oafc0000 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Get off yer high horse, soft lad. Soft ? I couldn't care less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 What a pity nobody at the time realised what a disaster that would prove to be. Indeed. It seemed at the time that certain egos were involved, not least that of the farmer - but I could also imagine Simon Blitz thinking, "well f*ck you then". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 What a pity nobody at the time realised what a disaster that would prove to be. Or maybe someone did ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Soft ? I couldn't care less Where I'm from, "soft lad" is a term for pretend scousers. And I'm sure you know how much Warrington folk hate being called scousers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Where I'm from, "soft lad" is a term for pretend scousers. And I'm sure you know how much Warrington folk hate being called scousers... True... Wouldn't you though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 True... Wouldn't you though Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 12000-seater stadium, the (cough) expansion of which would eat up much of the funding required to build a team capable of keeping us up. More likely we will get another 'custodian' with limited funds. Although your point does occasionally verge towards repetition, it does generally have some sort of coherence. But the above demonstrates that you have verged into insanity. Why would building the seats now not detract even more heavily from the playing funds than it would if we extended after promotion? Why would building seats drain the budget at all if people were going to pay to sit on them with any regularity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I sense a flattening soon of BP and a ground share while the new stadium is built. But what happens then if the new stadium move breaks down.....Impossible you say - but what happened to the proposed Oldham Rugbys new stadium ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Groundshare at Bower Fold? It'd be big enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Groundshare at Bower Fold? It'd be big enough. And there's plenty of positives like the lovely pies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) I may be wrong here, but didn't the farmer suddenly double the price when it turned out to be Latics trying to buy the land? Edited September 16, 2009 by footy68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Although your point does occasionally verge towards repetition, it does generally have some sort of coherence. But the above demonstrates that you have verged into insanity. Why would building the seats now not detract even more heavily from the playing funds than it would if we extended after promotion? Why would building seats drain the budget at all if people were going to pay to sit on them with any regularity? If the seats aren't built now they will never be built. That's because, as it seems to be necessary to constantly repeat, a 12000 seater stadium indicates expectations of being permanently lower division-and so they won't be needed. Almost every stadium of such limited size is in the lower divisions, and we still (until the demolition of the Looker's) occasionally managed gates that exceeded that capacity. This should tell us something about the club's intentions. Those charged with planning the stadium will, I'd guess, recognise these facts, even if you don't. That's because they no longer share your illusions. In the short term the small capacity does, as you say, save a certain amount of money (although we have no reason to assume that any savings will be spent on players). In the longer term, however, the losses will be greater because the lack of ambition indicated by the small capacity will eat further into attendances and this, coupled with the blow to be struck by those who say they won't follow 'a Manchester-based club', will result into smaller gate income still. If, by some miracle, the club were to find itself in the Championship again, and thus requiring additional seats, the costs of fitting them would, by then, almost certainly have risen, for one thing. However, without a long-term goal of getting into the Championship and staying there, any flirtation with the Championship will almost certainly be fleeting, and so the seats won't be that much of a priority. Building a stadium with such a small capacity from the off tells us all we need to know about whether any such long-term plan exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I sense a flattening soon of BP and a ground share while the new stadium is built. But what happens then if the new stadium move breaks down.....Impossible you say - but what happened to the proposed Oldham Rugbys new stadium ? Like the rugby club did, we might end up playing at Sedgeley Park. We'd certainly be a Manchester club then (even though it's officially Bury.