latic12345 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It's interesting the number of people who think Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd own Boundary Park. My understanding of the situation is slightly different. There is a company called something like Sports Vehicle Holdings Ltd that own Boundary Park. There is Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd. These two companies have mutual shareholders i.e. the same people who own Latics own the land. This is not the same as Latics owning the land. I'm quite sure Simon Corney let this slip at a fans meeting a few years back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) It's interesting the number of people who think Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd own Boundary Park. My understanding of the situation is slightly different. There is a company called something like Sports Vehicle Holdings Ltd that own Boundary Park. There is Oldham Athletic 2004 Ltd. These two companies have mutual shareholders i.e. the same people who own Latics own the land. This is not the same as Latics owning the land. I'm quite sure Simon Corney let this slip at a fans meeting a few years back... That is my understanding, although I did not know the other companies name... The reason for the confusion I think is when the ground was bought "back" I do not personally remember it being explained that the club wasn't actually buying the club back but in fact it was a separate company. So we never actually bought the ground back while many fans thought we did. It was a confusion that was allowed to stand. Very few people know that we don't actually own the ground unless they come here. Other people I have talked to where surprised to find out. Edited December 16, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Ex-chairman who owns County's training ground is selling it! Linky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 People seem to think that is free money. People also think its better to owe TTA than a bank. I would not be so quick to think that. TTA can reign that debt in any time they choose. A loan with a bank has a deal, contract and the FSA regulations. If you trust TTA then its better to owe them... If you don't then well...we are probably stuffed either way... I would rather owe TTA.... But owe them we do... That 2.7 million debt is very real (if reports are true)... I'm still not sure it makes much of a difference. With the debt to TTA, there is no way for them to write it off, with a bank loan it's feasable that they might try to drop it by stopping paying the bills and letting the club going into admin. Not that I think they have any intention of doing such a thing, it certainly wouldn't make sense to have the ground owned by the same company as the club if they had that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I'm still not sure it makes much of a difference. Yeah my thoughts as well... But people should understand owing money to TTA or to a bank is for all intent and purposes is still a debt and we have nearly £3million of it. Is that a major problem, no... But people should be clear on the situation. Edited December 16, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latic12345 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I'm still not sure it makes much of a difference. With the debt to TTA, there is no way for them to write it off, with a bank loan it's feasable that they might try to drop it by stopping paying the bills and letting the club going into admin. Not that I think they have any intention of doing such a thing, it certainly wouldn't make sense to have the ground owned by the same company as the club if they had that in mind. As a back-up to this, banks tend to insert 'payback on request' Ts & Cs. Therefore, in theory, a bank loan is just as instantly repayable should it request so. The advantage the club has of using TTA is that (as I have said above) the club doesn't (legally) have any assets and therefore would struggle to gain loans to the extent that it currently has from a financial institution. Just a guess but it wouldn't surprise me if: 1. The company that owns the land owns the club. 2. Finance from TTA (if borrowed from a bank) is loaned by the company that owns the club and charged against the land. 3. The company that owns the club finances the losses of the football club through an inter-company agreement between companies in the same group. 4. In order for this to be viable the club (and potentially other companies) provide this said parent company with an income so it can continue as a going concern. Just a thought mind... Edited December 16, 2009 by latic12345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Yeah my thoughts as well... But people should understand owing money to TTA or to a bank is for all intent and purposes is still a debt and we have nearly £3million of it. Is that a major problem, no... But people should be clear on the situation. It might also be important to point out that TTA have sort to minimise the losses and therefore the overall debt to the club as far as I am aware, whereas Chris Moore increased our outgoings considerably, increased the debt and when he felt a bit short, he tried to call the debts in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 It might also be important to point out that TTA have sort to minimise the losses and therefore the overall debt to the club as far as I am aware, whereas Chris Moore increased our outgoings considerably, increased the debt and when he felt a bit short, he tried to call the debts in. I don’t think