don't worry be happy Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 A source from deep inside the club told me in the tunnel after the game today, the following:- John Wardle has OFFICIALLY bought the club from TTA and it will be made public either today or tomorrow "if possible" (I presume theres a lot of paper work needs sorting first) Joe Royle WILL be manager next season and Andy Ritchie will be his assistant! Lee Hughes was SACKED...(but he couldn't tell me why) I now await the abuse for not being able to tell you the name of my source and people not believing these 3 things but hey...I'm only letting you know what I know... i hope that john has a deep pocket because it's gonna take a monumental ammount of money to turn things around... prudence was the option taken by the three amigos..it just doesn't work...hard cash will bring about promotion nothing more nothing less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 I was told that hughes was sackerd on the day he went.. source? Lee Hughes himself to a mate of mine. THe 3% owned by the Trust is not relevant. Hope it is true we need good football minds behind us. Funny that Alec Wrong on both accounts, the 3 % is very import, nothing major at the club can happen without its members voting on it, TTA can not sell the club, the ground while the trust as its 3% Hughes was not SACKED he was asked to get to the club at 3pm on transfer deadline day to sign for Blackpool on loan has the club felt it was the right thing for both parties. Lee was not sacked he was given 2 choices, stay and play in the reserves or go out on loan... We know which he choice by where he is now .... (Source) Lee Hughes 27/03/2009 himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 If Wardle owned 97% then they could out vote the Trust every time. Where am I going wrong? Correct me if im wrong but the trust has nothing to do with tta's 97% do they? If tta want to sell their share then trust cant stop them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Funny that Alec Wrong on both accounts, the 3 % is very import, nothing major at the club can happen without its members voting on it, TTA can not sell the club, the ground while the trust as its 3% Hughes was not SACKED he was asked to get to the club at 3pm on transfer deadline day to sign for Blackpool on loan has the club felt it was the right thing for both parties. Lee was not sacked he was given 2 choices, stay and play in the reserves or go out on loan... We know which he choice by where he is now .... (Source) Lee Hughes 27/03/2009 himself What is special about the Trusts shares? If they have that amount of power, then the club is worthless to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If Wardle owned 97% then they could out vote the Trust every time. Where am I going wrong? The 3% holding of the Trust doesnt allow him or anyone else have the power of attorney over the club. TTA can make business decisions, its their business - They can not change the structure of the club or sell the club or properties owned by the club without the backing of the trust. The trust can veto any major decisions its MEMBERS feel are not right for the benefit of the club long term. Trust Oldham are lucky enough to have one of the most prominent legal minds backing the trust and advising in such matters Funny that Alec Wrong on both accounts, the 3 % is very import, nothing major at the club can happen without its members voting on it, TTA can not sell the club, the ground while the trust as its 3% Hughes was not SACKED he was asked to get to the club at 3pm on transfer deadline day to sign for Blackpool on loan has the club felt it was the right thing for both parties. Lee was not sacked he was given 2 choices, stay and play in the reserves or go out on loan... We know which he choice by where he is now .... (Source) Lee Hughes 27/03/2009 himself What is special about the Trusts shares? If they have that amount of power, then the club is worthless to anyone. Worthless why do you think that ? Corney stated last week how valuable the 3% share is when he commented on that some potential backers wanted to buy into the club. The 3% was bought pro rata to the value stated for the club with value being both stated for monetary and protection value. Correct me if im wrong but the trust has nothing to do with tta's 97% do they? If tta want to sell their share then trust cant stop them... No the TRUST cant stop TTA selling there share but it does have to be notified in who is buying there shares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 As for Wardle buying the club. Why? Why does anyone buy a football club? Love of the game? Egotism? Investment? Ok the last one's probably not relevant but the first 2 are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If it is that the TRUST holds such a strong grip, for such a little investment, then any potential investor could be put off from buying in. Who would pay £xmillion for TTA's share of the club and then be faced with an inability to make decisions? I would never buy a house if there was a penniless sitting tenant who has a cast iron ability to block decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebus_Latic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If it is that the TRUST holds such a strong grip, for such a little investment, then any potential investor could be put off from buying in. Who would pay £xmillion for TTA's share of the club and then be faced with an inability to make decisions? I would never buy a house if there was a penniless sitting tenant who has a cast iron ability to block decisions great analogy that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If it is that the TRUST holds such a strong grip, for such a little investment, then any potential investor could be put off from buying in. Who