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 They are all doing business... We know very little... Its scary you cant see that... Answer me this...who will get the profits from the Soccer Dome ? I dont think u can stick none attendance to corporal when you didn't go and get "all" the "facts". Just the ones walking blindly into things they dont understand fully... It's very obvious oafc0000 you have just jumped in with both feet and have no idea who you are addressing oyur questions too. That said NO business is going to release such business confidential info such as what % profit they are going to make from such and such operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddyblue Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I guess the farmer pulled out because the offer was all style and no substance. An ominous portent of the current situation if correct. As an earlier post hinted, the big bad farmer wrecked the plan because he would not give away land without some guarantee of payment whereas all us true fans would sell our granny just to keep Latics going wouldn't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) It's very obvious oafc0000 you have just jumped in with both feet and have no idea who you are addressing oyur questions too. That said NO business is going to release such business confidential info such as what % profit they are going to make from such and such operation. Your funny Confidential??? So much for transparency Bored of this now No doubt we will all merrily walk into another potential nightmare... Just dont say you didn't see it coming or you wasnt warned if it happens... Edited September 16, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I guess the farmer pulled out because the offer was all style and no substance. An ominous portent of the current situation if correct. As an earlier post hinted, the big bad farmer wrecked the plan because he would not give away land without some guarantee of payment whereas all us true fans would sell our granny just to keep Latics going wouldn't we? And any evidence to suggest even a shred of that is true? Or did you just make it up? I'm no blind TTA loyalist, but you seem to be suggesting a degree of underhandedness from the very beginning that simply doesn't ring true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddyblue Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 And any evidence to suggest even a shred of that is true? Or did you just make it up? I'm no blind TTA loyalist, but you seem to be suggesting a degree of underhandedness from the very beginning that simply doesn't ring true. not suggesting any underhandedness at all, merely that before parting with a valuable assett - many acres of developable land - any reasonable person would want a concrete sustainable offer. I admit it is speculation, but so are statements such as "the farmer doubled the price". I happen to believe that if the price had been right and the money available the deal would have gone ahead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Oddly enough, I was just thinking that a certain Hunaphile poster on JKL had that very name and wondered if it was him... I'm waiting for HarryDowdsGreenShirt to put all this into perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Your funny Confidential??? So much for transparency Bored of this now No doubt we will all merrily walk into another potential nightmare... Just dont say you didn't see it coming or you wasnt warned if it happens... Transparancy does not mean pulling your trousers down and asking to be shafted.... We're all doomed and going to die. Don't forget I warned you. I don't know anyone that is not wary, but to deliberately advocate scuppering the only plans on the table because of what might happen is not really very clever. You've already tried to pin the fact that TTA were somehow to blame for Ferney Fields despite admitting a short while after you had no idea what went on. You are just cluster bombing your fears, but have no idea who or what to blame. But someone gullible will try and make a conspracy theory out of it. I think it appalling that the TTA are being mentioned in the same breadth as Chris Moore. That is very malicious, the track records are no where near the same. I well remember the briefing against and attempted sacking of Alan Hardy as one example. Even BB80 has shown he was given short shrift by Chris Moore. Have the TTA ever given anyone short shrift? I am happy to put money on BB80 saying what happened and can he meet with Simon Corney, SC would meet him. Lets just stick to the facts, as they are presented or unearted. I ahve not seen you present one fact yet. People are forgetting that there were plans for 600 house anyway. That the costs of building now are a lot lower than they were. And that as this is only the Planning stage it will be a few years before they are built, and most observers reckon it will be recovery time by then. Also we would have had a significant debt by now had the plans gone ahead. The Recession adn budget review/cut is a good thing in the long term for this project. Our stadium will be cheaper than all the 15 others they are reviewing. Edited September 16, 2009 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksBlue Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I am surprised by some of the myths and suppossions in this thread. (1) someone said TTA have put £10M into the club and deserve to get some of it back. (2) a number of people have said "we need to sell land at BP to have funds for new ground construction". Both these points are flawed. TTA made two purchases. First they bought OAFC, the club. They have supported the club and funded operating losses to the tune of about £500K a year. So perhaps £2.5M - £3M over 5 years of ownership. Perhaps less with some transfer receipts and some TV money (if this is treated as extraordinary income) and not "core" to the reported trading losses. But it's easy to find out if anyone wants to check with companies house. In any event it should £3M maximum and nowhere near £10M. Secondly they bought BP and the land around back from the club. But they bought this as individuals (through another investment company). They did not buy it throught the club. OAFC does NOT own BP and the land. It is interesting to note (albeit an old story) that the land repurchase from the council was a consequence of negotiations from an original "buy back" clause which was originally for the benefit of the old (pre bankruptcy) club. As I recall the buy back clause was about £3.5M. But