he did try to call the debts in, he just stopped lending the club more money to pay the bills which or income wasn’t sufficient for. Granted he will have used the fire sale to put into the accounts but beyond that he lost the money in the overdraft. PS, this sounds like I am defending the evil tosspot, which I am not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) I believe they are beng honest as well, they have done a lot for the club in the years they have been here and largely got us on a stable footing. Things can change, things beyond TTA's control. Regardless of what they are owed or not owed, we are hardly on a stable footing. We have lost more than 2000 regular fans during their tenure, are in danger of relegation once again, with all its financial implications, and are dependent on a stadium project which divides the fans and may yet come to nothing. That's about as stable as Yugoslavia in 1990. Edited December 16, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 That's about as stable as Yugoslavia in 1990. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Regardless of what they are owed or not owed, we are hardly on a stable footing. We have lost more than 2000 regular fans during their tenure, are in danger of relegation once again, with all its financial implications, and are dependent on a stadium project which divides the fans and may yet come to nothing. That's about as stable as Yugoslavia in 1990. funny and true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 funny and true And that's not counting all the speculation and lack of clarity about who owns what of the club's assets, which I won't even pretend I'm qualified to speak about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I don’t think he did try to call the debts in, he just stopped lending the club more money to pay the bills which or income wasn’t sufficient for. Granted he will have used the fire sale to put into the accounts but beyond that he lost the money in the overdraft. PS, this sounds like I am defending the evil tosspot, which I am not. Thinking about it you are correct, he created the ongoing liabilities, but then refused to pay for those liabilities in the knowledge the club wasn't in the position to pay them either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Regardless of what they are owed or not owed, we are hardly on a stable footing. We have lost more than 2000 regular fans during their tenure, are in danger of relegation once again, with all its financial implications, and are dependent on a stadium project which divides the fans and may yet come to nothing. That's about as stable as Yugoslavia in 1990. All valid points Corp but as things stand at the moment I do think we are largely stable. Finances are being kept in check so they don't spiral out of control and are in a good position on a lot of clubs in our league. With the club attempting to do more in terms of fans. I don't think we're on the verge of a civil war here at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 That's about as stable as Yugoslavia in 1990. Personally I would say we are a bit more of an Ireland in present times myself. Despite past glories, budgets have been cut and the situation doesn't look so good. Stockport would be more befitting of early Yugoslavia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 All valid points Corp but as things stand at the moment I do think we are largely stable. Finances are being kept in check so they don't spiral out of control and are in a good position on a lot of clubs in our league. With the club attempting to do more in terms of fans. I don't think we're on the verge of a civil war here at all. As far as I can see, when it comes to marketing, the club is simply trying to catch up with other clubs at this level and below after years of neglecting the area. As for finances being kept in check, I don't see that this ouweighs any of those other factors. With the squad we have now, none other than a tiny percentage of the 2000-odd regular fans lost during TTAs period in charge are going to come back for every home game. After all the promises and hope of recent times who wants to see substandard, largely anonymous players engaged in another battle against relegation to the basement? Meanwhile, a section of the fanbase seems to be saying that they don't want Failsworth, and it is still far from clear whether anything will come of the project anyway. A complete lack of direction usually does damage a club's stability, and that's definitely what we see at BP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Personally I would say we are a bit more of an Ireland in present times myself. Despite past glories, budgets have been cut and the situation doesn't look so good. Stockport would be more befitting of early Yugoslavia. Fair point. Although we could turn out to be Iceland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Fair point. Although we could turn out to be Iceland. How would that analogy reflect on the current pie shortages given that McDonalds have pulled out of Iceland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Fair point. Although we could turn out to be Iceland. Definitely not. We want nothing to do with that Katona woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losesome Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) And that's not counting all the speculation and lack of clarity about who owns what of the club's assets, which I won't even pretend I'm qualified to speak about. At a supporters meeting last year Simon C made it clear that they do NOT own