real

Not really. The 'early bird' discount I paid last season was £325. Why do I have to now pay £350?

I *think* the £350 figure is an example based on the most common price. The email I got said prices are based on last seasons early bird prices.

Clarification from the club:-

Discount period:- This has not been decided however I would expect us to have a similar discount period to previous years

Price Guarantee:- The guarantee will apply to any early bird price.

With thanks to Mark Moisey for his quick response

But £25 cheaper than full price, and if we win all 4, £150 cheaper than someone in the same area. Risk/reward, not risk free.

But the club say it's a money saving offer. In this scenario it wouldn't be.

I don't assume things when it comes to money or business, particularly with Latics

Which I've thought about and personally think they won't be hence that price match guarantee, but if a person would be happy to renew at that price without this deal/gamble, let's say using the thinking that a decent fund would help an attempt aT a quick return to L1 then what's the difference. Marketing isn't a trick . It's a simple case of one person offering something and the other being happy to accept it. If they aren't, then don't sign up/buy etc

The price guarantee is against the full price according to the article, not the discount price, so if you buy at £350 and we win none and go down, the club could offer the same seats at £300 discounted / £375 full price and you'd get no refund and end up paying £50 more than someone in the same area.

Mr Sunshine is back, it's been nice without you. Still a bit of arguing on the board but nowhere near the levels you reach.

 

Why would they add in the price match guarantee if they will just keep the prices the same for league 2?

There's plenty of statements on here that there will be no discount period, so a £350 ST from last season might be a notional £300 in league 2 but with no discount it might be 375 at full price.

The offer might well be a decent one for individuals , but there are plenty of factors that are unclear that may affect the value gained from the gamble.

I'll be going for it, but I'm worried that this is about cashflow and could be lost if we were to go into administration . I would expect the trust director to be able to provide an assurance to fans that the funds received will be held in a ring fenced pot to prevent this from happening.

It it was me in charge of raising the £120k, I would forget the crowdfunding idea and instead sell advertising time on the scoreboard to a number of companies both locally and nationally. Special offer, pay in advance. That will allow us to buy the scoreboard in the first place...easy ain't it?

I'd doubt you could get anything above £30k per annum net after maintenance and running costs for scoreboard ads, so you'd have to secure 4 years of advance payments.

Erm. Sounds like it was on their website rather than prompted.

 

But don't let that get in the way of a good story.

It wasn't. But it is now, following an email. But don't let that get in the way of your conclusions.

As they have now made it clear that their costs are below 10% they must surely make 90% of receipts available otherwise they would have taken payments under false pretences?

Although given that they were amateur enough not to have included this info until prompted, nothing would surprise me.

How much of the payments is going to admin costs and fees?

It's not declared as far as I can see, which is a bit dodgy.

Reserves (All negative) were £5.4M at 31st Dec 2011 but improved to be at 30th June 2014 £4.7M.

Fixed Assets Expenditure in that last year to 30th June 2014 was nearly £2M-This is Spending in the year but might have been financed by loans (TTA)

Creditors (including TTA) in that year increased from £6M to £8M. There is no published breakdown of the split.

We spent £21K on player(s) on a 3 year deal. We had 1 player or players costing us £52500 who were sold or came to the end of their contract

I'd think the extra £2m of assets would be the stand (as an asset under construction) and the extra £2m debt is the financing of the stand.

On that basis, OAFC own the stand, presumably with a debt increase of around £6m. So then you would expect all sports direct income (rent & sponsorship) to go to OAFC, and rent from all those using the stand (OEC, Gym, other outlets?) to also be paid to OAFC at a full commercial rate. Of course it could be that OEC is only paying a pittance and thereby increasing its profits ; on the other hand it might not, but there are steps a minority shareholder could take if it's a pittance.

But, if the income is not sufficient to cover cost of repayment, then the stand is a millstone around the club's neck.

Not quite I don't think, the £6m is the built up debt over the 10 years, but fundamentally for the purchase of the land.

I am going to defer to Chaddy Smoker, but the shareholder debt has decreased a bit over the past 3 years, yet we have found a reported £6.5m for a stand (with £6m for land in 2004 remaining as debt). £5.7m was OMBC, we seem to have made the shortfall from surplus.

It is reported that £250k will be paid back shortly, say £100k for Philli. And possibly 2015 money.

As said, it all depends on the arrangements for OEC. We donlt know.

So we are neutral=ish.

We are where we were before, with a nice new stand and bit extra season ticket money probably, and rent from the stand. Can't call what that extra is at the moment.

Although it is to be hoped that the income from the stand is to reduce debt not interest repayment (which I fear as worse news) but we could still be slightly up in net terms if we get the rent levels right.

The land is not part of OAFC. The OAFC debt has nothing to do with the land.

Anyone who thinks they are connected is wrong.

This needs to be understood.