the point to note is that a former club asset (the buy back clause at a pre agreed rate) was "grandfathered" away from a club benefit into a personal benefit for common shareholders. So anyway, now they are free to sell all or part of the land as individuals, irrespective of whatever happens to the club, and irrespective of wherever the club is moved to. I am personally not so cynical of TTA's motives in the big picture. They have said they will sell to the "right" investor. They have put their money into the club, and they don't owe any more favours to the club or to the fans. If they pull out tomorrow, then I would say "thanks for at least supporting the losses for 5 years". The one area where I am really confused is the financing for the new ground. TTA have said that the club will be owners of of the new ground. That's great. But that can only happen with a balance of deposit "money down" and a financing "mortgage" / commercial property loan. Selling land at BP does not achieve this, unless TTA are going to put personal proceeds from land sales (or property development margins) at BP towards the new ground costs. If they do that, then they will effectively be injecting further personal capital into the club. As individuals they are not obliged to tell us anything, but despite many statements about transparency, I for one would be very interested to know how they truly intend to finance the new ground, and with what proportion of debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I am surprised by some of the myths and suppossions in this thread. (1) someone said TTA have put £10M into the club and deserve to get some of it back. (2) a number of people have said "we need to sell land at BP to have funds for new ground construction". Both these points are flawed. TTA made two purchases. First they bought OAFC, the club. They have supported the club and funded operating losses to the tune of about £500K a year. So perhaps £2.5M - £3M over 5 years of ownership. Perhaps less with some transfer receipts and some TV money (if this is treated as extraordinary income) and not "core" to the reported trading losses. But it's easy to find out if anyone wants to check with companies house. In any event it should £3M maximum and nowhere near £10M. Secondly they bought BP and the land around back from the club. But they bought this as individuals (through another investment company). They did not buy it throught the club. OAFC does NOT own BP and the land. It is interesting to note (albeit an old story) that the land repurchase from the council was a consequence of negotiations from an original "buy back" clause which was originally for the benefit of the old (pre bankruptcy) club. As I recall the buy back clause was about £3.5M. But the point to note is that a former club asset (the buy back clause at a pre agreed rate) was "grandfathered" away from a club benefit into a personal benefit for common shareholders. So anyway, now they are free to sell all or part of the land as individuals, irrespective of whatever happens to the club, and irrespective of wherever the club is moved to. I am personally not so cynical of TTA's motives in the big picture. They have said they will sell to the "right" investor. They have put their money into the club, and they don't owe any more favours to the club or to the fans. If they pull out tomorrow, then I would say "thanks for at least supporting the losses for 5 years". The one area where I am really confused is the financing for the new ground. TTA have said that the club will be owners of of the new ground. That's great. But that can only happen with a balance of deposit "money down" and a financing "mortgage" / commercial property loan. Selling land at BP does not achieve this, unless TTA are going to put personal proceeds from land sales (or property development margins) at BP towards the new ground costs. If they do that, then they will effectively be injecting further personal capital into the club. As individuals they are not obliged to tell us anything, but despite many statements about transparency, I for one would be very interested to know how they truly intend to finance the new ground, and with what proportion of debt. I appreciate the facts that you have presented Bucks and it is invaluable to look at this. The TTA are individuals not OAFC, or OAFC 2004 Ltd They have spent approx £3.5m in losses of their own money. I doubt (but don;t know) it will have come from their American business directly. Or through loansm which they have topay back with interest. They also bought the club, but I think we know that it was from admin and a token amount. It is a matter of record the purchased the ground for £7m, but wheter it another company (which it is) they are still Directors and liable. THe Council made money on this deal, but I accept it is possible it could be £3.5m So they have spent either £7m or £10m of their own (or are laible for) money. There are very few people in the world who are prepared to spend that sort of money. Fewer still on a tinpot 3rd Div club such as ours. I do not begrudge them making money on their time with OAFC. Clearly there is a point at which you or woudl deem they are making too much money put that is not an exact £ amount give or take 50p. I would also welcome transparancy but realsie that we are not in a position to demand it or we chuck our toys out of the pram or cut our nose to spite opurselves as some have suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Reminder of what was said in the Q & A session. I attended the forum tonight and took all my own notes, I tried to keep up with writing and speaking at the same time but it was not always possible so there may be a gap or two. I have generally grouped things together. Some comments didnt