real

Some of the income goes to BrassBank because the stand needs paying off. I'd say like a mortgage on your house. So quicker the better I'd say.

 

With regards to a plan for pushing for promotion I'm sure we will see what that is like come preseason when we see or manager and players.

Is this factual or speculation?

I've always found it odd that elections are made at an event with no q and a.

It seems a bit strange to elect people who don't answer questions that voters want to ask.

Also I've always wondered how many actual members there are?

And how many are needed to form a quorum?

There is no way we sold 3,000 season tickets last year. Think we sold about 2,400. Your full of joy aren't you oafc1955 lots of other posts just as negative ?

Yeah, pull him up cos we're only 900 down on last season, which is around £0.5m lower than last season based on your 2400 figure.

Yep, nowt to worry about, cos we've no cash left.

Take a look at the last company return. Assets of £1.4 million.

And liabilities of??

A hell of a lot more than that

What's so dire about sustaining League 1 football on 4000 gates? Who would want to buy into that level of support?

I hope you're not suggesting that Corneys plan was to gradually chip away at the support so that what was a saleable club, with reasonable support and an option to buy back its ground below market value, ends up as an unsaleable club with poor support and no net assets?

That would be a particularly machiavellian ruse.

I can't imagine that supporters would be foolish enough not to see it.

My point is as Coco says, all clubs lose managers and players to clubs paying higher wages or with bigger budgets..... it's football

Yeah, it does, but it happens more when you are only paying conference wages in league 1.

"it's football" is a blasé understatement

You need to take the tinfoil hat off.

13/14 budget £1.6m

15/16 £1.3m

16/17 less than that

That's what wasn't said.

You need to wake up sleepy head.

The club is being managed into decline,probably so that at the end the lease they can shut up shop. 15 years isn't too much of a wait for a land investment.

Because he hasn't been in the position for very long?

But there's nothing to stop him looking at previous year's records and management accounts, so why has he only compared to last year?

And what exactly does "more than in line with" even mean?

Anyone who has dug into management statements in any business knows it's not what's said, but what's left out that is the real information.

http://www.trustoldham.co.uk/board-representative-update-feb/

 

Answer no 4

Where does that quote give any detail of how much the club gets from non club related activity (like this one)?

It doesn't. Try again.

And just to add a bit of evidence...

The trust board member has seen the proposed player budget for next year. He's also said it's "in line" with the only other budget he's seen.

So, our trust board member openly states, in answer to a direct question, that he's only seen 1 previous budget.

Why?

The trust have confirmed what the brand Oldham athletic 2004 benefit from not guess work mate! Might help doing abit of research before blerting out with nonsense ?

Give me a quote from the trust on that....

Jesus are we still going over this 'brass bank' sooner stand is paid off quicker we benefit!! It's not difficult.

You have no idea what the financial arrangements are other than vague statements.

The truth is that turnover for OEC only benefits OEC.

I've told you we are funding ISIS. Thats what we are hiding.

Did you tell me the car park money went to Brassbank?

Playing reductio ad absurdam doesn't look half as clever when you are just guessing; can you guarantee that there is no funding issue? That revenue is not dropping year on year? And that Corney is not now more focused on paying back his pals losses than any idea of footballing success?

Absolutely this.

 

At my last company I knew the salaries of every single employee I kept it quiet that I even knew that detail. If I'd told all and sundry about how much people are earning it would of caused all kinds of unrest amongst the employees in the business. You simply don't go round telling every single financial detail its bad business practice and if you tell agents the details of you're budget and you're transfer fees paid and received then it weakens you're position in negotiations.

 

But that's far to boring isn't it. I've heard that Corney keeps everything quiet because he is secretly funding Isis.

Doesn't stop people claiming SB only knows what he's told as a justification for vagueness.

Also doesn't explain why SB said he'd been "assured" that the necaru loan was part of a long term strategy but also that it could just "disappear" - anyone with half a brain can see what a load of rubbish that is. Loans don't disappear and directors should be assuring themselves, not being assured.

What is being hidden? We know the car park money was being quietly siphoned off (until someone asked) so why are people so bothered about those who ask questions? About those who want some answers?

You misunderstand me- I was following on from BP's previous posts about info a Company has to put out there in the public domain. Keep up!

Sorry, should have made clear I was agreeing with you and (hopefully) adding to your point.

Not strictly correct BP.

The information that is (and that has to be) disclosed can be a great deal less than the actual information which the Company knows,

As a director of the club Simon Brooke should have complete access to every piece of information.

Directors are responsible and accountable for the actions of bodies which they oversee.

There's a lot of uninformed crap on here about him only getting what Corney lets him have, so when he's vague it's not his fault. That is garbage. He has the legal right and obligation to have access and use that right.

If he's scared of using that right cos it might upset Corney, anyone sensible would wonder what Corney has to hide.