the land personally and when buying it back from the council the deal was structured in such a way that even if TTA walked out the club would retain the land as an asset !! Edited December 16, 2009 by losesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 At a supporters meeting last year Simon C made it clear that they do NOT own the land personally and when buying it back from the council the deal was structured in such a way that even if TTA walked out the club would retain the land as an asset !! I think there was something there that said the ground had to be used for football purposes for x number of years... Is that what you ware talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 the way english football is going the richer clubs are getting richer and the poorer clubs are getting ripped off, but beggars cant be choosers therefore must accept whatever is given, scared to death they might not get anything at all. in the premier league there are clubs that do not need so much money yet they are first in line for the pot, and the media outlets prefer to give them the money and tv rights than give the exposure and cash where its needed, one example i can think of is havant and waterlooville in the biggest game in the clubs history against liverpool, bbc snubbed them to film the spurs vs man united game, which was again shown later on in the season in the league. and with phil gartside's plans of a 2 tier premier league this will result in excellent revenue for prem teams but make it even more difficult for teams to get into the money league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 the way english football is going the richer clubs are getting richer and the poorer clubs are getting ripped off, but beggars cant be choosers therefore must accept whatever is given, scared to death they might not get anything at all. in the premier league there are clubs that do not need so much money yet they are first in line for the pot, and the media outlets prefer to give them the money and tv rights than give the exposure and cash where its needed, one example i can think of is havant and waterlooville in the biggest game in the clubs history against liverpool, bbc snubbed them to film the spurs vs man united game, which was again shown later on in the season in the league. and with phil gartside's plans of a 2 tier premier league this will result in excellent revenue for prem teams but make it even more difficult for teams to get into the money league. Gartside's 2 tier premier league was thrown out as a non-starter and thank god too as it suggested no relegation which as a contest would have been a massive turn off to the fans and theirfore to the tv companies and sponsors it would have been a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 Gartside's 2 tier premier league was thrown out as a non-starter and thank god too as it suggested no relegation which as a contest would have been a massive turn off to the fans and theirfore to the tv companies and sponsors it would have been a disaster. I wouldn't take too much notice of that though. One reason it was thrown out was the red herring of including Rangers and Celtic. It was rejected this time, but I'm convinced that a decade from now we will have a two division Premier League of 36-40 teams, or (perhaps more likely) a European League that takes anything from our top four to our top eight or more and perhaps an English Premier League below that of 20 teams. Either way, beneath that we will end up with a semi-pro structure containing roughly the current League One, League Two, Blue Square Premier and Blue Square North/South (or at least those that have survived), in which teams will no doubt have a mixed bag of pro, semi-pro and amateur players earning on average less than they do now, playing in front of a few hundred to a few thousand fans in white elephant legoland stadiums or delapidated ruins. Whether or not there is promotion and relegation between these two structures will become effectively academic. Or to put it another way, we're f*cked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 I wouldn't take too much notice of that though. One reason it was thrown out was the red herring of including Rangers and Celtic. It was rejected this time, but I'm convinced that a decade from now we will have a two division Premier League of 36-40 teams, or (perhaps more likely) a European League that takes anything from our top four to our top eight or more and perhaps an English Premier League below that of 20 teams. Either way, beneath that we will end up with a semi-pro structure containing roughly the current League One, League Two, Blue Square Premier and Blue Square North/South (or at least those that have survived), in which teams will no doubt have a mixed bag of pro, semi-pro and amateur players earning on average less than they do now, playing in front of a few hundred to a few thousand fans in white elephant legoland stadiums or delapidated ruins. Whether or not there is promotion and relegation between these two structures will become effectively academic. Or to put it another way, we're f*cked. It will not become academic seriously and if their is a complete cut off then it will be a complete disaster you are undervaluing the contest value of any game and you are also undervalueing relegation scraps as a spectical. You wouldn't want to see that neither would I as the paying public wouldn't want to see it neither will the tv companies and theirfore neither will the sponsors it won't be in anyones interest. 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.