ask a question as such, more wanting re-assurances. In Attendance: Cllr Mark Allcock (MA), Cllr Mohib Uddin (MU), Alan Hardy OAFC CEO (AH), Simon Corney OAFC MD (SC), Ian Hill OAFC Director (IH), Barry Owen Director of OAFC and Chairman of Trust Oldham (BEO) Abbreviations used: FD - Failsworth Dynamo's FR - Failsworth Residents OMBC - Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council AG - Allotment Group CC - Cricket Clubs BP - Boundary Park Failsworth Dynamo's Q's: Many comments from the FD's regarding the local community and the loss of football pitches over the last 20 years. Comments aimed at the OMBC Cllr's in regards to this. Comments from the FD's revolving around 56 teams in Failsworth and only two football pitches to accommodate these teams. FD's critical of OMBC and their decisions to cull football pitches. A's: SC assured the FD's that there would be an additional three pitches on the site. 2 x 3G Pitches and 2 x Full size grass pitches in addition to 10 five-a-side courts. The pitch inside the stadium makes five pitches. Q's: FD's asked a question regarding a letter of intent they received from OMBC about their proposed plans to develop the site. They have been working on plans for the last two years revolving around adding an extra three pitches themselves. Although they had not entered any plans for planning permission they claim they had received re-assurances from the council that the loop-holes they jumped through constituted a passed planning application once submitted. The asked why they have now been denied outright and why latics' plans have been "fast-tracked"? Also asked what process had been followed and why the FD's have now been denied outright. A's: MU said he was unsure of the planning process but a solution must be found that satisfies all involved parties including the AG's, FD's and FR's. Talks would be guaranteed, OMBC must work with FD's and he offered to pass his contact number onto the FD's at the meetings conclusion. Q's: FD's are not against OAFC building a stadium but want more community facilities, strong emphasis on more facilities, not just upgraded facilities. Look at the Colchester model, their community status is built on having 3G pitches, bowling greens, tennis courts, the OAFC proposed development does not take into account the 56 team's needs. A's: AH - we are providing more facilities than the existing site, re-iterated pitch figures as above. Q's: FD's were looking at their own commercial ventures, they are hoping to attain IPS status in a similar way as FC United of Manchester and AFC Wimbledon have. FD's claim that the FA are interested in their proposals for the site without and OAFC involvement. A's: SC - We have had 2 x 2 hour meetings with FD's - what has changed? You were reasonably happy leaving those meetings. OAFC said they would upgrade more pitches, as we have built into our plan. FD went away happy from those meetings and OAFC said they would work in partnership with FD's from day one, as we have. The first meeting with FD's you said you were in partnership with Oldham Town, the second meeting you said you had broken that partnership and wanted to be partners with us. FD Response: The land is important to the kids of the community, *comments regarding Oldham being the worst developed area for football in the country* FD's claim they would have six pitches. FD's felt they were being rushed into things as this was an amateur club being run by volunteers. FD's claimed that the second meeting was all about finance. FD's mentioned their plans again. SC questioned why no phone call had taken place as he believe he had a good relationship with FD's, he was disappointed that this has come out after the previous meetings and nothing had been communicated. AH noted that OAFC does lots of work in the community employing full-time members of staff and catering for over 3500 local children per year. He also noted that OAFC would be providing brand new facilities for grass roots football as that is very important to OAFC. OAFC have several players in their academy that have come from grass roots football and it is essential that grass roots is looked after. MU noted that the FA were looking at several sites over the borough, not just the FD's site. The council work as facilitators to make sure all parties are happy, the land is the key. If you can find a suitable site, give us the suggestion. Q's: FD's - No issue with OAFC (my cousin actually plays for them!!), re-iterates point about OMBC slowly getting rid of football pitches in the Oldham area, the fact that this development gives two new pitches doesnt make up for the 13 that have been lost. *Comments about crime and football being a cure for crime* A's: SC - British Aerospace owned the land, this land was out to open tender, they were already in discussion with an interested party when we joined the table. The other interested party would have built industrial units on the land had OAFC not expressed an interest. SC stated it would have happened as BA have been desperately trying to sell the land for some time and it would have been sold within the next few years. However, OAFC would not have got to this stage had the council not been satisfied that OAFC would fulfil the requirements of the local people. Q's: FD's want a meeting with OAFC and OMBC and FD's will take a list of suitable areas. A's: OMBC & OAFC: Fine. BEO also commented that the pitches would be used all day and all night, unlike the current arrangement with FD's only being a part-time organisation. Q's: FD's stated that FC United of Manchester are currently looking at a site not too far from the proposed development, with the COMS just up the road there could potentially be three clubs within three miles of each other. A's: AH - City rarely