would pay £xmillion for TTA's share of the club and then be faced with an inability to make decisions? I would never buy a house if there was a penniless sitting tenant who has a cast iron ability to block decisions whi said they (owners) cant make decisons ??? I stated they and the board of directors (of which the trust as a place) make the decisions for the club on day to day matters TTA cant not sell Bp for housing or put the club in a dire state like C Moore did in 2003-2204.. these are how the Trust make sure that we currently have a major role with the club The board of directors of any company make the operational decisions, the trust are part of that board ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 If it is that the TRUST holds such a strong grip, for such a little investment, then any potential investor could be put off from buying in. Who would pay £xmillion for TTA's share of the club and then be faced with an inability to make decisions? I would never buy a house if there was a penniless sitting tenant who has a cast iron ability to block decisions Good post. TRUST OUT!!!!!! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If it is that the TRUST holds such a strong grip, for such a little investment, then any potential investor could be put off from buying in. Who would pay £xmillion for TTA's share of the club and then be faced with an inability to make decisions? I would never buy a house if there was a penniless sitting tenant who has a cast iron ability to block decisions What are you saying that anyone who did that are stupid ??? Are you saying that if this was the case the trust are an important element of the club ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Pardon my inexperience and limited understanding of business matters, but I don't understand how the Trust's position. Surely if Wardle came in and made TTA an offer for their share, i.e. 97%, of the club, then it is their prerogative to accept or turn down that offer. If they were to accept that offer, then Wardle would own 97% of OAAFC 2004 or whatever it's now called, and would therefore 'own the club', even if he doesn't own 100% of it...so he would own the club in the same way as TTA do now. I don't understand how the Trust could stop this from happening. As wardlelatic said, the 3% would have to be instructed who TTA's share was being sold to. But surely that still means they could sell their share today to Wardle, and let the Trust know tomorrow. I'm not saying wardlelatic's wrong...just seeking clarification on these matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc_lover Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 Pardon my inexperience and limited understanding of business matters, but I don't understand how the Trust's position. Surely if Wardle came in and made TTA an offer for their share, i.e. 97%, of the club, then it is their prerogative to accept or turn down that offer. If they were to accept that offer, then Wardle would own 97% of OAAFC 2004 or whatever it's now called, and would therefore 'own the club', even if he doesn't own 100% of it...so he would own the club in the same way as TTA do now. I don't understand how the Trust could stop this from happening. As wardlelatic said, the 3% would have to be instructed who TTA's share was being sold to. But surely that still means they could sell their share today to Wardle, and let the Trust know tomorrow. I'm not saying wardlelatic's wrong...just seeking clarification on these matters. This is 100% how i feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboafc Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 i think we will know more when Harry Dowds Green Shirt reads the posts , as he knows more about the club than most on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Pardon my inexperience and limited understanding of business matters, but I don't understand how the Trust's position. Surely if Wardle came in and made TTA an offer for their share, i.e. 97%, of the club, then it is their prerogative to accept or turn down that offer. If they were to accept that offer, then Wardle would own 97% of OAAFC 2004 or whatever it's now called, and would therefore 'own the club', even if he doesn't own 100% of it...so he would own the club in the same way as TTA do now. I don't understand how the Trust could stop this from happening. As wardlelatic said, the 3% would have to be instructed who TTA's share was being sold to. But surely that still means they could sell their share today to Wardle, and let the Trust know tomorrow. I'm not saying wardlelatic's wrong...just seeking clarification on these matters. Think of it in the same way as having car fianance .... bar with me here You own part of the car but still there is some out standing balance owed to the Fianance company You wish to part ex the car for another one, so you have to get the permission of the Fianance company and ask for a settle figure to do so. TTa can look at selling the club, talk to other parties (without the trust knowing) but the Trust still own 3%... TTA would have to speak to the TRUST about there share in the club for the club to sold or the transfer of ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Think of it in the same way as having car fianance .... bar with me here You own part of the car but still there is some out standing balance owed to the Fianance company You wish to part ex the car for another one, so you have to get the permission of the Fianance company and ask for a settle figure to do so. TTa can look at selling the club, talk to other parties (without the trust knowing) but the Trust still own 3%... TTA would have to speak to the TRUST about there share in the club for the club to sold or the transfer of ownership. But TTA aren't selling the car (club) - they are only selling their share of it. As