jimsleftfoot

 

 

 

Agree about Dieng - shame if it happened, but NATO has kept the peace. The EU seems hell-bent on confronting Putin.

NATO has an awful lot of EU countries in it.

I get sick of hearing that we get grants for this, that and the other from the EU. We get nothing!!! We pay in more than we get back. Stop paying into the EU and we can have twice as much money to spend!

Spend??? Or would the money go straight back into the pockets in tax cuts to the wealthy. Places like Oldham do benefit from EU grants. We're unlikely to get any such grants from the Tory party. EU is big government, the old Tory boys hate that, it's not so much they don't want to spend money on the EU, they don't want to spend money full stop. As much as Cameron and Osbonre are idiots, they are not as bad as what the party could be without them.

Spamella's first job is to get the accounts submitted!

Wrong! There is no late fee

You sure about that?

Nobody banned baa baa black sheep. Nobody banned Easter. Nobody banned Christmas. Political Correctness has made life a whole lot better for minority's in this country. I don't see the problem.

Cadbury's banned using the word Easter apparently, apart from on the products they sold with Easter printed on them.

 

The parts of the country with better schools and jobs largely seem to.......

There's perhaps a millennia worth of reasons for that vs just over a hundred years of the Labour Party.

In the last 20 years......less than 1 year of a Tory Government, 5 years of a coalition government, 13 years of a Labour Government

 

In Oldham 3 years of Lib Dem council and 17 years of Labour council.

 

Think about it

Before that there was 4 successive Tory governments. Since 2011 there was a similar deprivation survey that put Oldham at 37th most deprived town, so it's gone down since. We've had 6 years of Tories (I'm not going to give the Lib Dems any credit), council cuts, bedroom tax etc. Etc.

 

Oldham is better off under a Labour government.

The football code. Taken care of between clubs rather than police!

I heard the same from a blade who I work with, though it was a few months back.

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11683/10087126/jose-baxter-disciplined-by-sheffield-united

Indeed that's my take on it.

?

We should be careful, in my opinion, of just dismissing the ownership of the land on the basis that the club didn't own it before, the council did. The council owned it with the football club having the option to buy it back - the council was letting the club pawn it basically to bail it out of the :censored:. TTA used the club's option to buy it back and immediately separated it from the club and have exploited it as a something completely independent of the club - other than the club being its tenants in the ground.

TTA didn't seperate it, they just didn't unite it.

 

That was my reading of the whole thing plus if you look here

 

https://www.companycheck.co.uk/company/04919679/BRASS-BANK-LIMITED/summary

 

Brassbanks assets are nil which according to the textbooks will mean that OAFC will take a certain cut of the risks and rewards of the stand hence why OAFC is paying for it. So while legally Brassbank own the land OAFC will own the building hence why we are paying for it and not Brassbank.

 

OEC will then make an amount after they either pay a fixed facility fee or they will take a % of the profit or Revenue of the events they put on.

 

OEC won't make either Blitz or Corney alot of money certainly nowhere near the £8million that is owed.

OAFC are the leaseholder of the stadium.

Forte - were no answers given then (Swindon game)? What was said?

u

 

I am certain there is nothing untoward here or even newsworthy but I am amused by " my Guess " "May be" " as far as I can see " " May not have anything to do " " jim could just be" " I assume " " I don't Know" " I don't think"

 

He does not need one but if Mr McMahon did I hope you won't be offended if I recommended he sought a different defence counsel

Good man if your more certain than I am (my guess is the same - ha). Though I assure you the use of such wording was wholly intended because I do not know the details though it's easy to spread doubt in what UKIP have tried to imply by offering other possible scenarios.

 

As 24 has pointed out, there is a difference between assuming and proving certainty.

http://www.ukip.org/labour_is_unaware_of_its_own_tax_avoidance_in_oldham

 

This was also reported in the express as well

 

Interesting story but as a tax specialist myself (VAT), it's a bit like adding 1 + 1 together and getting 4,000,000.

My guess is that UKIP don't actually have a clue what is going on and so couldn't say either way.

Jim Mc may be a Director of OPP Ltd which is a UK based company, as far as I can see.

The Luxembourg company which has an 81% share in OPP, may not have anything to do with the Council and Jim Mc other than the investment in OPP itself.

Unless Jim is also a member of the board for the Luxembourg company, I don't think Bickley has much of a point. Jim could just be representing the Councils interests, as I assume they are a minority shareholder.

 

I don't know ultimately but I don't think Bickley knows either.

Done wonders for the town as council leader and him getting mp is a big loss. Could've done with him staying in that position for another 10 years

Or in a better position now to campaign locally as an MP.