play on a Saturday afternoon when Oldham do. Failsworth Residents & Cricket Club Q's: FR's and CC's expressed several concerns about the local environment, asking a question about a grant the area has received from an arm of the forestry commission (Newlands Trust) and that the funding covered a large area around Moston-brook. Concerns about people having to walk through wildlife areas from local transport links. Concerns about traffic levels at an already busy junction at the end of Broadway and asked how the cricket clubs we be accomadated as nothing had been mentioned about the three cricket clubs that currently use the facilities on the site. A's: MA - OMBC is keen on the local environment and looking at trying to minimise the impact the development would have on the local wildlife. AH stated that traffic issues would be picked up in the planning process and that OAFC may have to improve some junctions in the local area as a part of the development. AH also stated that OAFC are in touch with metrolink to see if a match-day stop can be incorporated into the line that runs right past the development. Q's: FR's restated the question about the CC's. A's: MU - Land is the key, the issue is size, there are very few areas that a development the size of the proposed OAFC development can happen. Finding one or two cricket or football pitches is much easier than trying to find a 30 acre site that fits in with the needs of this development. MU stated he would keep talking with all concerned parties to find a solution. Q's: FR's stated that they have not been consulted with by OMBC. A's: MU stated that planning had not been submitted yet and as soon as details have been submitted OMBC will contact FR's. Oldham Fans Q's: Why would the club move now, given the recession and the fact that real estate values have hit rock bottom? Why not stay at BP? A's: IH - Correct, times are not good for house prices, the initial plan was to stay at and improve BP. It took several years to draw up the plans and get planning permission and by this point they were at December 2007 when the world hit rock bottom. BP is unlikely to be improved for a long time, taking several years where precious 100's of thousands of pounds would be being spent on the up-keep of BP. Developers are not willing to buy 10 or 20 acres outright as they were just two/three years ago. AH stated that land values everywhere had fallen making the Failsworth site cheaper. IH stated that the opportunity was raised at the Lancaster club. Q's: Is this the only site available, is there nothing in Shaw or closer to the town centre? A's: SC stated that the Fernyfield's site had been talk about, it was always preferred to stay at BP but because of situations beyond OAFC's control they could not. SC invited anyone that knew of any other area to come forward but stated that OMBC does not have much available land. Q's: Travel - its a long way for fans from Delph, Diggle and Denshaw to travel. A's: AH restated the metrolink option, stated there is a bus service every ten minutes into the centre of Oldham and a good bus service along Broadway to the current site. Also stated that parking would be provided at the new site. MU stated that it is OAFC's decision regarding transport, also stated there is no land closer to the town centre. AH restated SC's earlier statement: If anyone knows of any 30 acre sites, let them know. Q's: The Failsworth site is cheap, that means a lower price for BP, it makes economic sense to stay at BP and redevelop that site slowly, supporters do not want to travel the extra distance to Failsworth and especially given the lower crowds, can the club afford to move to an area where support is scarce? A's: AH - There have been lots of changes, staying at BP is no longer a viable option. By moving, building costs have come down recently, we cannot stay at BP. Land at BP gives us value we would otherwise not have. We can now sell the land the current stadium lies on. It costs too much to maintain BP considering it is a very old ground. Supporters of Bolton and Wigan will have said the same when they moved to their new grounds. The Reebok is 12 miles away from where Burden Park was situated. These clubs have done well and are now not only surviving in the premiership but challenging for the top half. Q's: Bolton and Wigan were not built at a capacity of 12 thousand seats though. A's AH - No they were not, but the capacity can be increased, if you look at our attendances when we were last in the premiership we were getting 18 thousand maximum, we would increase the capacity if we got there. Q's: Where will the money come from to build the new stadium considering we are not moving out of BP until it's built. *Comments about the change in capacity and change in value of the redevelopment.* What happened to the club earning money 364 days a year? A's: IH - we will develop part of BP to bring some capital in, we are also working with some partners. Other facilities will be bringing money into the club, clubs cannot survive on 26 games a season any more. Q's: Will the ground be owned by Oldham Athletic Football Club (2004) Limited? A's: SC - YES Q's: What if the new stadium does not happen, would TTA leave the club in administration? 