a result the 'ownership' transfers, and the finance company (trust) is where it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Read it before that someone who buys a large stake in a company reaches a point believe its >93% could be wrong where the REMAINING shares can be COMPULSORY aqquired and becomes irrelevant if they dont want to sell. Why are latics shares different? It implies they have control when clearly they do not. If someone owns 48% different story as the 3% are in play. To say 3% out ranks 97% someones having a laugh. Is the trust so powerful? Not being funny it just doesnt sound accurate. The trust is there to benefit the club and its supporters. I can only explain certain elements of the importance of the TRUST ..... Legal explainations would be best explained by Peter Heginbottom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfer Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 "Trust Oldham are lucky enough to have one of the most prominent legal minds backing the trust and advising in such matters" mmmm interesting. And somebody like John Wardle with all his business knowledge couldn't get a similar or better lawyer? Not better than a good meaning bunch of individuals who own 3%? Don't wish to be unkind but either some people are a bit full of their own importance or have been a bit mis-led. Trust me (pardon the pun), money talks, and if someone with enough wants Latics then they'll get Latics. End of. The furthest serious disagreements will go will be on here, not in a boardroom where it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 But TTA aren't selling the car (club) - they are only selling their share of it. As a result the 'ownership' transfers, and the finance company (trust) is where it was. If the club wished to sell the (club/car) they dont own it entirety, the outstanding balance needs to be paid for and or bought out ! If someone wished to buy TTA share and they were willing to buy only 97% then that is a different matter Having the TRUST on the board means that we the fans cant read that Bp has been sold and the club as gone into administration again.... The fans would be informed form day one about offfers for the club/ground/Transfer of ownership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_bro Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 whi said they (owners) cant make decisons ??? I stated they and the board of directors (of which the trust as a place) make the decisions for the club on day to day matters TTA cant not sell Bp for housing or put the club in a dire state like C Moore did in 2003-2204.. these are how the Trust make sure that we currently have a major role with the club The board of directors of any company make the operational decisions, the trust are part of that board ! Can I but into this discussion. Don't TTA own BP separately from the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 "Trust Oldham are lucky enough to have one of the most prominent legal minds backing the trust and advising in such matters" mmmm interesting. And somebody like John Wardle with all his business knowledge couldn't get a similar or better lawyer? Not better than a good meaning bunch of individuals who own 3%? Don't wish to be unkind but either some people are a bit full of their own importance or have been a bit mis-led. Trust me (pardon the pun), money talks, and if someone with enough wants Latics then they'll get Latics. End of. The furthest serious disagreements will go will be on here, not in a boardroom where it matters. Nice way to describe Oldham Fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfer Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Nice way to describe Oldham Fans Bloody hell, I thought I was being kind. Well I think it's accurate and your precious reply convinces me even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Can I but into this discussion. Don't TTA own BP separately from the club? I believe so, TTA own a business BRASS BANK LTD but I'm not privy to the arrangesments of Oldham Athletic 2004 and stipulations of the ownership of the ground in regards to the club Bloody hell, I thought I was being kind. Well I think it's accurate and your precious reply convinces me even more. Every person who is a Trust member has a say in what Trust Oldham does with its share, I dont understand why you state people own self importance who own the 3% Not one person owns the 3% its a collective aggrement and vote you have right to by becoming a TRUST member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 If the club wished to sell the (club/car) they dont own it entirety, the outstanding balance needs to be paid for and or bought out ! If someone wished to buy TTA share and they were willing to buy only 97% then that is a different matter Having the TRUST on the board means that we the fans cant read that Bp has been sold and the club as gone into administration again.... The fans would be informed form day one about offfers for the club/ground/Transfer of ownership That is what I was meant. I think this is the source most peoples crossed wires. The trust can stop somebody buying the club but they can do F all about somebody buying control (which is all that matters). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfer Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Every person who is a Trust member has a say in what Trust Oldham does with its share, I dont understand why you state people own self importance who own the 3% Not one person owns the 3% its a collective aggrement and vote you have right to by becoming a TRUST member Go back to your know all first post. It was misleading, it was precious and full of self importance. It's you I'm taking issue with, in a mature peaceful way. Not all Oldham fans as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts