jimsleftfoot

I'm not trying to make any point. I couldn't care less if you read my posts or not truth be told (in the nicest possible way). But it's an open message board and we're all entitled to post as we please.

 

As I've said in a different threat, it's not so much the actual appointment of Holden and Locky, it's the way he said "foreseeable future" as though it will be a prolonged period of time.

 

This would be like giving up on our biggest chance of a playoff finish in years and as I'm not lucky enough to have a season ticket this year, im not prepared to pay £22 when my club aren't prepared to even try to be successful.

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?

 

Shouldn't have called him Chris; that's not a dog name

Yes it doesn't work does it.

If you want loyalty buy a dog. If you want players to sacrifice their prospects of career income for the beneift of the club....get real.

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

FWIW- the club may have been in breach of Data Protection by revealing where he was. Especially over the phone.

 

If he wasn't at his address on record and he wasn't at work and as he wasn't likely to commit a crime with a risk of public safety the unnamed Director (although I bet we would all guess the same person) should have advised him to hand himself in when he spoke to him.

 

That trick of finding out where he was and then telling the police is certainly "Not doing things the right way"

 

That Director is a #badgrass

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 i said (think it may have been in the other thread) you are welcome to post on here, engage via twitter or email.

My personal opinion though is to really debate about what is being said you are better being there in person. I appreciate this isn't possible for everyone and if anyone would like a phone conversation or to meet me at any time convenient to yourself then you only have to drop me a message.

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

Only way you are getting more people there in person is by holding the meetings on home matchdays.

Indeed

Not sure I agree. The above sounds like the purpose of a fan club, not a trust. Granted, the fan club was abolished, and the trust seems to be moving more in that direction, but in my view the two should be separate.

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.

On the Thursday is what I heard after the threats? the deal went Friday?

 

thats my point i Jorvik, he was on a board that was up for the signing.

 

tbf it doesnt matter like you say hes gone, it just we cant say he quit for the good of the club when we dont know when he actually quit, the time frame changes things on his stance

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

 

Not all fans Stevie, Im not trying to det into the Evans debate again really, Im sick of it.

 

Im just trying to point out that if the life long fan quit because of the attempted signing, why wait until after the deal fell through.

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

We have asked for all the issues within this thread as a matter of urgency. There will also be a public meeting next month to discuss these concerns aswell as any others you may have.

 

I have done abit of research though and company house still have us down as 3%shareholders with the correct company number from what i can tell.

Also the police were heavily involved in our accouns during the fraud case so i'm sure any discrepencies would have arisen then.

As a trust we are awaiting something official back from the legal advisors and as soon as we have this it will be released and the public meeting arranged.

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.

I was ready to doth my cap to a back door specialist joke.

 

Turns out we are above that nonsense.

You must be a 'lintel' then???

Get it.....anyone......

Yes he did, he was supposed to get booked in the first half but could only get booked in the 2nd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24529508

 

It's an interesting one, whilst it is totally conceivable that despite all charges being dropped and us still being allowed to sack him for gross misconduct can co-exist. There's a lot of nuances about the issue.

 

1.) We fired him for the betting, his rape allegation, had no role in the matter, as was publicised on our website. (It wasn't made clear about the alleged driving a car without a license/insurance). Something I thought was very stupid at the time.

2.) He is a Columbian so can claim the racial discrimination element of unfair dismissal without the 2 years service normally required for normal unfair dismissal.

3.) A director, who was the one who probably fired him if the club have any sense, Corney should have heard the appeal. Is on record and in front of millions as saying he is very strongly in favour of rehabilitation, but Montano who let's not forget has not actually been convinced of a crime was fired without any offer of rehabilitation

4.) Montano was the only one of the accused to be fired without seeing his contract out. That can actually provide the basis of "A reasonable employer" which is key to employment law.

5.) Additionally, we are on record as being one of the few employers to offer the convicted rapist a job, so it becomes harder to claim we acted reasonably in both instances.

6.) Whilst Montano's possible claim for unfair dismissal would have normally expired by now, the new evidence of the official element of a set-up by the Fake Sheikh as well as us attempting to hire Evans, and only not doing so for reasons not connected to his criminal status (the loss of sponsors and the threats), mean that it might not be.

7.) The likelihood of getting our legal costs back even if Montano lost his employment tribunal would be very slim. As costs are only very rarely awarded in Employment Tribunals and it would have to be spurious to happen, a decision that is unlikely to be made. The one advantage we have is Employment Tribunals are no longer free, Cheers Cameron for that one.

 

If we did everything by the book I'd think we would eventually be successful in an Employment Tribunal or an Employment Appeals Tribunal. It wouldn't be free though, although the same applies to Montano. That like others have said is a massive if and given the recent events as well as others under the same leadership I wouldn't be all that confident we did everything by the book, point 1 being an example of where we differed from the book.

 

Fortunately, it becomes a lot easier to argue that not renewing his contract, which was due to expire this summer, was a reasonable option, that should limit any pay out we would have to make.

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.

I remember Barry telling the cameras we'd done everything properly, with that smug look........

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.

Spot on!

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

 

So Blitz is still pumping money in ?

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

We do have debt and it has increased year on year, its not with the banks its purely with the directors in the form of Directors loans.

 

The accounts I downloaded last year showed a directors loan totalling £6m

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.

I heard over the weekend from a couple of people who work at the club that Corney had told them he'd had enough and was selling up. I also heard, all be it in a pub that Corney had approached the CEO at Shrewsbury who is apparently an Oldham supporter to come in as MD and to assist in the selling of the club. I am only passing on what I heard so don't shoot me!!

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.

 

Interesting...

 

Does that mean they are just saying we are basically solvent ... or is it saying money is still being pumped in from outside people ?

 

I would love to know... Its why we bought 3% and a place on the board so we would know... 12 years on, we don't know really know do we....

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'.