jimsleftfoot Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't think there was anything to come back on Ross. The question specifically asked if OA04 Ltd would own 100% of the new ground and the answer given was a 'Yes'. I was very surprised but will take Simon's word for it. People look at this brassbank thing and look at is it has to be a bad idea but in actual fact putting land/developments into subsidiary companies is common practice for financial/legal/tax reasons. Most councils, university’s and NHS trusts do the same and the Government encourages such entities to be as efficient as they can to maximise their funds. I have personal experience in this as I deal with such things on a day to day basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Because 1000's turned up at the council chambers and march when they believed they would make a difference to what was wanted. Subsequent plans now show what will be will be. NO MATTER WHAT. But as a Tic I will be there where the club puts me. And the march/protest did make a difference, but sadly due to the financial situation we are in its no longer viable to redevelop BP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I have to say with the rhetoric spouted of pending doom without 'x' development going through and it's last chance saloon senerio I do lose interest. It would seem when we reach this last saloon someone from the club finds a door at the far end with another smaller saloon in which to stand. It's always smaller! why cant it ever be like the wardrobe with Narnia on the other side? (well we've had star wars today) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Everyone knew what was said would be reported back anyway. There was no need for most to travel and pay to just to listen to the residents and Dynamos complain. Residents wasnt really complaing just wanted to know what was going on because all they knew was what has been in the papers, the alloments folks was spot on, it was really the dynamos who complaing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And the march/protest did make a difference, but sadly due to the financial situation we are in its no longer viable to redevelop BP. I've never been one to accept anything just because I am told too. Nothing is impossible. That said I can also see things in reality too. It just doesn't pay not tospeculate and strive for something better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I've never been one to accept anything just because I am told too. Nothing is impossible. That said I can also see things in reality too. It just doesn't pay not tospeculate and strive for something better. Do some maths, you tell me how it would be viable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Just out of interest, what size in Acre's is the land off coal pit lane opposite Limeside. If ever land needed developing that does. Do we need a 30 acre site without having to play ball with a FD of this world? As IH says some developments on the current BP site will generate income streams for the football club (I have read that bit right haven't I?) Once again, the figures quoted by TTA are not strictly accurate. You are quite right Lags, 30 acres would be needed to accomodate a new development that includes replacement of existing facilities (I.e the the current Lancaster set up). There are other sites that could have been considered. For example, OMBC have, for the last four years, been desperately looking for an opportunity to redevelop the land around exit 22 of the M60 (A62 where the Roxy used to stand). Several opportunities (Including IKEA etc) were missed after OMBC bought the cinema and several other businesses with the intention of building a commercial centre. That idea fell on its arris with the current financial situation, but the council still insist they are looking to compulsory purchase Windsor Mill (Behind the Waggon & Horses) and other buildings, subject to them finding suitable alternative buildings, and viable development of the land. The suitable alternative buildings have been found (And agreed by Windsor Mill owners), and a football ground across Victor St would seem a viable development considering the perfect motorway access etc, but OMBC still insist on their 'Commercial Gateway' white elephant. Also, have OMBC / OAFC enquired about the massive amount of land available at the old Higginshaw Gas Works site? There is 3 times the land available at Failsworth, and a simple access road onto Salmon Fields would give an easy route back to the motorway. Or what about the land originally earmarked for the new golf course behind the Moss Lane ind est? Loads of council owned land and no worries about City, Utd, FC Utd competing for local support. No, they'd obviously rather get the backs up of the current fanbase, and also annoy the residents of Failsworth whilst suggesting they will attend in their droves. If a move is necessary, so be it (I would be happy to see one as long as it was situated where there is a genuine possibility of its long term existence being secure), but let's have some real consultation instead of a pointless forum intended to pay lip service to the planning regulations' requirement to talk to all parties involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Do some maths, you tell me how it would be viable Give me the figures (all the figures) and I'll try. Very ambiguous question if I may say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Give me the figures (all the figures) and I'll try. Very ambiguous question if I may say so. if you would have been there last night you would have known, SC even offered anyone to have a look at the clubs accounts, why dont you take that up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Once again, the figures quoted by TTA are not strictly accurate. You are quite right Lags, 30 acres would be needed to accomodate a new development that includes replacement of existing facilities (I.e the the current Lancaster set up). There are other sites that could have been considered. For example, OMBC have, for the last four years, been desperately looking for an opportunity to redevelop the land around exit 22 of the M60 (A62 where the Roxy used to stand). Several opportunities (Including IKEA etc) were missed after OMBC bought the cinema and several other businesses with the intention of building a commercial centre. That idea fell on its arris with the current financial situation, but the council still insist they are looking to compulsory purchase Windsor Mill (Behind the Waggon & Horses) and other buildings, subject to them finding suitable alternative buildings, and viable development of the land. The suitable alternative buildings have been found (And agreed by Windsor Mill owners), and a football ground across Victor St would seem a viable development considering the perfect motorway access etc, but OMBC still insist on their 'Commercial Gateway' white elephant. Also, have OMBC / OAFC enquired about the massive