singe Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Quite possibly. Does the 20% automatically now become the property of TTA, should it materialise? Or will potential new owners take over this possible windfall as part of the contractual ownership (As TTA did)? Either way, there is no guarantee it will enhance the team in any way. By the time Failsworth comes along we will have been raped of every asset we have ever had, and left with a home that can only sustain itself if football can recover rapidly from its climatic demise. Being as when the TTA arrived, we did not own the ground, the council did,and the TTA spent £7m aquiring it, I don;t see how you can say that at all. Then throw in the moeny they have spent on the team since then (as other have said £3m. I grant you if OAFC do not own the ground (though several quotes fom SC say it will be) then you may have a point, but at the moment we are still better off financially than when they arrived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 By the time Failsworth comes along we will have been raped of every asset we have ever had, and left with a home that can only sustain itself if football can recover rapidly from its climatic demise. The second bit I agree with, but the first bit is nonsense. How can we be raped of nothing? And it's the first rape I've heard of where the rapist stumps up £15M in the process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggy_oafc Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I know it's the alternative plan, and I've criticised it on that basis. Forget it. Woof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Being as when the TTA arrived, we did not own the ground, the council did,and the TTA spent £7m aquiring it, I don;t see how you can say that at all. Then throw in the moeny they have spent on the team since then (as other have said £3m. I grant you if OAFC do not own the ground (though several quotes fom SC say it will be) then you may have a point, but at the moment we are still better off financially than when they arrived. Hands up everyone who felt more comfortable when the council owned the ground... ...and that is saying something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outoftheblue Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The second bit I agree with, but the first bit is nonsense. How can we be raped of nothing? And it's the first rape I've heard of where the rapist stumps up £15M in the process... Hang on. I didn't say TTA were to blame for the previous pillaging of our assets, but I do think that by the time we finish this whole sorry saga we'll be left with cock all of our own. As for the money Corney and co have put in, surely that was to protect their own assets (and agendas). Let the club die, and a good part of their business plan has failed - their business plan was to get us promoted within 3 years to help subsidise the building of their dream cash generator. Unfortunately the business plan failed, and what should have been necessary collateral spending has turned out to be a £10m + kick in the nads. Now the goalposts have had to be moved (Literally) to soften the blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Forget it. Woof. I had forgotten you. I easily forget Happy Clapper apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Hang on. I didn't say TTA were to blame for the previous pillaging of our assets, but I do think that by the time we finish this whole sorry saga we'll be left with cock all of our own. As for the money Corney and co have put in, surely that was to protect their own assets (and agendas). Let the club die, and a good part of their business plan has failed - their business plan was to get us promoted within 3 years to help subsidise the building of their dream cash generator. Unfortunately the business plan failed, and what should have been necessary collateral spending has turned out to be a £10m + kick in the nads. Now the goalposts have had to be moved (Literally) to soften the blow. That's (more or less) fair enough. We're certainly agreed on one thing - there's every chance that when TTA leave we'll be pretty much back where we started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 That's (more or less) fair enough. We're certainly agreed on one thing - there's every chance that when TTA leave we'll be pretty much back where we started. To all intents and purposes we already are. It's only really become clear recently that we haven't advanced an inch in the last six years. The only difference is that more than 2000 more regular fans than at present still seemed to believe that we would rise again one day. It's a remarkable achievement for a club to cut home attendances by a full third in that space of time without being relegated. Maybe we can get it up to 50% in time for the fourth division in August? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takemeanywhere Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Maybe we can get it up to 50% in time for the fourth division in August? Now that's a bet I'd take. We won't go down this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Now that's a bet I'd take. We won't go down this season. Not necessarily saying we will. But it will take more than is being put in at the moment to escape the drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Not necessarily saying we will. But it will take more than is being put in at the moment to escape the drop. That is true. Do we all agree that this transfer is make or break for Penney? A couple of astute signings, and players coming back would ordinarily expect us to pull clear, it will be interesting to see the effects. And clear out some of those that have not performed to expectations or billing. I think theat Penney has kept some of the kitty aside, the wage bill at first glance would appear to be less. I still think he should be given the summer as well. He certainly deserves a chance as the injuries have been very bad. And i don't think the TTA will be as quick on the trigger like last time, or the time before-which they have acknowledged their mistake. But a good transfer period will see him given the chance in the summer, a bad one and it will look ominous for himas we will be even deeper in the mire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The irony, of course, is that others incessantly make the same point about CJ incessantly making the same point. They refer to the fact that opinion is being repeated incessantly, contrary to the Rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 They refer to the fact that opinion is being repeated incessantly, contrary to the Rules. Give it up DS... You are moving from valuable posters to pain in the arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Give it up DS... You are moving from valuable posters to pain in the arse. That is your opinion, rather than fact.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Rules also state: "If you have a problem with the way this board is run, or any of the members moderating it, do not post your dissatisfaction or question policy publicly, send an email to a member of the admin team. We will not tolerate what we consider public undermining." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Rules also state: "If you have a problem with the way this board is run, or any of the members moderating it, do not post your dissatisfaction or question policy publicly, send an email to a member of the admin team. We will not tolerate what we consider public undermining." I think Diego should be careful what he wishes for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Rules also state: "If you have a problem with the way this board is run, or any of the members moderating it, do not post your dissatisfaction or question policy publicly, send an email to a member of the admin team. We will not tolerate what we consider public undermining." Neither do I have a problem with the way the board is run, nor any of the members moderating it, I am simply pointing out the Rules to other members. At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, if members adhered to the Rules, it would make the moderators' jobs easier. Come on members, you know it makes sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I am simply pointing out the Rules to other members. Like they give a toss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 London Standard tonight says he prefers Spurs over Liverpool & Villa. The Standard doubles as a Spurs fanzine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelaticsfan Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I heard there was a potential swap, richards for bentley, how would thast work would we still have 20% on micah at spurs? 20% on bentley? or would they work out an estimated value and give us 20%? tis a weird 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shefflatic Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-spo...hern-comfort.do 'keen to leave'................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I heard there was a potential swap, richards for bentley, how would thast work would we still have 20% on micah at spurs? 20% on bentley? or would they work out an estimated value and give us 20%? tis a weird 1 We'd get Bentley's left leg. Which, frankly, is rubbish. Even when it's attached to the rest of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I heard there was a potential swap, richards for bentley, how would thast work would we still have 20% on micah at spurs? 20% on bentley? or would they work out an estimated value and give us 20%? tis a weird 1 Where have you heard that!!! I really can't see any way City would be interested in signing Bentley........it's more likely you'll see an influx of Italian players with the arrival of Mancini! Bentley is valued at £10-12m by Spurs but I don't think they will have any interest at that price!!! As far as Richards is concerned, I think a tribunal would work out his estimated value in any swap deal but I think we would fair much better in a straight cash deal where hopefully we would collect upwards of 2m!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slurms mckenzie Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Where have you heard that!!! I really can't see any way City would be interested in signing Bentley........it's more likely you'll see an influx of Italian players with the arrival of Mancini! Bentley is valued at £10-12m by Spurs but I don't think they will have any interest at that price!!! As far as Richards is concerned, I think a tribunal would work out his estimated value in any swap deal but I think we would fair much better in a straight cash deal where hopefully we would collect upwards of 2m!!! Your right. Somone on here a while back posted an email they had from AH confirming this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Your right. Somone on here a while back posted an email they had from AH confirming this. I suppose the big question is would the tribunal under value the price? You hear about tribunals undervalueing players when there is a cash purchcase (ie us Bury and Porter), but never, IIRC, when it is the % of a sell on fee. So perhaps that normally is about right. 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.