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. Q's: Will TTA make any money out of this? A's: SC - Yes. SC went on to state the following: Purchase of OAFC and BP - £5.2M Running costs per year - £1M (7 years = £7M) Value of New Stadium only - £14M Meaning they will have spent £26.5M or so on OAFC if the new ground goes ahead. Sale of BP: Sell 16 acres at £800k per acre - £12M, lost lots of money and if someone was willing to come in a write a cheque to buy the club or BP tomorrow they would accept, if it was the right value and the interests of the club were looked after. Q's: Simon Corney stated on a five live interview that consultation with the fans has already taken place, I've not seen any. What consultation with the fans will take place in regards to stadium names and stand names etc.? A's: SC - Consultation will be done. Things cannot be guaranteed at this point in time though. We do not want a "flat pack" stadium, we want to build something that looks unique or at least has the potential to look unique, we will have parts of the new stadium that will not be seen commonly elsewhere. Q's: What assurances can you give the fans about this development happening, especially given the amount of hard work that went into getting planning permission last time with the march etc.? A's: SC - I can give no assurances, all I can say is we will explore every option. Q's: You mentioned about the budget for the playing side being cut if we were not to move, why? A's: SC - We cannot keep losing money. When we played Leicester last season, we drew with them twice but three of their players were on more than our entire playing squad. It can only be sustained for a certain amount of time. Leeds' playing budget last season was 8.9M ours was 1.7M (plus loanee's). You can only sustain huge over-spending for a maximum of two years. OAFC will be run in a prudent manner and has always been run in that way. The reason for failures and administration is that clubs over-extend themselves. Q's: When will this happen? A's: SC - We want to be in the new stadium by 2011/2012 but a delay of two months could put us back a year. We have to get through architects, council meetings, planning, environmental issues before any building starts. We have already moved very quickly to get to the stage we are at. Q's: How far can the expansion go? A's: AH - How far do you want it to go? Q's: 18K as our premiership attendance? A's: AH - easy - the architects know that we have to be able to expand if we need the room, expansion is at the forefront of the stadium design. Rugby Q's: Can the Rugby use the new stadium? A's: MU - I believe the Rugby are in consultation with Chadderton FC Q's: Why has it taken so long for the Rugby to sort anything but OAFC have been fast tracked, Rugby have been discussing since February, OAFC have been for 6 weeks. A's: AH - Its been a lot longer than 6 weeks, dont believe everything you read in the press. The Rugby can be accomadated at Chadderton Football club as that ground has a capacity of 1500-2000 and that is more than enough for the Rugby's needs. AH stated he would be happier if the Rugby had their own stadium. There is alot in there. I can appreciate some of it is repetitive but that was the nature of the questions. I may have got one or two things incorrect or said by the wrong person but I cant help that! I've grouped some questions and answers together as they relate to each other. Two hours its taken me to type this out! Dont gripe about speeling mistakes please!!!!! Edited September 16, 2009 by Diego_Sideburns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The one area where I am really confused is the financing for the new ground. TTA have said that the club will be owners of of the new ground. That's great. But that can only happen with a balance of deposit "money down" and a financing "mortgage" / commercial property loan. Selling land at BP does not achieve this, unless TTA are going to put personal proceeds from land sales (or property development margins) at BP towards the new ground costs. If they do that, then they will effectively be injecting further personal capital into the club. As individuals they are not obliged to tell us anything, but despite many statements about transparency, I for one would be very interested to know how they truly intend to finance the new ground, and with what proportion of debt. Indeed...so that makes the fact we've announced plans today for selling of some land and building on it all the more of a worry...as I've said before on this post, they've got the funds personally to start it off and recoup later...especially with markets set to improve! As for TTA stating that OAFC would own the stadium...the only official place to my knowledge that this was declared, in the face of Brassbank being raised in question, was at the forum. Corney abruptly answered "Yes" without offering anything further at all. I didn't believe him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think a lot of people were uneasy when Moore was splashing the cash around. I was myself, but, like nearly everybody else, I made the mistake of thinking that somebody who's been so successful in business must surely know what he's doing... I do seem to recall some dissenting voices on JKL, but they were drowned out by Moore enthusiasts. The trouble is that the Moore experience had the effect not of making people more sceptical, but more credulous and frightened to death of their own shadows. Hang on reeeeeewind! You didn't know it was a problem at the time. Looking back it was a mistake, but how the hell were we to know? How could we gather enough solid evidence that would indicate Moore's dodgy finances, the average Joe who watches Latics can't. They can't be blamed for it, and neither can you - nobody can. Put it down to an experience. You can't learn from situations like this to make a better decision next time, because we don't get to make the decision as to who runs our club. There aren't many alternatives to a football fan in this country other than voting with their feet. I was going to say it's actually suprising how little say fans have in their club, but perhaps it isn't - if we got hold of it maybe we'd break it once and for all. None of us can agree on anything! 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.