amount of land available at the old Higginshaw Gas Works site? There is 3 times the land available at Failsworth, and a simple access road onto Salmon Fields would give an easy route back to the motorway. Or what about the land originally earmarked for the new golf course behind the Moss Lane ind est? Loads of council owned land and no worries about City, Utd, FC Utd competing for local support. No, they'd obviously rather get the backs up of the current fanbase, and also annoy the residents of Failsworth whilst suggesting they will attend in their droves. If a move is necessary, so be it (I would be happy to see one as long as it was situated where there is a genuine possibility of its long term existence being secure), but let's have some real consultation instead of a pointless forum intended to pay lip service to the planning regulations' requirement to talk to all parties involved. Why don't you email this to the club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 if you would have been there last night you would have known, SC even offered anyone to have a look at the clubs accounts, why dont you take that up? So let me see. How long did it take TTA due deligence with all the accountants they had at their disposal? and you think I could roll up to the club and mooch the books? Get real. It's an offer made knowing full well that if anyone did take it up, they'd most likely get lost within the first week of looking. Nor would all the figures be given, christ on a bike I doubt the inland revenue get to see 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' You seem to have taken the stance that we're all against the club. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 And as a little extra bit. I had it from the horses mouth that even through all the due deligence with the accountants they had mooching the books it was only when they took over the club the real figures emerged. Would TTA be any different? not on your nelly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tindall Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 So let me see. How long did it take TTA due deligence with all the accountants they had at their disposal? and you think I could roll up to the club and mooch the books? Get real. It's an offer made knowing full well that if anyone did take it up, they'd most likely get lost within the first week of looking. Nor would all the figures be given, christ on a bike I doubt the inland revenue get to see 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' You seem to have taken the stance that we're all against the club. Why is that? I've not taken any stance that people are against the club, its just your so quick in making out SC is a lier and now your making out the club is lying to the inland revenue, sort your head out old man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 He has told one or two porkies in the past though, that doesn't mean he's fibbing now of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 A's: SC - We would not leave the club in administration, we would work the budgets down so that the club can be self-sufficient with the level of income it is attracting. If that means working on an attendance of 3000, the club may get relegated but we cannot afford to continue subsidising the club to the tune of £40k per month. After the Eardley sale (around £350,000 it's rumoured) thats about 9 months they won't have to fork out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I've not taken any stance that people are against the club, its just your so quick in making out SC is a lier and now your making out the club is lying to the inland revenue, sort your head out old man Is that really true? where have I said SC lying. Show the board please. my old head is sorted, you do like to be a menace don't ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddy the owl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The Reebok is nowhere near 12 miles from where Burnden Park was situated. I'd be surprised if it was even half that distance. Also misses the point that, as they were aiming to challenge for the top half of the PL, they didn't build a ground with a lower division capacity. Burnden Park to Reebok stadium is 10.3 miles if you go there on the M61. Not that far off 12 miles i suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No, I'm not naive, I work in this area. There are still plenty of hurdles to get through before this development gets passed. And believe me, there could be some opposition to stop it going ahead. Therefore things need to be done right to make sure this does not happen. I have worked on a scheme where the council was the developer, and even then they could face objections from within the council. This is a private development so will be scrutinised just as much if not more. I certainly wouldn't underestimate what Jacs is saying Lags. The council were fully behind the JD Williams "superwarehouse" in Shaw not so long back, but even after permission was granted, the development was stopped due to the mass opposition of the locals. (Or yokels seeing as it's Shaw!) I don't think I've gleaned too much new information going off SW's [very good] notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why don't you email this to the club? I already have suggested the two sites via e-mail. No reply, but I understand they're busy so I'll carry on waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 seems to me, and not even reading between the lines that TTA, well SC anyway are saying, THIS happens and NOW or we are out of here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 seems to me, and not even reading between the lines that TTA, well SC anyway are saying, THIS happens and NOW and we are out of here anyway... edited... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downender2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) edited... what does that mean...? sorry just seen what you have done...who knows..??????????????????????????/ Edited August 11, 2009 by downender2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 what does that mean...? sorry just seen what you have done...who knows..??????????????????????????/ edited..means an alteration has been made to the original point . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 "we won't be around forever.." planning the "get out" now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Surely "we won't be around forever" isn't news though? It's not that long ago that one of TTA, when asked a direct question, said they probably wouldn't be at the club in 10 years time. As far as TTA are concerned, OAFC (2004) Ltd is a project - not necessarily with a fixed end date but certainly not indefinite. You could even call it an experiment - to see if they could apply a viable, sustainable business model to a football club. Sadly, with each new turn the original ambitions of the project seem further and further away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.