So you're saying that they deliberately went out of their way to lie purposely and knowingly to the fans? Or more likely do you think they believed things would be ready and were probably quite pissed off themselves when they couldn't have it ready? They haven't profited from it not being open on time. Some absolute clowns on here and you're up there with the biggest. I'll refrain from using the word I normally do to describe you. That opinion still stands. C U Next Tuesday

To be fair your 5,6,7 responses could have been used for all your responses. "obviously thought it would work"

And that's a total apologist approach. There's a whole batch of issues and you just apathetically let it all go.

What we know:-

There's a new stand and it cost £6m.

What we don't know:-

Who owns it and who pays rent to who.

If the club own it, the club presumably now has a significant debt (the club didn't have £6m to fund a stand) and if the club doesn't get sufficient revenue from the stand it will not be able to pay down the debt.

If the club doesn't own it, what does the club pay to the owners? Which revenues related to the stand does the club get ; which don't the club get? Would the owners sell it with the club? How does that affect saleability of the club if the stand is not profitable?

Something else we know:- OEC is not owned by the club and is owned separately. But does OEC pay rent to the club or some other owners?

Just remember this:-

No-one at the club, trust or anywhere else told people that match day car park receipts were not going to the club. If you don't ask questions, you will never be voluntarily informed of anything.

Even today's trust statement had to be prompted.

The statement says communication between club and trust has improved.

Communication between trust and supporters hasn't.

I'd rate a sell on clause as a Contingent Asset - which cannot be included in accounting statements.

Is this part of the greater boycott which has seen crowds drop by over 10,000 per game in protest over we no longer play top flight football

 

or is this a new and totally independent cool as :censored: boycott with 20 to 50 people refusing to spend money in certain parts of the ground because the owners made a bad (with hindsight) deal made during a severe financial plight in which their workers were not getting paid?

Severe financial plight?

Yeah, it's hard to predict that you might need money to build a stand, really hard.

And who is gaining revenue and profit from the stand? Latics might get gate, beer & food sales but they got that anyway. They might get rent off OEC but is it enough to recover the costs? And does Latics own the stand?

Remember that these are the same people who didn't bother telling people that parking money wasn't going to the club.

Tv. Sponsorship. Car park.

Wrong. Car park money goes to the landowners - brassbank. Not that they make it clear, as that's one bit of "goodwill" they can make money from.

Why would the companies in that stand give all their profits to the club?

What benefit is there to the club if the revenue hasn't increased? How much scope is there for "non-club" businesses to take a greater share of revenue and leave the club only covering its costs or even making a loss?

I got shot down about a year ago for questioning why the stand had gone up in cost by 50% and whether there would be sufficient return to cover the increase.

So many people chanted "we've got a new stand, stop moaning", so I don't know what anyone now expects?

Just smile and say thank you as the club disintegrates.

The A5 was closed for a short stretch around Chirk last night for roadworks - it's an extra 10 mins diversion through Chirk and back on to the A5. No idea if the same roadworks are on tonight.

...if you're Simon Corney.

The financial turnover of the club will reduce and the club will continue to be run on a break even basis. Lower turnover reduces the risk to a break even approach.

The OEC income will continue to go to the owners of OEC, with payments ensuring there's no profit to be passed to the club. The non matchday bookings will be unaffected by relegation.

The football club will gain nothing as the gate receipts would have been paid in other stands.

Corney will do nothing to actively fight for the future of the club now.

It's all about taking what he can whilst the club goes through a managed decline.

I must be the only person on here to have ever got completely sh.. faced but manage to act coherent enough to get a bus / train / taxi, get in a hotel / house, do various things and then...

realise that I am completely wrecked and incapable resulting in me falling asleep fully clothed on the floor.

Alcohol can have a delayed effect. What someone presents an hour earlier is no guarantee that they won't be in a far worse state after that hour.

There would be few appointments I would be less enthused about than John Sheridan.

 

He was sacked. He tried and failed. I would like someone with a bit more potential or pedigree.

If you think failure is 3 seasons of top 10 finishes, including a chance in the play offs and a FA cup win over Everton, then what on earth have you been watching since he left?

Like many, i started in the chaddy, standing, then sitting.

Then I moved to the Lookers paddock, 'cos I was poor and could only afford the cheapest tickets.

After a few drenchings and pay rises I moved to the Lookers upper. Then it was demolished.

I went to the RRE 'cos the kids could get £50 STs and it was better than the chaddy.

Then the kids started working (at the club) so i move to the main stand where I had a similar view to the lookers upper.

I'll stay in the main stand, until it gets demolished. Then i'll watch from somewhere else. it's the club i support, not a stand.

But plenty of time to spout off on a message board.

It's equally odd to suggest that people who don't attend meetings can't have a view. Fewer than 1% of Season Ticket holders attend meetings, so should it only be 1% who decide?

Barry used to be criticised for his "doer rather than talker" attitude, but it seems that some people think this is fine. I presume none of you will vote in the election?