jimsleftfoot

I agree, he could have at least said it like a Pirate 'foreseeeARRRRRble futurARRRR'. Enjoy your meltdown!

"My own personal view, and this is not the view of Oldham Athletic, is that it's a very different situation with Ched Evans," he said. "A lot depends on the public perception of the crime and the type of offence". Barry Owen 16 October 2014. Now why couldn't that be the end?

Yes it doesn't work does it.

(Jim remembers dog 'Chris' who preferred the Scottish neighbour up the street)

The club has certainly left itself open for the 'double standards' claim, but they wouldn't necesserily need any consent to be given for them to give out an address to the police, particularly as the club would perhaps deem it necessary for him to be investigated.

As Harry said, could you try having a meeting on a matchday?

Indeed

In my view the primary purpose of a Trust is to represent the fans. Without a decent level of engagement, it will fail to do this. The average fans isn't that bothered about politics so there needs to be other reasons for fans to get involved. Trade Unions offer benefits, offers, discounts for example. Also, having a seperate Trust and Fan Club would also mean two sets of duplicated admin costs within a dwindling fan base. I don't think that is a sustainable model.

He's confirmed for the pieheads.

I've def heard different. That he was against it, resigned and the rest of the board voted unaminously for it. Edit: 'While there has been no confirmation and no statement from Mr Taylor (30), a lifelong Athletic fan who became a director last July, we believe he was against the bid to sign Evans and resigned midweek when the deal was under consideration.' http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/10/oldham-athletic-news/89796/owen-explains-stance-as-taylor-exits-from-board

As I understand it from the time, he did quit in advance of the deal falling through.

I wouldn't assume that the police have given the ok unless they have specifically addressed the issue. It's likely that any audit they would have done would have been targeted towards the fraud rather than checking the overall governance.

Wow just wow.

You must be a 'lintel' then??? Get it.....anyone......

I get the feeling that if Alan Hardy had been here, it would have been handled a bit better.

Some interesting points here regarding actions an employer can take against an employee facing court action including http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/deal-employees-may-committed-criminal-offences-facing-charges/governance/article/1164751 'Very often employees will either be unwilling or unable to participate in disciplinary proceedings while criminal charges are pending. However, there is no rule that an employer should continue to employ and pay them until the criminal matters are concluded. After all, that could take some time. Ultimately, will be for the tribunal to consider whether the employer acts reasonably in proceeding with disciplinary action. Factors such as the size and nature of the employer’s business, and whether it could reasonably cope with the employee’s continued absence will be considered, as will any provisions of the employer’s handbook.' 'Tribunals have upheld as fair dismissals of employees facing charges of murder and sexual abuse, even where no case was ever proved against them.'

If there's an issue with the locking mechanism, you could potentially try and speak to a locksmith (though Dave Edwards sounds bloody awesome). We had one replace the lock to a sliding PVC door but they said could replace the whole mechanism if needed, rather than having to get a new door. If you go down the locksmith route, beware of just googling them. Many of the search entries are for contact centre agents rather than for actual locksmiths. They charge a fortune and pass the work onto a sub-contractor who only gets paid part of the fee. Instead use the Master Locksmiths Association website to find a local tradesman. We used in ARC Locksmiths in Burnage.

Problem being is that Barry is starring in an alternative version of Life on Mars, a 1975 copper stuck in 2015 trying to apply the old rules.

Unless we have re-signed Simpson, he is not contracted with us.

I think this is more to do with trying to get some free advertising from the Nationals.

The notes to the last 3 sets of accounts (and a set from 2008 state): At 31/12/08 Net liab: £3.1m Loss: £414k At 31/12/10 Net liab: £5.4m Loss: £784k As at 31/12/11 Net liab £5.4m As at 30/6/13 Net liab £5.1m

It is not debt that needs to be repaid like a loan. It's shareholders funds (different to a loan) and it hasn't grown for a few years now.

Matt Williams: http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/sport/blackpool-fc/matt-williams-leaving-has-been-hardest-decision-of-my-life-1-6601582 Does appear to have links to Oldham.

Yes, no debt that has to be repaid. The debt was run up prior to Blitz leaving and he never called it in - Though this could change. My colleague who is a very experienced accountant and former big 4 auditor thought the last balance sheet looked 'pretty decent' relatively speaking, though it was only limted information of course.

The Chron have tweeted that Corney is ready to sell up and walk away. No story so not actually sure what this means in relation to the past 'for sale'.