oafc0000 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) Firstly I am not in any way an accountant so i cannot digest the accounts accurately myself, but a good friend of mine is a qualified accountant and he put the information from companies house in laymans terms for me, using the glazier example to give me the general idea. if someone who knows what they are talking about would like to look at them and lay out a more detailed analogy of them feel free, as i simply cannot. However what i will say is that in my opinion it makes sound business sense to take out loans against the value of the land. Mortgaging the land we play on to finance the club is a different approach than many thought was being under taken... It has been wildly suggested one of the positives of having TTA as owners and the approach they have taken is that money is not being loaned from financial institutions. If the money funding the club is linked in this manner its quite a bomb shell. The idea was the TTA would never call in the debt many have suggested. *Waits for REAL and co to tell me this has always been the situation and I am an idiot for thinking otherwise or something like it... Hopefully it will be confirmed as being bollox... Edited January 24, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 But it's people like yourselves that are putting the nail in the coffin look at the wider aspect and open your eyes it's YOU THE DIEHARD THAT IS KILLING THIS CLUB BYNOT ATTENDING GAMES maybe you should ask why die hard fans have had enough ? Could it be the total lack of ambition coming from the club ? Althrough the 70s & 80s under royle and frizzel we tried to play attacking positive football even in the darkest times you could see we were attempting to progress on & off the field ! Now i see stagnation and decay nothing positive coming from the club (yes i know the chron doesent help on this) am now firmly in the court that failsworth is the final surrender and that for me ranckles .Teams used to come to bp and know no matter how big they were they would have to battle for the whole 90 minuits to get a point let alone three now get a goal up and youve won the game as this lot will continue to play mr negatives boring ultra defensive gutless "football" bp as a place of enterainment is poor and thats why i and many others will be taking our hard earned somewhere else ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Mortgaging the land we play on to finance the club is a different approach than many thought was being under taken... It has been wildly suggested one of the positives of having TTA as owners and the approach they have taken is that money is not being loaned from financial institutions. If the money funding the club is linked in this manner its quite a bomb shell. The idea was the TTA would never call in the debt many have suggested. *Waits for REAL and co to tell me this has always been the situation and I am an idiot for thinking otherwise or something like it... Hopefully it will be confirmed as being bollox... Good grief you've put me on ignore haven't you? So much so that you're fishing for a response? It looks to me like someone is mixing up different companies accounts. I don't know which accounts philliggi is referring to but my understanding is that OAFC 2004 doesn't own the land and therefore could not raise a loan against it. As for the company that owns the land (brassbank?) I haven't seen any accounts info on it. The pertinent qustions would therefore be about the level of debt that the land company (brassbank?) has. You look rather silly suggesting I'd adopt a viewpoint against yours for no reason. Whenever I have disagreed with you (directors duties & the law; losses on a 3 for £30 promotion) I have shown with evidence that your thinking was flawed. If you can't come to terms with that, then perhaps you should stop digging yourself into holes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Firstly I am not in any way an accountant so i cannot digest the accounts accurately myself, but a good friend of mine is a qualified accountant and he put the information from companies house in laymans terms for me, using the glazier example to give me the general idea. if someone who knows what they are talking about would like to look at them and lay out a more detailed analogy of them feel free, as i simply cannot. However what i will say is that in my opinion it makes sound business sense to take out loans against the value of the land. It was said that the club owed TTA around £3million in loans which they put in to keep the club going the same way that Chelsea owe Abramovich hundreds of millions of pounts in interest free loans but on a much smaller scale. If that the case then I am not that worried Its not quite the same as oweing it to a bank. The glaziers for example have to meet about £65million worth of payment in kind interest payments each year if they fail to meet them then the bank can take control of the club. If we are just loaning the money from the banks and securing it against the land rather than TTA directly then I am worried because failure to take that back could mean the bank taking control of our ground an us being homeless. But its all ifs buts and maybes so lets not jump to conclusions just yet. I think I might have a look at these figures I'm not a qualified accountant yet although thats what I do intend to become one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 I agree that the land is not owned by OAFC (2004) Ltd and therefore, cannot be borrowed against directly by the club. There's nothing to stop TTA borrowing against it though and the money they put in the club is exactly that, their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 I agree that the land is not owned by OAFC (2004) Ltd and therefore, cannot be borrowed against directly by the club. There's nothing to stop TTA borrowing against it though and the money they put in the club is exactly that, their money. If they are borrowing it against the land then I would imagine it will show up as a debt against brassbank the holding company as that will be where the money will come from directly if TTA have borrowed money secureing it against the land then it won't show up on the accounts of Oldham Athletic 2004 as they are 2 seperate entities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I have seen the financial records at Companies house (available to anyone who wants to pay for the privilage) AND THEY ARE NOT USING THERE OWN MONEY TO FUND THE CLUB. the story of Latics can be compared to that of the Glaziers, but on a scale 1000 times smaller. borrow the money against the football club, reap the rewards then sell on. if it all goes tits up, you havent lost anything, its the club with the debt. I downloaded the Abbreviated accounts as filed at Companies house and cannot see how you come to that conclusion. It clearly states that the funds are "shareholders funds" and it then goes on to state in the comments that the “club is dependent on it’s shareholders for financial support”. It does go on to say that the shareholders have indicated their intention to provide “adequate finance” to enable the company to continue in operational existence… which I can only think has been misconstrued to mean that they taken out finance against the club. This means that the Club owes money to the Directors (approx £3.114 M). The Directors may have of course have taken a loan against BP to provide this funding if BP is held outside OAFC 2004 Ltd. The accounts state that the Club has £722k of tangible assets, could BP be part of that? I’m not an accountant so don’t know the ins and outs of valuing land for accounting purposes so I’ll leave that for others to decide. One thing to note, the Directors of Brassbank Ltd are submitting dormant accounts which indicates that the company is not trading (I think). Edited January 25, 2010 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Interesting re Brassbank - I thought it was Brassbank that owned BP and the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Interesting re Brassbank - I thought it was Brassbank that owned BP and the land. So I was lead to believe. Didn’t download their accounts, but might tonight. It states though on their entry that they are dormant. Don’t really know how that works and whether it could actually hold assets/liabilities as they still are submitting accounts albeit dormant ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 So I was lead to believe. Didn’t download their accounts, but might tonight. It states though on their entry that they are dormant. Don’t really know how that works and whether it could actually hold assets/liabilities as they still are submitting accounts albeit dormant ones. Far as I know the accounts can be "dormant" if there has been no significant activity on the accounts... Like lending against the land for example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 I don't surpose anyone has heard from the Trust on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) I don't surpose anyone has heard from the Trust on this? :lol: Got any more good ones ? On a serious note though, I sent Barry a PM but as of yet, no reply. Edited January 26, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 :lol: Got any more good ones ? On a serious note though, I sent Barry a PM but as of yet, no reply. So you still have no reply for the question you asked from the man responsible of taking the fans views to the board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) So you still have no reply for the question you asked from the man responsible of taking the fans views to the board? No... Not yet... Edited January 26, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 How would I get hold of these accounts? Remember they used to be published yearly by the rarely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 How would I get hold of these accounts? Remember they used to be published yearly by the rarely wrong. Companies House for a £10 fee 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.