latic12345

I just dont believe that all stadiums are funded using cash. Wembley cost over £800m. The FA are still repaying it. They are quite open about that. You may not be able to borrow against the building of the stands, but you must be able to borrow something charged against the value of the land....

Can you link into Prozac's new online porn venture. Maybe this way we can get Hugh Heffner involved and some cracking models for any new kits...

Nearly 23 years for me. First game when I was 3.... I had a season ticket for 20/21 of them.

I've done nothing either (though I have bought a ticket for the MK Dons game....) I agree, we need to do something. Perhaps we can work out what when we're drunk tonight. No doubt it'll involve world domination and turning China into Oldham fans...

That can be the only reason. If they wanted a smaller return / recoup some losses, they would sell the surrounding land without knocking down BP

That doesn't surprise me. However, if this is wholly true and cannot be done in any way, why are Arsenal paying repayments on the money they used to build the Emirates. Where and how did they get a loan from?

Well I'm an idiot then... drinks later will be fun ;) I don't believe they have only been in it for land profits. It's just their underlying reason for investment. Think about this. They had three ways of doing business: 1. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club, investing in the team, keeping the fans happy whilst slowly selling the land off and making a return (the hold ups to the project have not been forecast and were, at times beyond their control thus they would not have been included to the extent they have in their initial investment). They therefore ringfenced the land for a reason that has yet to be disclosed. 2. Buying the club, buying the land and moving the land into a holding company. Running the club down, making no investment in players leading to huge protests from fans and public pressure (this is not a pleasant way to do business). Here they would be explicitly asset stripping and this is quite unpleasant and they would need to be callous to do this. 3. Buiyng the club, buying the land, leaving the land as an asset of the club. If the only significant debt of the club is a £4m Director loan, then no-one can use the land against the club as no-one should have a charge against it. This would be what they would have done if they only ever have had the clubs interests at heart....

I still genuinely don't understand the argument against redevelopment. There is 21 acres at Boundary Park according to some on here. A football pitch is c3 acres? The stands around the side are additional so lets say its 10 acres. This gives us 11 acres to sell for commercial or residential property. I would have thought this would give more than enough money for the equity needed to redevelop thr ground (albeit against a mortgage). The problem with this option is that it doesnt maximise return to the investors as they can only sell half the land. Yes it doesn't give the same return for them and the club as Failsworth but surely it can give some return and future. I'd love to be privy to the investment case for both....

Prozac, I've been one of these but the way in which he has stuck around this season was also beginning to win me round. I was beginning to think the money men were Blitz and Gazal (not just in funds but those that wanted to make money). Now he seems to be pushing ahead with leaving the town and ground sharing for no clear reason whatsoever. It's unbelievable. I'm hoping its just chest thumping but I fear it isnt. This isn't a time for any I told you so's. It's not a time for anyone to even think about wrangling about the merits of Simon Corney. It's a time for everyone to pull together and focus on supporting the club.

Bingo... Does this still count when he's only been here 6 months? The compo is worked out based on value but also your investment in player development... There are bigger things to talk about now unfortunately

I'm merely pointing out that it may be being considered. Given where we're at we are making a huge assumption that we are only looking west of the Pennines...

I don't say this lightly Barry, but that is an excellent statement. Please live up to it in the coming weeks. Since the 2004, this is the Trusts time to really make a difference. In my opinion, it should start by building bridges with all fans, using the humility you have shown here, and representing these views to the club. I am sorry that Corney et al have failed to find the win-win. I can't help but think we have now been shafted given the win-win doesnt exist. Others are right. Why now is groundsharing and leaving BP the right answer? We were at least 2 years away from moving to Failsworth. That is the most pressing question

Huddersfield anyone?

I don't disagree but the quote is with reference to a Trust statement that will be made after a Trust meeting. It is not a business statement. He has to wear two hats. He is a representative of the Trust first and foremost. So, for example, in the extreme example that the will of the Trust is to takeover the club, he either agrees with this and resigns his position as a Director or disagrees in which case he resigns his position as Chairman of the Trust...

As the SUPPORTERS Trust representative your sole job is to make a statement that represents the views of your members that best represents your members. The club is not a member. You should represent what you know about the club to refine and challenge the statement but the statement should represent the views of the fans that are present / those that are members. It's a real shame it has come to this. I just hope that the debate and case for moving goes beyond the financials and tries to consider some of the more qualitative aspects to the debate also.

Or someone who walks away for free... Maybe tickets for free isnt the answer. It's an example of an investment. An amount of money that can be used to pay for players providing the the club have mechanisms to bring people back and eventually fill this shortfall using ticket sales or other revenue channels rather than just subsidising with no long term view of how the gap will be filled

Andy, I do wonder what goes on between your ears at times...

I'm posting on here a lot of late. This isn't a good thing.... They should be influencing what happens next, not waiting

Completely agree but buying the PA system, purchasing toilets isnt investment in the future. Investing in getting fans back is which is why your final point is so pertinent. I don't understand why you would have to sell it any differently. It could be PlayerShare. It can be sold as PlayerShare. Donate £10 per week and you get a player (in this case Evina). This is precisely my point. The outcome from the punter is the same. Therefore, you can sell it the same. Just the means of getting that outcome is different. The relationship between the organisation "PlayerShare" and the club will be different. Not the relationship between the fans and PlayerShare. Providing the amount of money being used to get the player was not eroded then I don't see why you would sell it any differently...

Now someone has paraphrased it.... All I was saying is that using money purely to donate to the club (as though it were a charity), for me, is a little short sighted. Using the money to subsidise the club and in return the club having a scheme encouragaing new / lapsed fans is not a bad thing. The outcome is still the same. The team gets a new player. The advantage is that if one of those fans comes back and buys a ticket the club is better off. It's not asking the impossible. Nor the implausible. It's just asking for something back for the donation. Something that may improve the fan base and (dare I say it) increase the potential market for PlayerShare. At the moment, PlayerShare is essentially price discrimination. It is a way of those who are willing to pay more for a match ticket to pay more and those who only wish to pay their £20 / season ticket price to only pay it. If the club came out with a sliding scale of prices dependent on how hardcore a fan you are (with the most hardcore paying the highest prices) people would be very p1ssed off and rightly so. The only difference with PlayerShare is that it is voluntary.

No it isn't. My opinion on how to spend £000s of supporter money is not to subsidise players but invest in the future of the club. I appear to be in a minority. But each to their own.

When I was doing lots of work near Parkway, I used Euro Taxis a lot (0800373585). They're cheap, fairly reliable (for a provincial town taxi company) and have quite nice cars.

Never mind. I was going to respond properly but I can't be bothered any more.

Aye - 1130 is a stupid idea. I'm thinking around 10?

Whooooosh..... It's easy to say "look at what Playershare did, it got Evina". I'd be interested to know what amount of money fans have put in for Evina. £10k? More? £10,000. 1,000,000 pennies. This is for a player, who, if he scores the winning goal at Old Trafford to send us up we'll think is a hero. If he moves on in the Summer, and we're in League One looking for a new ground and have had to let him go, we'll say "£10,000 wasted, could have kept that in the bank account of a future Trust." I don't disagree in principle but the way the money is used is silly. That £10k (or however much) could have been used to fund tickets for the local community. That way, the club would have had increased revenue (and therefore still been able to sign Evina) and if one of those people came back next season, we would have had a higher return than merely funding someones wages. Just because the scheme bought a player you like doesn't make it a good scheme. Back to topic.