If I remember rightly, he was against the stadium move to Failsworth as a councillor for Failsworth but helped to sort out funding for the new stand on the back of the council muck up, after he became council leader. He's campaigned about helping us and the club/Corney backed him a couple of games ago.

 

McMahon can represent his constituents. By saying he's currently the can-do local guy, he's saying (theoretically) that he understands the punters and what they need and is therefore the best person to represent them. As an MP, he will be unable to build you a road or a bridge or deal with the dog turd and lighting problem in Seville Street, but he can represent the community in Parliament because he has second-to-none knowledge of the community and its politics.

 

 

He can also campaign locally to much greater effect as an MP than as a Councillor, as the media pay more attention to MP's. Then get his mates at the council to do something about it. As I said earlier, that's exactly what Andrew Gwynne does.

 

....it's not an unfair comment.... but we were much better in the 2nd half on Saturday..... and maybe [especially at home] they might feel more confident taking risks and expressing themselves, if they weren't fearful of the moans and groans when a forward pass or shot goes astray...?

I think Dunn has got a point, but it's the way he shares that point that's the issue. For every fan who grumbles at the match their are four, five or ten no longer bothering to grumble as they are doing something else. Being realistic and excepting your lot isn't sport. If he wants the fans to set higher standards he needs to be clear that 15th isn't good enough.

I get his frustrations, but if he doesn't want the fans to be negative, then he needs to do the same.

 

:censored: all, as per. I genuinely don't know.

 

 

It's defo not my view. He's a local man who's too smart to get involved in all that London-based nonsense. He's interested in what works rather than faithfulness to the doctrine. He's probably going for the wrong job. He'd achieve more as Mayor of Manchester.

 

The Blairite parliamentary Labour party will claim him as one of their own and a sign that Corbyn is weak, defeated etc. The Corbynistas will claim it doesn't matter, which is probably nearer the truth of the position. What the Blairites don't want is a resounding victory being taken as a vote of confidence in Corbyn, which is also fair enough because it's a vote of confidence in Labour as a whole and McMahon personally.

 

Having moved to Tameside, my MP is Andrew Gwynne (who I note is doing loads of campaigning for Jim Mc). He's very much a local lad and formerly a Tameside Councillor, though now he's Shadow Health Minister for Public Health. Despite his national role, he still does loads locally, runs his own local business awards and replies on Twitter when you ask him questions. If Jim is anything like Mr Gwynne, it will be very good for Oldham.

OP assumes that ticket sales are price elastic. I think there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest it isn't, especially in regards to increasing crowds.

The expenses regime is quite tight these days. The main thing is MPs can claim only for rent rather than mortgage interest, meaning no London property entry at the taxpayers' expense.

 

I don't even mind the pensions. Everyone gets pissed off about civil service pensions but it's the meanest and most stupid criticism of anything ever. The fact is that the civil service standard should be the general workplace pension standard. It isn't the general workplace standard because most employers are mean and short-sighted, resulting in massive company cash reserves and a ludicrous false economy in pensions and financial services.

 

Generally though, if you want representative democracy to work, you have to pay for the punters who do the representing. Otherwise you get total bellends working a fourth-rate trade, which currently describes too many MPs.

Yes quite agree re. public sector pensions. They are a bit like teachers holidays, people complain about how good they are, but you don't often here them say, I wish I was a teacher.

It is really isn't it? We've been in it for far too long. Its stale. Fans have left us in droves since we dropped in, both loyal and fleeting.

 

Relegation, for me, would 'revitalise' us in two ways. The board decide to mount a promotion charge bringing something positive to get behind or we continue to cloth-cut and end up in non league where EVERY weekend is like FA Cup first round day.

 

Maybe it's like cutting off your head to cure toothache but basically we need a new head anyway.

It's a great opportunity if used properly.

 

This scenario is so easily solved but the authorities domn't seem able to grasp it. If an indiviudal wants to fund a club beyond its natural means they should be required to put up a bond which would enable the club to wind down its expanded salary bill in an orderly fashion if they lose interest.

I think they should be required to give a long term forecast to show that their investment is not short termist and that they have a plan b. A bond is a barrier to invesent and might be illegal. With any investment their is a degree of risk after all (as is not investing and I'm not sure why owners who don't do that are somehow responsible).

Since I've posted the original question I've been told that the main way that Bury get around things is to agree terms with a player and them pay some of it as a signing on fee and then pay a reduced wage.

It would change when the expenditure would hit but it would still be 'salary' or renumeration for the player.