listened to. Action from the club/Board is still in the future, so it's baby steps in the right direction. Let's all hope for a successful response in a timely manner.

[League one forever]

Is there a way back for AL? 
 

If he changed his transfer policy long term,  kept a good dialogue with PTB and perhaps implemented some of their ideas.  Would anyone consider coming back?
 

If not, is there anything that AL could do to bring you back? Or are things unredeemable under his ownership? Personally whilst all the off field politics is important, if he got the team right I think a lot (me included) would turn a blind eye. 

[Andy b]

Yes there is.

 

Look PTB have invited him to show he can run the club responsibly and do right by the club and fans. They don’t demand his departure.

 

They have been effective in communicating the collective dissatisfaction of fans and in making it very clear what our fans expect from those who are entrusted to look after the club.

 

The owner and his advisors are feeling the collective presence of fans through PTB. It’s a force for change, not necessarily revolt. It’s been very effective in a short space of time. The pressure needs to remain. He has a long way to go.

 

 

 

 

[latics22]

I think the majority would return if we were winning! I'd imagine if everything behind the scene was rosy, it helps on the pitch..

[League one forever]

2 minutes ago, Andy b said:

Yes there is.

 

Look PTB have invited him to show he can run the club responsibly and do right by the club and fans. They don’t demand his departure.

 

They have been effective in communicating the collective dissatisfaction and in making it very clear what our fans expect from those who are entrusted to look after the club.

 

The owner and his advisors are feeling the collective presence of fans through PTB. It’s a force for change, not necessarily revolt. It’s been very effective in a short space of time. The pressure needs to remain. He has a long way to go.

 

 

 

 

I know what the PTB are for. 
 

That doesn’t answer the question though. I’m asking what specifically would bring people back. I get the sense for some that he could unmask himself as a secret billionaire and it wouldn’t change their position. 

[Andy b]

2 minutes ago, League one forever said:

I know what the PTB are for. 
 

That doesn’t answer the question though. I’m asking what specifically would bring people back. I get the sense for some that he could unmask himself as a secret billionaire and it wouldn’t change their position. 

For the avoidance of doubt I answered your first question.

 

The rest of my response was added context.

 

Thanks 

[disjointed]

A step definitely in the right direction, remove shit peas and Mo then I would probably start attending again. 

[League one forever]

1 minute ago, Andy b said:

For the avoidance of doubt I answered your first question. Thanks 

Thanks?  You’re better than that. 
 

Your opening line says. 

 

Yes there is. - Good start. 
 

Then you go to talk about the PTB, it’s aims, it’s effect and how it needs to keep going. Cool story.  However they don’t own the club. . . my question was about the owner not a fans pressure group. 

 

Your last line says.

 

It’s a long way back. - Er yeah. . 
 

Unless your intelligence is so superior to mine, and your able to cryptically say what you mean when talking about something completely different. I’m struggling for your answer. 
 

Thanks.