So we are probably in exactly the same position as we would have been as if Sheridan had stopped?

And today an uncontracted, untried at senior level, youth player has gone to a Premier League club. Someone who in all likelihood wouldn't have had more than a few appearances on the bench this season.

 

Good job I've been indoors and missed the sky falling in.

Really?

Silver lining on a hurricane now. Are you on prozac?

We are dwindling year on year, a 10 year mission to reduce wages and ambition resulting in reduced gates and revenues and the slow descent of OAFC

Was it this bad when Chris Moore left? No - we had saleable assets and more players!

We had a manager through the initial maelstrom. We had a core squad. We had, believe it or not, 4 stands and gates of 7,000.

If you're happy with the last 10 years you're insane.

I have said it before, but we can't possibly know whether the season ticket offer was a mistake or not because we don't know the club's cashflow situation.

 

If we were not going to make it through to the end of the season (I'm not saying this is the case, just putting forward a scenario) and this was a way of obtaining cash that would keep us afloat, it could have been the only sensible option. The offer meant that approximately 1,000 fans handed over their cash earlier than they otherwise would have done. Most years, that money does not come in until mid May. It could have been worth the £100k (guessing again on the figure) refund to have that money in the bank when we really needed it.

 

Clearly, this doesn't change the fact that we could really do with another £100k now but I am just putting forward the argument that the alternative could have been much worse.

 

Putting it in simple terms, I owe you £500 which I am due to give you in a week's time. You are also due to get paid in a week's time. You have a car repayment of £200 due tomorrow and you have no cash and nobody will lend you the money. If you don't pay it you get your car repossessed. I offer to pay you the £500 today on condition that you give me half of it back next week when you get paid and then write-off the remaining £250.

 

The £250 you are losing out on is worth it because you are saving yourself from having your car repossessed.

 

Sorry, probably a :censored: analogy but hopefully you know where I am coming from.

You're right, it's a :censored: analogy ;-) cos you've used the risk of loss of an asset.

This is more like borrowing half of next months wages to pay your gas,leccy, rates and petrol for this month, then having to sell your car to cover the same bills next month. You only postpone the losses and end up in a worse situation.

But and this is the most serious problem-there is still not enough money to finish the stand and provide a return even for OEC Ltd never mind OAFC 2004 Ltd.

Hmm, how did people react when the cost of the stand went up and up and up?

Some said it would bring more income.

Others suggested it might overstretch things and create risk.

Come off it, silly talk.

Does Brassbank own the land, which only OAFC had the right to buy at the sale price?

Is Brassbank now profiting from that land?

Will this continue into the future?

Silly talk or silly assumptions?

 

If the land hadn't been available for development they wouldn't have bought the club.

And they have now asset stripped that from the club so it's a dead duck. Enjoy next season it could be the last.

 

Worth remembering that the club sold the land some years before Cornet et al got involved.

I'm aware of that, but the club still held the right to buy it back at the price it was sold, which TTA took advantage of without bringing it back as a club asset. Now they are making money from it without being fully transparent - eg parking money on matchdays

Or Neil Joy who, after the promise of a free pre season game for ST holders was snatched back said the decision was made "in good faith" - he doesn't know what the phrase means ; the decision made broke the "good faith" fans had expected. Much as I think Baz is an idiot, I suspect Joy is the source of the oft quoted, but non-existent "due diligence"

Option 1) is self contradictory

A sustainable budget with the way the club has been run for the last 10 years will only see us finish in the bottom half.

It's a direct result of dwindling gates as we lose tranche after tranche of fans through bad decisions and poor leadership.

Talbot appointed

Lookers demolished

Plans refused for redevelopment

Dog-gate

Penney appointed

Failsworth plan

Failsworth plan falls apart

Pre season freebie withdrawn

Season Ticket compo for reduced prices not delivered

New Stand inertia

Trust financial fraud

Lack of transparency from trust

Trust chairman insults others

Trust membership offer to STs won't work

Ched-gate and the red fleece

Holden appointed

Unexplained Dodgy loans taken out

Vague trust statements on dodgy loans

Kelly appointed

Dunn appointed

Shez leaves to a lower division

A couple of these were outside the club's control and a couple were bad luck,but all will have driven fans away and the other screw ups will have dented any desire to return.

As a few have suggested we might as well be in admin.

We were hours from extinction when TTA took over. Our crowds would have been zero.

Would they? It hasn't happened to any club yet, in recent times.

It's a risky situation to be in, but in all likelihood it won't result in folding, on the other side the slow death of the club due to an extreme low risk, low wage, low turnover approach whilst diverting all profitable activity and assets into Brassbank means that in 10 years Corney will probably have sorted his pals into a profitable situation whilst the club withers away.

But instead you see him as a miracle working saviour.